Jump to content
IGNORED

Please Read


bucksred
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm back already mate. Currently sat working night shift. Loving it as you can imagine! They have sent Mr Griggs now!

Thanks again for all your help, especially with getting this post pinned, All Luton fans are grateful for all your support

cool, did wonder why I hadnt seen his smiling face about. no worries mate. hope ya get ya points back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not more of this "it's so unfair" stuff. It's not.

Nothing personal against Luton or Leeds (last year around) nor Bournemouth / Rotherham / anyone else going into it BUT...

What else should the punishment be?

Luton would probably have folded if the rules governing club owners was stricter. Remember this is their third administration in the past 10 years.

For smaller clubs you generally only get one or two, max, local consortiums interested in a financially struggling club.

They've survived longer than they should have, on money they didn't have and the whole time they've done this it means that they're results and signings have directly impacted upon every other club in competition with them.

It's harsh but the punishment fits the crime I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed

It wouldn't/doesn't happen in the Prem.

No it wouldn't because a club in the Premier League wouldn't go into administration three times in ten years nor would they then have to leave administration without agreeing a CVA since they'd have a business model which would attract the investment to propose a successful CVA to creditors.

That Luton can't is because they've continually not paid up any money owed to HMRC, meaning they're a substantial enough creditor to reject their CVA.

Any suggestion this is just happening because it's a little club is rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed. Seems like a complete mess, the previous board were allowed to continue unchecked even when some serious doubts about the finances were brought to light by the manager at the time, yet the Fl did nothing then and instead wait until a new board are in charge and then punish the club and not the directors, it's a bloody mess.

The thing is Luton will by no means be the last club that this will happen to, as the inland revenue are pretty much going to veto any possible CVA's that clubs try to get because for some reason the FL seem to make it so football creditors have to be paid first, even though every other business in the country has to deal with the Inland revenue first and pay them as much as possible and then give their other creditors what they can. From what i understand it was only the Ir who refused luton their CVA, because they have had enough of the football league making clubs pay other creditors first, which really is nothing to do with the clubs, rather dredful management from the FL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed. Seems like a complete mess, the previous board were allowed to continue unchecked even when some serious doubts about the finances were brought to light by the manager at the time, yet the Fl did nothing then and instead wait until a new board are in charge and then punish the club and not the directors, it's a bloody mess.

The thing is Luton will by no means be the last club that this will happen to, as the inland revenue are pretty much going to veto any possible CVA's that clubs try to get because for some reason the FL seem to make it so football creditors have to be paid first, even though every other business in the country has to deal with the Inland revenue first and pay them as much as possible and then give their other creditors what they can. From what i understand it was only the Ir who refused luton their CVA, because they have had enough of the football league making clubs pay other creditors first, which really is nothing to do with the clubs, rather dredful management from the FL.

The club knew that footballing debts had to be repaid in full before any creditors would be dealt with. The FL can make whatever competition rules they like for their competition. Luton Town (same with Leeds) want to play in the competitions so have to agree to them. I can't dictate terms of my car insurance or contract with work to my own liking because I'm benefiting from the services of someone else and have to play with their terms. I can shop around, a possibility not possible in football, but then perhaps Leeds or Luton or even HMRC should challenge the FL's right to insist that football debts are paid off first. I imagine it'd lose in court.

They then still got themselves into a position whereby HMRC could veto the CVA. This meant that, if as rumoured HMRC are the only creditor to have blocked the CVA, their debt was more than 25% of their total debts. Even if you have no intention of running a solvent company you could just keep HMRC paid up (via high interest bank loans if needed) and you'll always be able to escape administration with just the 10 point penalty.

This was an established precedent from Leeds last summer and Luton went into administration mid-November? Even if they'd have fallen into debt everywhere from July-November and paid off HMRC then they'd have been fine.

The question is - what other penalty should there be in this situation?

Clubs that end up in this situation are spending beyond their means and, possibly, signing players that other clubs could've instead (depriving them of affordable playing talent) and taking points off other teams due to players they shouldn't be able to afford and then play. It affects the whole integrity of the league so the punishment must be severe to make it seem very undesirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club knew that footballing debts had to be repaid in full before any creditors would be dealt with. The FL can make whatever competition rules they like for their competition. Luton Town (same with Leeds) want to play in the competitions so have to agree to them. I can't dictate terms of my car insurance or contract with work to my own liking because I'm benefiting from the services of someone else and have to play with their terms. I can shop around, a possibility not possible in football, but then perhaps Leeds or Luton or even HMRC should challenge the FL's right to insist that football debts are paid off first. I imagine it'd lose in court.

