Luton Town

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

I''ve just seen the Luton south MP discussing their plight. I for one hope they get SOME points back

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="C.T wizard"]I''ve just seen the Luton south MP discussing their plight. I for one hope they get SOME points back[/quote]

isnt it funny how Luton get pitied and Leeds dont

jas :)

[TheCardinal 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="C.T wizard"]I''ve just seen the Luton south MP discussing their plight. I for one hope they get SOME points back[/quote]

isnt it funny how Luton get pitied and Leeds dont

jas :)

[/quote]

Mostly because Leeds deserved their full points deduction. Luton deserve to have some, but -30 is just disgusting.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="C.T wizard"]I''ve just seen the Luton south MP discussing their plight. I for one hope they get SOME points back[/quote]

isnt it funny how Luton get pitied and Leeds dont

jas :)

[/quote]

Mostly because Leeds deserved their full points deduction. Luton deserve to have some, but -30 is just disgusting.

[/quote]

yes it is... i wonder if its because leeds are perceived as a "big" club that they escaped harsher penalties... Luton are bing made an example of i fear.

I thought football league rules said it could only be a maximum of a 10 point deduction anyway?!?

jas :)

[KIZZY 77 0]

I heard on the news its something to do with constantly being in administration!?? But do we see the same for the back hands, dodgy agents and these "big clubs"

[The Walking Man 13]

No points back, but the reason why (loosely I think...) they got deducted 30 points was 10 for adminstration and -20 for leaving administration without a CVA, (the same with Leeds). I believe they took inot account the fact Luton have been in administration three times in five years.

 

 

But it''s still stupidly over the top!

[spudgfsh 0]

[quote user="Shangri-La"]

No points back, but the reason why (loosely I think...) they got deducted 30 points was 10 for adminstration and -20 for leaving administration without a CVA, (the same with Leeds). I believe they took inot account the fact Luton have been in administration three times in five years.

But it''s still stupidly over the top!

[/quote]

10 points were given by the league/fa for the fact that they broke transfer regulations (payments to agents and such like).  the 20 points was because they exited administration without 75% of their creditors agreeing the CVA. This is because HMRC have decided they do not like the fact that the football related debt (players wages and such) will be paid in full while others get less.  The reason it is 20 points and not 15 like leeds had is because they have been in administration so many times.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Have put a link in for a petition, not just about Luton, fair treatment from the Football League really.

Fair treatment from the Football League Petition

[we8wba 0]

to be honest my leeds mate bangs on about how leeds are always picked on by the league & the f.a and seem to disagree

1. they fielded to many loanees the other season which should of been point deduction or replayed the match this is main reason i believe sheff weds wasnt done last season, due to leeds not receiving punishment (well about 1k which is f*ck all)
2. they pitch invaded before last game final whistle vs ipswich 2seasons ago, went across to ipswich supporters and throw bottles coins etc... at them, you may not agree becuase it ipswich related but this is clearly not right when ipswich fans were obviously cornered and pelted! for this they should really had matches played behind closed doors similar to what happens in italy
3. point deduction why they only -15 and luton -30? leeds offence was somewhat worse and at least should be level -pts not a difference. also leeds had to agree they couldnt appeal to overturn the point deduction, so how come months later they was allowed to?

if anything the league & fa favour leeds

 

 

[spudgfsh 0]

 

I have already stated why they got their points deductions (note deductions plural).  luton have been treated the same way as leeds.

The real problem is the leagues rules.  They state that a certain percentage of creditor must agree the CVA but HMRC (the taxman) is refusing to accept CVAs from football clubs because players have to get 100% of their money according to league/FA rules

look at the following for more info

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/default.stm

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10794~1341988,00.html

[T 190]

Would you feel the same way if you were a creditor of Luton and lost money? The number of clubs getting into financial trouble spending other people''s money that they could not afford was ridiculous - insolvent trading is quite rightly illegal - you are conning people out of money and therefore it is quiet right that the league put in strong penalties to stop this behaviour. White collar crime is just as bad as any other form of theft. It is harsh on the Luton fans but then football fans are party responsible for putting pressure on clubs to spend money they can not afford.

[spudgfsh 0]

[quote user="T"]Would you feel the same way if you were a creditor of Luton and lost money? The number of clubs getting into financial trouble spending other people''s money that they could not afford was ridiculous - insolvent trading is quite rightly illegal - you are conning people out of money and therefore it is quiet right that the league put in strong penalties to stop this behaviour. White collar crime is just as bad as any other form of theft. It is harsh on the Luton fans but then football fans are party responsible for putting pressure on clubs to spend money they can not afford.[/quote]

Something has got to give.

The league needs to either rethink the current rules regarding how many creditors need to agree the CVA or talk to the taxman to resolve the issue of the amount that players get so that HMRC will agree to the CVAs.  the current situation is harsher than the original intentions of the rules.

[T 190]

Would not disagree with some renegotiating - what was wrong was the huge number of clubs gambling with other people''s money and then getting out of trouble without suffering any consequences themselves like a certain club down the road

[National express super guard 0]

signed the petition but feel so dirty, I agree with a binner lol

[spudgfsh 0]

The petition is all well and good and all but... (the petition follows btw)

To:  True football fans

We the undersigned call for an immediate end to the football leagues mismanagement of the rules regarding insolvency amongst member clubs.  This is purely subjective and I would not completely agree with this.

Furthermore we call for an immediate publication of the rules and penalties relating to any club going into administration, and a pledge that these rules will be applied equally to any club in this situation.  The rules were agreed by the member clubs of the football league after leicester got promoted to the premiership after being in administration.  All clubs should and do know what happens with insolvencies.

We specifically call on the football league to protect the game in line with its charter, and as a consequence of this, do everything within its power to protect member clubs, specifically by implementing a thorough fit and proper persons test, I completely agree with this but (I could be wrong here) isn''t it done already?

and by not punishing new owners or the fans for the mismanagement of previous ownners who have been ratified by the league as "fit and proper" If you do not punish the club then there would be too many ways around the rules.  having new rules to prevent people significantly involved within the running of a club running any other clubs for a certain period could work instead though.

In line with this, we call for
a)The immediate return of the 20 points deducted from Luton Town IMO this is a fair interpretation of the way the rules and penalties associated have been exercised by the football league.
b)No further points deduction for Rotherham, and a fair application of the rules regarding their temporary relocation in light of the decision to allow Wimbeldon to me moved 60 miles, and the new club allowed immediate access to the league with no punishment I do not agree with clubs moving out of their area.  The fact is that wimpbledon should not have been allowed to move out of their area and ritherham want a permanent move outside (although a lot closer than 60miles). 
c)No further points deduction for Bournemouth AFC As with other clubs entering/exiting administration the rules shouldbe applied equally to all.
d)A fair right of appeal on any decision made by the football league without any restraining agreements. Does this not exist already?  did leeds not go to the high court to appeal their case?

Sincerely,

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="C.T wizard"]I''ve just seen the Luton south MP discussing their plight. I for one hope they get SOME points back[/quote]

isnt it funny how Luton get pitied and Leeds dont

jas :)

[/quote]

Leeds are arrogant, and northern, reason enough in my book