Antman Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Luton have been handed a 10 point deduction and a £50K fine for their dicky transfer dealings with certain agents. I recall we were tarnished with this through the Showmans transfer (from them) Lets hope they don't find something to throw at us despite SL's assurances that everything was above board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Luton have been handed a 10 point deduction and a £50K fine for their dicky transfer dealings with certain agents. I recall we were tarnished with this through the Showmans transfer (from them) Lets hope they don't find something to throw at us despite SL's assurances that everything was above board. A ten point deduction would suggest that Luton were bent as f00k in their dealings and have been made an example of. The bit I cannot wait for, though, is when a big, influential Premier League club get found to have done EXACTLY THE SAME as Luton and somehow manage to escape with a paltry fine and NO points deduction!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icamanicity Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 I have an uneasy feeling ,that we are next, for a "slap on the wrist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Sky Andrew was involved. I'm in shock here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_b Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Read the two bits below together and then see how much overlap you spot - since it's only just breaking am sure there'll be lots more tomorrow with additional detail but could be concerning... Luton verdict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...own/7401548.stm Luton are considering an appeal after being fined £50,000 and deducted 10 points after being found guilty of misconduct over payments to agents. The Football Association found the club guilty of paying agents via a third party, but not of paying bungs. From when City were charged in relation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/ap...ewsstory.sport6 The Football Association has charged Bristol City, Enoch Showunmi and licensed agent Charles Collymore with misconduct for matters relating to Showunmi's transfer to the club from Luton Town in 2006. The club are charged with breaching FA football agents regulations by allegedly dealing with an unlicensed agent when conducting the deal for the striker between May and July 2006. It is also alleged that City broke FA rules by paying £30,000 to Collymore for services provided under a representation contract when the club were aware that the payment was for services provided by an unlicensed agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Collymore isn't named as one of the agents in the Luton case. Also, Luton had 15 separate charges against them over a period of two and a half years, which is why the punishment is so severe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Collymore isn't named as one of the agents in the Luton case. Also, Luton had 15 separate charges against them over a period of two and a half years, which is why the punishment is so severe. That doesn't surprise me at all. You don't get done with 10 point deductions for one dodgy transfer dealing which is more a technical rule break than paying out bungs. Luton have obviously blatantly ignored the rules over and over again and have been made an example of to ensure that other clubs are more careful in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BITW Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Luton are on a downer. Non league 2009/2010 IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 A ten point deduction would suggest that Luton were bent as f00k in their dealings and have been made an example of. The bit I cannot wait for, though, is when a big, influential Premier League club get found to have done EXACTLY THE SAME as Luton and somehow manage to escape with a paltry fine and NO points deduction!! But didn't West Ham avoid a points deduction over the Tevez affair because it was decided that it was the previous owners that had done the dodgy bits and therefore it was not fiar to punish the fans or current owners? Wasn't Lutons dealings done by the previous owners?? Double standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 i think the west ham thing was done by the premier league and this has been odne by the football league so not double standards the football league are just doing what the premier league should have done!!! could be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 But didn't West Ham avoid a points deduction over the Tevez affair because it was decided that it was the previous owners that had done the dodgy bits and therefore it was not fiar to punish the fans or current owners? Wasn't Lutons dealings done by the previous owners?? Double standards? No it had nothing to do with current or previous owners - they decided not give them a points deduction because they thought it would be futile as they were all as good relegated - the fact that West Ham then did a miracle made the FA look foolish for not deducting them points and when the case went to arbitration the panel said that the fine/penalty given was appropriate at the time and couldnt overturn this due to many years of the legal precedents of not overturning a decision that was reasonable at the time of the decision. No double standards just egg on the faces of teh FA who still haven't dealt with the fact West Ham cheated on a seperate but related manner as they would be even more embarrassed - truth will only come out if Shef Utd get justice and the details of the case are not hidden from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 No it had nothing to do with current or previous owners - they decided not give them a points deduction because they thought it would be futile as they were all as good relegated - the fact that West Ham then did a