t_b

ruddy btsports and a lack of interest in rugby online making finding any kind of stream near impossible!

WOW

I'd guess the gel bits are purely on the player shirts and not the supporter shirts (it'd be an extra needless cost to manufacturer anyway!) Much like how you can buy the "pro" (i.e. skin-tight figure hugging monstrosity), "supporter" (i.e. standard replica) or "classic" (i.e. cotton) for England / Lions shirts etc.

Ayling assist there.... went on typical run from RB and got himself stranded on halfway to create space!

Preston have taken 3 points more than us in the past 10 games. That is all.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.