They then still got themselves into a position whereby HMRC could veto the CVA. This meant that, if as rumoured HMRC are the only creditor to have blocked the CVA, their debt was more than 25% of their total debts. Even if you have no intention of running a solvent company you could just keep HMRC paid up (via high interest bank loans if needed) and you'll always be able to escape administration with just the 10 point penalty.

This was an established precedent from Leeds last summer and Luton went into administration mid-November? Even if they'd have fallen into debt everywhere from July-November and paid off HMRC then they'd have been fine.

The question is - what other penalty should there be in this situation?

Clubs that end up in this situation are spending beyond their means and, possibly, signing players that other clubs could've instead (depriving them of affordable playing talent) and taking points off other teams due to players they shouldn't be able to afford and then play. It affects the whole integrity of the league so the punishment must be severe to make it seem very undesirable.

Who exactly is being punished though ? It's not the people who spent beyond their means because they have gone, the luton board were responsible for the clubs finances at the time and even though doubts about this were raised at the time, by Luton themselfs, the Fl did nothing, the FL declared the previous board fit and proper people to run a football club, when it is quite obvious that they clearly wern't. The people being punished had bugger all to do with what happened at the time, and it doesn't discourage clubs to operate within their means because most can't as the wealth gap in football is getting bigger and bigger because the wealth is so unfairly distributed, which causes the massivley inflated prices of english players because a club can live for a few years by artficially hiking prices of players which is harming the national game as a whole, because they know they get shafted as soon as the Fl get involved. The bostock mess shows this as much as anything.

Yes it is the Fl's competition and clubs must abide by their rules but, Clubs are companys and are therefore expected to act like companys, and thus their first Priority is to paying off HMRC if they hit financial difficulties, this has little to do with football, it's HMRC digging their heels in because they should be the first priority of any company, before footballing creditors, and HMRC are making sure the FL know this, by first not allowing Leeds and now Luton out of administration.

As for clubs living outside their means, when the biggest clubs in the coutry are doing it what hope does anyone else have ? Man U 700 million in debt, Arsenal paying out 28 million per year for the emirates, god knows what chelseas debt is.

The sooner Uefa bring in slary caps the better, as until those at the top stop artifically increasing their wealth then nobody else has a hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who exactly is being punished though ? It's not the people who spent beyond their means because they have gone, the luton board were responsible for the clubs finances at the time and even though doubts about this were raised at the time, by Luton themselfs, the Fl did nothing, the FL declared the previous board fit and proper people to run a football club, when it is quite obvious that they clearly wern't. The people being punished had bugger all to do with what happened at the time, and it doesn't discourage clubs to operate within their means because most can't as the wealth gap in football is getting bigger and bigger because the wealth is so unfairly distributed, which causes the massivley inflated prices of english players because a club can live for a few years by artficially hiking prices of players which is harming the national game as a whole, because they know they get shafted as soon as the Fl get involved. The bostock mess shows this as much as anything.

Well given that the actual Luton supporters trust were the active force which took the club into administration (they bought controlling shares in the club's major creditor and applied for them to go into it) the time before last season and that resorted in their 'dodgy board' coming into the club? They force out one bloke's consortium and then they end up with the lot who screwed them over and presumably therefore the supporters trust accepted the CVA proposed by this new entity to take the club over. With only the basic details at my disposal, it'd seem they were happy enough for them to take over at the time!

Anyway as I've said before; Luton have gone into administration three times in the past decade. Twice they've been bought by 'shady' people/consortium's. Remember that if they weren't bought at the time and had money pumped in then they'd have been wound up and would cease to be. It's entirely possible that the club could've ceased to exist in 2003/2004 if the 'dodgy board' hadn't come in and then they'd be scrapping around in the lowest levels of the football pyramid and playing AFC Wimbledon etc.

So again I ask; how do you propose Luton Town FC get punished in a footballing sense for irregularities conducted in their name under the football league umbrella?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't because a club in the Premier League wouldn't go into administration three times in ten years nor would they then have to leave administration without agreeing a CVA since they'd have a business model which would attract the investment to propose a successful CVA to creditors.

That Luton can't is because they've continually not paid up any money owed to HMRC, meaning they're a substantial enough creditor to reject their CVA.

Any suggestion this is just happening because it's a little club is rubbish.

Actually, not accurate, it was the dodgy grubby boards Lu'on has been infested with over the last few years. Bit like that grubby individual Ridsdale whos been involved in what 3 clubs which have gone into financial problems (allegedly)

The club and its new owners have been punished, not the previous board. Young Harkwar can confirm numbers, but its something like £10 mill in players sold, and only £250,000 ish accounted for. No one knows where the money is...

