Guest churchill gaffer Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Just announced, Luton start next season with a 30 point deduction. How can any club overcome that level of punishment? IMO that is totally wrong! They should be heavily fined. And if they could'nt pay the fine, then so be it. And take the conquences! (What ever that should be) How can the Luton fans follow them, knowing they will definately be relegated! The board should suffer, not the fans who pay their hard earned money to watch them! (they did nothing wrong!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Lets get it right: 10 point deduction for their illegal transfer activities - discuss at will the rights and wrongs of this. 20 points is for coming out of administration without a CVA - CVA = creditors voluntary agreement - more than 25% of their creditors said no to the 16p in the pound settlement - thus the administrators decided to sell the assets to a new company Luton2020 but without the golden share which entitles them to play in the Football League - the normal punishment for this is a 2 division relegation - as Luton starts in League 2 then if they accepted the normal punishment they would start in the league below the conference (Barnet and Halifax had this punishment) - Leeds and now Luton requested that they shouldnt have the 2 division punishment and could they come to an agreement with the Football League - the football taking the precedent of Leeds imposed points deduction Instead of being relegated 2 divisions. Luton and Leeds both deserve a points deduction instead of 2 leagues relegation - Leeds said that they would not appeal against their points deduction in writing and went ahead and appealed anyway - they just waited until they got in the plays offs before appealing - Luton will have to appeal with in a few weeks (one of the recommendations of the the Leeds appeal). 30 points is the headline but what isnt in the headline is that they are taking a 20 point deduction instead of a 2 league relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest churchill gaffer Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Lets get it right: 10 point deduction for their illegal transfer activities - discuss at will the rights and wrongs of this. 20 points is for coming out of administration without a CVA - CVA = creditors voluntary agreement - more than 25% of their creditors said no to the 16p in the pound settlement - thus the administrators decided to sell the assets to a new company Luton2020 but without the golden share which entitles them to play in the Football League - the normal punishment for this is a 2 division relegation - as Luton starts in League 2 then if they accepted the normal punishment they would start in the league below the conference (Barnet and Halifax had this punishment) - Leeds and now Luton requested that they shouldnt have the 2 division punishment and could they come to an agreement with the Football League - the football taking the precedent of Leeds imposed points deduction Instead of being relegated 2 divisions. Luton and Leeds both deserve a points deduction instead of 2 leagues relegation - Leeds said that they would not appeal against their points deduction in writing and went ahead and appealed anyway - they just waited until they got in the plays offs before appealing - Luton will have to appeal with in a few weeks (one of the recommendations of the the Leeds appeal). 30 points is the headline but what isnt in the headline is that they are taking a 20 point deduction instead of a 2 league relegation. IMO! I still think the new board should be very heavily punished in the pocket! Not the poor old supporter!!!!!!! Thank god, we do not have a shamble of SO CALLED directors like them!!!!!!!!! They obviously think they are above the FA, and can do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Bournemouth also likely to start on -15 points. I feel sorry for the fans and it makes me realise how lucky we are to have a decent chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 I find that pretty shocking. I thought the F.A had only the interests of football at heart? How this is a footballing issue I don't know. Just makes me glad and proud that we have a very capable and stand up guy at the helm of our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 30 points is incredibly severe, if there is no moving on the punishment then why not negotiate the time scale. 30 points this season leaves the club staring into the abyss, 10 points for the next 3 years gives the club and its fans hope of rebuilding, rather than the reality of an impending relegation and uncertain future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Football could be a completely changed game in ten years time. Luton will almost certainly get relegated and who knows where they go from there? Halifax have gone to the wall, the likes of Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham are also hanging on for dear life and there are no doubt 20 other clubs in the lower leagues struggling to make ends meet in the medium to long term also. It is inevitable that a number of clubs will go to the wall in the next five years or so. And all on the same day that Sepp Blatter complains that Man Utd should not treat poor old £120K per week Cristiano Ronaldo "like a slave" and let him move even though he was happy to sign a four year deal worth about £25 million 12 months ago (and Halifax went bust for LESS THAN A TENTH of that)!! Just wait until one of the "Greed is Good" merchants from the Premier League get relegated (perhaps a Fulham or a Wigan) and find that