miracle made the FA look foolish for not deducting them points and when the case went to arbitration the panel said that the fine/penalty given was appropriate at the time and couldnt overturn this due to many years of the legal precedents of not overturning a decision that was reasonable at the time of the decision. No double standards just egg on the faces of teh FA who still haven't dealt with the fact West Ham cheated on a seperate but related manner as they would be even more embarrassed - truth will only come out if Shef Utd get justice and the details of the case are not hidden from us. No, the original commission said: "a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment as the club had new owners" http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070703/2/tkzl.html C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 So, Luton were serial offenders over a sustained period and got a 10 point penalty and 50k fine. City have one alleged offence hanging over them as I understand it - from the same investigation where Enoch's transfer from Luton was examined. Slap on the wrist and a fine by the sound of it ? Charles Collymore isn't cited in the Luton investigation, so I assume Enochgate is a separate investigation that just happens to involve a Luton player. Could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 No, the original commission said: "a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment as the club had new owners" http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070703/2/tkzl.html C I stand corrected however in the light that they then gave them a £5.5m fine - the same could have been argued that the fine would not be proportionate punishment as the club had new owners - they clearly thought the club was going to be relegated and relegation would have been the appropriate sanction as the arbitration said "The tribunal can well understand that in the light of subsequent events the outcome of the (disciplinary) decision turned out to be most unfortunate in the extreme - but the tribunal had to judge it at the time it was taken. I take your point but I think the underlying reason for not giving them a points deduction was that they thought the club would have been relegated and to add to the punishment their parachute payment would have been effectively reduced by £5.5m and there words don't reflect their intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Collymore is/was Enoch's mate who said I can get you into BCFC on these terms but I want £30k - but not being an authorised agent got Enoch to arrange a back hander from Enoch's agent to him - the allegation is that City knew about this - I cant see Colin Sexstone or Steve Lansdowne enter into this kind of arrangement and I doubt very very much if there is any documentary evidence that can be used against City - the only evidence will have to come from Enoch, his agent or Collymore and I cant see them coming forward and saying it's one or more of them are also being charged too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 No, the original commission said: "a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment as the club had new owners" http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070703/2/tkzl.html C The main factor was actually West Ham's plea of guilt and there were 7 issues they considered in total when deciding the punishment. Journalists grabbed onto the new ownership thing as a reason to harp on about unfairness when in reality West Ham got a record fine for two minor rule infractions related to good faith and undue influence. The full transcript is here. Looks like what Luton did is far more serious to me. However that punishment seems unfair. It punishes the fans and players rather than those guilty - the previous directors and agents. How on earth did the agents get off with just a warning? Collymore is/was Enoch's mate who said I can get you into BCFC on these terms but I want £30k - but not being an authorised agent got Enoch to arrange a back hander from Enoch's agent to him - the allegation is that City knew about this - I cant see Colin Sexstone or Steve Lansdowne enter into this kind of arrangement and I doubt very very much if there is any documentary evidence that can be used against City - the only evidence will have to come from Enoch, his agent or Collymore and I cant see them coming forward and saying it's one or more of them are also being charged too. Even if BCFC did know where the payment would end up, I can't see how anyone could prove it. As long as we gave our money to a licensed agent and declared it, and it appears we did, and there's no documentation of the club saying "and make sure 30k of it goes to that shyster from Panorama" which would be utter stupidity, I think we're ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 The main factor was actually West Ham's plea of guilt and there were 7 issues they considered in total when deciding the punishment. Journalists grabbed onto the new ownership thing as a reason to harp on about unfairness when in reality West Ham got a record fine for two minor rule infractions related to good faith and undue influence. The full transcript is here. Looks like what Luton did is far more serious to me. However that punishment seems unfair. It punishes the fans and players rather than those guilty - the previous directors and agents. How on earth did the agents get off with just a warning? Even if BCFC did know where the payment would end up, I can't see how anyone could prove it. As long as we gave our money to a licensed agent and declared it, and it appears we did, and there's no documentation of the club saying "and make sure 30k of it goes to that shyster from Panorama" which would be utter stupidity, I think we're ok. Unless it was the same guy who was supposed to have sent the letter to Liam Rosenior! :noexpression: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.