It is happening cos they are little club. Didnt see Leeds copping for a 30 point deduction, or being told they had no right of appeal.

The FL aint covered itself in glory with this at all.

Edited by bucksred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not more of this "it's so unfair" stuff. It's not.

Nothing personal against Luton or Leeds (last year around) nor Bournemouth / Rotherham / anyone else going into it BUT...

What else should the punishment be?

Luton would probably have folded if the rules governing club owners was stricter. Remember this is their third administration in the past 10 years.

For smaller clubs you generally only get one or two, max, local consortiums interested in a financially struggling club.

They've survived longer than they should have, on money they didn't have and the whole time they've done this it means that they're results and signings have directly impacted upon every other club in competition with them.

It's harsh but the punishment fits the crime I'm afraid.

So you think the fans deserve this do you?

what I don't understand is why give a financially struggling club minus 30 points? Isn't that going to make it financially worse for them? Why not try to help them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, not accurate, it was the dodgy grubby boards Lu'on has been infested with over the last few years. Bit like that grubby individual Ridsdale whos been involved in what 3 clubs which have gone into financial problems (allegedly)

The club and its new owners have been punished, not the previous board. Young Harkwar can confirm numbers, but its something like £10 mill in players sold, and only £250,000 ish accounted for. No one knows where the money is...

First, this bears no relevance to what you've quoted of me and I don't understand what point you're trying to make?

It is happening cos they are little club. Didnt see Leeds copping for a 30 point deduction, or being told they had no right of appeal.

The FL aint covered itself in glory with this at all.

Wrong.

Luton have been deducted:

10 points for their financial irregularities to be applied to this season

20 points for not exiting their administration with a CVA and for it being their third administration in ten years.

According to the regulations of the FL, by not doing so this meant being dropped a league from that which they would've opened the season in (Leeds L1 > L2, Luton L2 > BSP, who incidentally wouldn't let them in due to their own strict rules on administration).

Both clubs were offered a concession of accepting - and waiving the right of appeal - to take a minus-15 point deduction and starting the season in the originally designated league.

Both clubs (Leeds to avoid L2 and Luton to avoid being refused admission into the BSP and, in all realism; folding) took this offer.

So therefore it did happen to Leeds and were told they weren't allowed to appeal - that's why they ended up going to court.

Go and read the arbitration's review if you don't believe any of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the fans deserve this do you?

what I don't understand is why give a financially struggling club minus 30 points? Isn't that going to make it financially worse for them? Why not try to help them?

No, the fans don't deserve it but there is no other sanction which is fair on all the other clubs and fans in the league. What would you suggest?

How else do you apply sanctions which are limited to football to a football club for a footballing offence?

Issuing a fine is pointless since that's how they got there in the first place. Ideally, yes, the FL would change their rules about the football debt/CVA debts but they won't.

THAT is where people should be campaigning but I'm yet to see anyone do that. Until then the punishments will be applied as they're set out in the regulations and available to be read by all clubs before they get in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this bears no relevance to what you've quoted of me and I don't understand what point you're trying to make?

Wrong.

Luton have been deducted:

10 points for their financial irregularities to be applied to this season

20 points for not exiting their administration with a CVA and for it being their third administration in ten years.

According to the regulations of the FL, by not doing so this meant being dropped a league from that which they would've opened the season in (Leeds L1 > L2, Luton L2 > BSP, who incidentally wouldn't let them in due to their own strict rules on administration).

Both clubs were offered a concession of accepting - and waiving the right of appeal - to take a minus-15 point deduction and starting the season in the originally designated league.

Both clubs (Leeds to avoid L2 and Luton to avoid being refused admission into the BSP and, in all realism; folding) took this offer.

So therefore it did happen to Leeds and were told they weren't allowed to appeal - that's why they ended up going to court.

Go and read the arbitration's review if you don't believe any of this.

The latter part of your argument are entirely relevant to the first part of my argument. the new board have been heavily punished for the irregularities of the previous board in particular. The new board is completely unable to make any arrangements because no one knows where or what is there or not there. Lu'on were fined last season for going into administration, this new board as I understand it, are unable to get out of this situation, because of the previous boards antics, and is therefore unable to make any garantees, and this further means its almost certain they'll go into administration, AGAIN, when they drop out of the league, due to drop in revenue, and drop of already shrinking gates there now.