they simply cannot sustain football in the lower leagues as their limited fanbase totally gives up on them. I reckon that 25% of Premier League clubs could be one bad season away from disaster - it is alright for your West Brom's, Stoke's and Hull City's of this world who can factor the worst case scenario into their planning. Another factor is that if the current credit crunch turns into a full blown recession there will be tens of thousands of people looking at their attendance at football as one of the luxuries that they have to forego to make ends meet. How do you justify £30 per match or a £500 season ticket to the missus when you have taken a £5K pay cut on a £30K salary or if your mortgage is going up by £100 per month? Simple maths then says that clubs at the higher levels of the game will no longer be able to pay players more per week than 90% of it's fans take home in a year and players at the lower levels of the game will literally have to make do with an average working wage. We could be on the verge of a shake up that football has needed for a long time, one that will hopefully see a huge dose of reality injected back into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT The Optimist Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Heard on radio tonight while driving home on Talk sport, that the Conference will not accept clubs in administration, if that is the case , they really are in deep poo The possible end of Luton unless money is found this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs16bcfc Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Football could be a completely changed game in ten years time. Luton will almost certainly get relegated and who knows where they go from there? Halifax have gone to the wall, the likes of Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham are also hanging on for dear life and there are no doubt 20 other clubs in the lower leagues struggling to make ends meet in the medium to long term also. It is inevitable that a number of clubs will go to the wall in the next five years or so. And all on the same day that Sepp Blatter complains that Man Utd should not treat poor old £120K per week Cristiano Ronaldo "like a slave" and let him move even though he was happy to sign a four year deal worth about £25 million 12 months ago (and Halifax went bust for LESS THAN A TENTH of that)!! Just wait until one of the "Greed is Good" merchants from the Premier League get relegated (perhaps a Fulham or a Wigan) and find that they simply cannot sustain football in the lower leagues as their limited fanbase totally gives up on them. I reckon that 25% of Premier League clubs could be one bad season away from disaster - it is alright for your West Brom's, Stoke's and Hull City's of this world who can factor the worst case scenario into their planning. Another factor is that if the current credit crunch turns into a full blown recession there will be tens of thousands of people looking at their attendance at football as one of the luxuries that they have to forego to make ends meet. How do you justify £30 per match or a £500 season ticket to the missus when you have taken a £5K pay cut on a £30K salary or if your mortgage is going up by £100 per month? Simple maths then says that clubs at the higher levels of the game will no longer be able to pay players more per week than 90% of it's fans take home in a year and players at the lower levels of the game will literally have to make do with an average working wage. We could be on the verge of a shake up that football has needed for a long time, one that will hopefully see a huge dose of reality injected back into the game. Quality post agree massively. Was watching ITV4 a few weeks ago. Biggest crowd of the day was Man City at home with 24000. Everton had their lowest post war crowd of only 14000. Imagine recession and how it would hit football when the crowds could possibly drop to this. Wouldnt want it to happen, but it just might give football back to the working class fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red panda Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Just wait until one of the "Greed is Good" merchants from the Premier League get relegated (perhaps a Fulham or a Wigan) and find that they simply cannot sustain football in the lower leagues Anyone get a sense of deja vu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 30 points is ridiculous. They might as well not bother turning up next season. My sentiments exactly What odds do you think the bookies will give on them staying up? 250/1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m42 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Any chance of dishing the dirt & handing out 30 point deductions on the other 23 Championship clubs to give us a head start in August? Gary must know this is on the cards which explains why we've only made one signing this summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Any chance of dishing the dirt & handing out 30 point deductions on the other 23 Championship clubs to give us a head start in August? Gary must know this is on the cards which explains why we've only made one signing this summer! We are already 30 points ahead. Believe... man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m42 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 We are already 30 points ahead. Believe... man. Oh I do believe me old mucker. By my calculations we will have bagged 138 points come 3 May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Good summary in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/ju...aguetwofootball Good point about the insolvency policy itself being part of the problem. Surely it would be better if there were proper rules and controls up front to stop it happening (didn't the FL drop the rule about the wage bill not exceeding x% of turnover?) rather than let it happen then punish the clubs, and therefore the fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 The problem with the insolvency policy is that it's at odds with law. HMRC are always first on the list of creditors to get paid and can effectively veto a CVA but football league rules dictate that football creditors must be paid in full, that's a higher burden than other businesses in financial trouble face. I don't see how Luton can complain though. 3 times insolvent in 10 years and they're coming out of administration without a CVA for which Leeds got 15 points last season. It's proportionate to what other clubs have suffered. The football league can't really mandate how clubs spend their money, in practise it just isn't possible without all the clubs signing up to it and they won't. All they can do is what they're doing - give large penalties as a deterrent. What about the clubs who stayed within their budgets but have gone out of the league in competition with Luton whilst Luton were spending more money than they could afford? They're the victims. It's unfortunate and sad for the fans, but why have they allowed the people running their club over the last decade to get away with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eamer Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Luton got any players we want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 And if they don't stay out of administration this year the conference as it doesn't accept clubs in admin..won't take them. Effectively meaning the end of Luton Town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 You make a very strong case Nibor and of course HMRC should be a priority creditor. I take your point about clubs not signing up to controls which may mean legislation is the answer; except I cannot see any Government taking on the big clubs. It was hard enough to get the FA to adopt proper corporate governance and they've only gone part way anyway. Football clubs are a bit like banks. They object to any kind of regulation then bring out the begging bowl when they get it wrong. As to the role of fans, Supporters Trusts aren't necessarily the answer if Bournemouth are anything to go by. They seem to be short lived before a return to the status quo. We as fans have a responsibility not to demand jam today but to be prepared to wait for sustainable progress. Exactly the way Steve would see it I suspect and how lucky we are to have him, as was said in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 As to the role of fans, Supporters Trusts aren't necessarily the answer if Bournemouth are anything to go by. They seem to be short lived before a return to the status quo. We as fans have a responsibility not to demand jam today but to be prepared to wait for sustainable progress. Exactly the way Steve would see it I suspect and how lucky we are to have him, as was said in another thread. Totally agree and I think that after a bit of a dodgy start SteveL is now doing an excellent job of building the club without risking it's future. We're lucky to have him and I hope he sticks around for a long while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 I Liked This - MAD AS A BLATTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted July 11, 2008 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 The problem with the insolvency policy is that it's at odds with law. HMRC are always first on the list of creditors to get paid and can effectively veto a CVA but football league rules dictate that football creditors must be paid in full, that's a higher burden than other businesses in financial trouble face. I don't see how Luton can complain though. 3 times insolvent in 10 years and they're coming out of administration without a CVA for which Leeds got 15 points last season. It's proportionate to what other clubs have suffered. The football league can't really mandate how clubs spend their money, in practise it just isn't possible without all the clubs signing up to it and they won't. All they can do is what they're doing - give large penalties as a deterrent. What about the clubs who stayed within their budgets but have gone out of the league in competition with Luton whilst Luton were spending more money than they could afford? They're the victims. It's unfortunate and sad for the fans, but why have they allowed the people running their club over the last decade to get away with this? Yes, clearly the club has been very badly run over the last decade. It can be argued, however, that this punishment is coming after the horse has bolted and is penalising the wrong people. The people trying to run the club now are not the ones that got it into this mess. I would like to see the Premier League and Football League introduce an annual licensing system for all clubs, whereby the club would only get its licence to compete the following season if its independently audited accounts met certain criteria, in particular demonstrating that the club was solvent. This is done in Germany and works well in forcing clubs to live within their means. UEFA are looking at a similar ruling for entry into their competitions. If the English leagues do not introduce such a rule, we will continue to have clubs 'doing a Luton' and may get to the stage where, for instance, Man Utd qualify for the Champions League but are not allowed to take part because