By the way, I do beleive Lu'ons board are or have not so far waived their right to appeal. I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latter part of your argument are entirely relevant to the first part of my argument. the new board have been heavily punished for the irregularities of the previous board in particular. The new board is completely unable to make any arrangements because no one knows where or what is there or not there. Lu'on were fined last season for going into administration, this new board as I understand it, are unable to get out of this situation, because of the previous boards antics, and is therefore unable to make any garantees, and this further means its almost certain they'll go into administration, AGAIN, when they drop out of the league, due to drop in revenue, and drop of already shrinking gates there now.

By the way, I do beleive Lu'ons board are or have not so far waived their right to appeal. I may be wrong.

The penalty is meant to be a deterrent, not a punishment of the existing board.

The ire should not be aimed at the league but at the ***** who put them in that position in the first place.

Although I've got sympathy for Luton fans I've got more sympathy for clubs who didn't spend beyond their means and already dropped out of the league as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The penalty is meant to be a deterrent, not a punishment of the existing board.

Quite.

Otherwise clubs could do as they wish and then as long as Board A moved the club onto Board B before the league realised how dire their situation was, they'd be let off.

(Directed not at Nibor now but bucksred or whoever it was replied to me...)

Again I say; what other footballing sanction would you apply in this situation to punish the club (despite what we think of the idiots who got Luton into this situation they're being there WAS the result of action by the Luton Supporters Trust (or whatever it is) to save the club from administration for the second time in 6 years.

I agree; it's a horrible situation the club ended up in but there is no other way of dealing with these until the league change their competition rules (which they won't because it's their league and they can do as they like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite.

Otherwise clubs could do as they wish and then as long as Board A moved the club onto Board B before the league realised how dire their situation was, they'd be let off.

(Directed not at Nibor now but bucksred or whoever it was replied to me...)

Again I say; what other footballing sanction would you apply in this situation to punish the club (despite what we think of the idiots who got Luton into this situation they're being there WAS the result of action by the Luton Supporters Trust (or whatever it is) to save the club from administration for the second time in 6 years.

I agree; it's a horrible situation the club ended up in but there is no other way of dealing with these until the league change their competition rules (which they won't because it's their league and they can do as they like).

Well, basically I agree with you.

The league has a responsibility to it's member clubs to ensure that clubs are able to fulfill fixtures. It can't be any other way or the league is a joke. If clubs are allowed to operate financially in a way that endangers their future and hence their ability to fulfill fixtures then that responsibility can't be met.

Aside from having to approve all the clubs spending (which is impossible for many reasons) all the league can reasonably do is offer a strong deterrent and that strong deterrent has to be a points sanction. The rules are clear and are accepted by every club every season and Luton broke them repeatedly. To not enforce the sanction removes the deterrent from every other club and makes it more likely that other clubs will be as reckless. It also makes a mockery of the competition putting clubs who run sensibly at a disadvantage competing for players with those who don't.

So, whilst I have sympathy for Luton fans, I can't see that docking them five more points than Leeds for the same offence but compounded by it being the third administration in 10 years is unfair. I must admit I'm surprised that the league stuck to the 10 points for the dodgy payments - that seemed to me to be an opportunity to show a little grace, but I don't know what the rules or precedents are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, Bucks, that's twice I've agreed with you in a week now. Well done putting this up and well done to the mods for pinning it. Luton's fans do not deserve

this disproportionate punishment. The only reason the League get away with it is cos they know the club have no resources to fight it in the courts. Unlike, say the West Ham saga involving Tevez - that club should not be playing in the Premier League IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed. English football is presently in a dark, dark place. How much more injustice can fans of smaller clubs take? It sickens me to see the Bigger Clubs left unpunished, time and time again, for heinous financial practises.

A gross and glaring inequality that is really pissing me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a lot of you on here know, I live in an area which which is pretty much Lu'on, or Scumford, and a lot of me mates are Lu'on.

I have been asked if I would put this link on the city board, asking for your help:

http://www.petitiononline.com/BeFairFL/petition.html

Please take aminute to read this, and sign it if you agree. now some of you don't give a toss about Lu'on, cos "they have a crap ground" "'orrible lot" blah, blah, blah.

just think about it though. what happened to us in 82. If it happened now we could conceivably end up in the shit like they are. Crap boards/directors have stitched the club and the fans up, several times. We are lucky with our directors/board. we have a decentish ground, and a realistic chance of moving. The football family aint just about Hellski, the Arse, Manure, or the Scaaase gits, its about the real clubs, the ones like us...we been there got that t shirt, thankfully we never repeated the experience.

Go on just have a look, and sign it.

On behalf of me Lu'on muckers, thanks

signed - it's time the Football League showed some leadership instead of mere dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...