of the level of debt on their balance sheet ... if that was to happen, you can be sure they would soon restructure their finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Yes, clearly the club has been very badly run over the last decade. It can be argued, however, that this punishment is coming after the horse has bolted and is penalising the wrong people. The people trying to run the club now are not the ones that got it into this mess. Yes but this is not really about punishing the club for the sake of vengeance, it's supposed to be a deterrent for the broader good of the game. Perhaps if Luton's first insolvency event had been punished harshly back in 99 the club management after that point wouldn't have taken such stupid risks. I would like to see the Premier League and Football League introduce an annual licensing system for all clubs, whereby the club would only get its licence to compete the following season if its independently audited accounts met certain criteria, in particular demonstrating that the club was solvent. This is done in Germany and works well in forcing clubs to live within their means. UEFA are looking at a similar ruling for entry into their competitions. If the English leagues do not introduce such a rule, we will continue to have clubs 'doing a Luton' and may get to the stage where, for instance, Man Utd qualify for the Champions League but are not allowed to take part because of the level of debt on their balance sheet ... if that was to happen, you can be sure they would soon restructure their finances. The licensing idea is interesting and could certainly help catch financial problems earlier but I don't think it's something that the football authorities will ever be in a position to force on english clubs given that most of them are running at a loss funded by investors right now. In Germany did their FA or league mandate the scheme or was it something the clubs elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted July 11, 2008 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Yes but this is not really about punishing the club for the sake of vengeance, it's supposed to be a deterrent for the broader good of the game. Perhaps if Luton's first insolvency event had been punished harshly back in 99 the club management after that point wouldn't have taken such stupid risks. The licensing idea is interesting and could certainly help catch financial problems earlier but I don't think it's something that the football authorities will ever be in a position to force on english clubs given that most of them are running at a loss funded by investors right now. In Germany did their FA or league mandate the scheme or was it something the clubs elected? Interesting question - I wasn't sure when they brought the rule in, so I've checked. It's been there since the Bundesliga was formed in 1963 (before that they had a number of regional leagues, the winners of which played each other in a mini tournament for the national title). One of the founding criteria for the new league, agreed by all of the clubs, was the financial strength of the clubs concerned. A test of this was enshrined in the league rules on licensing. As a result, no club in the Bundesliga has ever gone into administration in mid-season or had to withdraw from the competition for financial reasons. The clubs have to submit their 'application' to the league for their licence for the following season by the 15th March each year. If their accounts show them to be insolvent, they can be denied their licence. For a top flight club this would mean automatic relegation by two divisions into semi-professional football (that has happened just once: Dynamo Dresden in 1995). The system clearly penalises the management at the club at the time of any financial profligacy (or very, very shortly after), rather than our system of points deduction some considerable time later when the people concerned have usually long since gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Government wont get involved full stop - take a look at Human Rights in China and Zimbabwe - our government leaves it to sporting organisations to come to their own conclusions. One thing that came about with regards to the Leeds case is that they decided that they were going to take the Football League to the High Court - the High Court said that they would not look at the case as rules and regulations of the Football League were ones that were already in place to take care of situations without having to go to the High Court i.e. an independent arbitration panel is available for appeals and Leeds just had to fill in a form and send it to the Football League to ask for an independent arbitration panel. Point being is that if you sign up to be a member of an organisation then you have to accept the rules and regulations fo the organisation and cant go whining to the high Court that things are unfair - Luton knew the rules and the penalties - the previous owners knew the situation. This is not a victimless event - all their competitors in all the competitions they entered were playing against a team that would not have been the same had Luton followed the rules, how any teams would have got extra points had they been playing a different set of players? How many teams would have got play-off posirions, auto promotion, relegation etc... had Luton followed the rules. They didnt the proper penalty when coming out of administration without a CVA is a 2 league relegation - Luton are not getting that they are effectively getting a 1 division drop (not guaranteed to be relegated as Leeds proved) and a chance to stay in the current division. As to rules and regulation of the cubs themselves by the FA or by the Football League - why? I genuinely mean why? Why should clubs have to set up and pay for a large team of enforcers of rules when most abide by the rules in the first place? The punishment is indeed a severe one and you would think that clubs and the individuals behind the clubs would be more responsible - if not then the penalty of 15 or 20 points could been seen as a way of replenishing the points other clubs would have got had Luton played by the rules in the first place. The idea of putting financial constraints or auditing of accounts is another administrative burden and if the club isnt solvent then penalties are to apply? Thats basically the idea - BCFC accounts are audited and it says that in normal circumstances BCFC would be insolvent - if it wasnt for the assurances of the directors of the club. It would prevent clubs who have potential wealthy backers utilising the wealth of a benefactor. Real Madrid had a trainging ground bought by the local government for £100m+ due to Real Madrid being so much in debt. I would leave the rules alone and just have compassion for the fans of the clubs that are effected by stupid and incompetent owners but I don't in principle disagree wit the points deduction as an effective way of deterring and punishing clubs who break the rules. It is noted that a number of clubs that have gone to the wall do bounce their way back up through the pyramid system e.g Aldershot and Wimbledon (not the same scenario but an example of clubs bouncing back up to the level they should be at)> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Directors are custodians of football clubs, they ought to be held accountable. When Mike Newell was managing Luton, he found things weren't quite right with the finances. He tried telling people so the directors sacked him and carried on. Once again a club and it's loyal fans suffer. Perhaps if the homes, cars & bank accounts etc of directors were seized and used to pay off debts, (as they should have been with that food hamper business 2 years ago) then clubs would overnight be run in a professional business like manner. Going back to the early 80s, if these rules had been in place then, how many points would City have been deducted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 The idea of putting financial constraints or auditing of accounts is another administrative burden and if the club isnt solvent then penalties are to apply? Thats basically the idea - BCFC accounts are audited and it says that in normal circumstances BCFC would be insolvent - if it wasnt for the assurances of the directors of the club. It would prevent clubs who have potential wealthy backers utilising the wealth of a benefactor. Real Madrid had a trainging ground bought by the local government for £100m+ due to Real Madrid being so much in debt. Just the kind of arguments as I said earlier put forward by financial institutions here and in the US. Regulation is a burden; give us an unregulated market and we'll deliver. Except of course they deliver fat salaries and bonuses to themselves and worldwide financial meltdown for the rest of us. No regulation leads to outrageous risk taking motivated by personal greed. Relying solely on a wealthy backer without sensible financial management is very high risk but nobody will take notice until Abramovich or the Glazers walk away and a big club crumbles, though my money is on Mike Ashley to do the dirty first. Laughably Chelsea still claim they aim to be self sufficient by 2010; no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 and works well in forcing clubs to live within their means. UEFA are looking at a similar ruling for entry into their competitions. If the English leagues do not introduce such a rule, we will continue to have clubs 'doing a Luton' and may get to the stage where, for instance, Man Utd qualify for the Champions League but are not allowed to take part because of the level of debt on their balance sheet ... if that was to happen, you can be sure they would soon restructure their finances. In the 80s when Liverpool won the League title, they announced they had spent more in wages than they received in attendance money! It was sponsorship that kept them going. Real Madrid has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. When they were 100 million overdrawn their bank threatened to foreclose. All the other customers of the bank threatened to withdraw their money from that bank, so it stepped back from taking action. Hey presto! local government paid Real 100 million for their training ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 In the 80s when Liverpool won the League title, they announced they had spent more in wages than they received in attendance money! It was sponsorship that kept them going. Real Madrid has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. When they were 100 million overdrawn their bank threatened to foreclose. All the other customers of the bank threatened to withdraw their money from that bank, so it stepped back from taking action. Hey presto! local government paid Real 100 million for their training ground. Man utd are £700 million in debt .But they are allowed to carry on regardless. I really feel for the ordinary Luton fan, imagine how WE would be feeling now if we had the season to look forward to and we had just found out we were minus 30 points. Mind you what else do we expect when the Football league is run by the ex chairman of the tory(scum ) party ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 I think the deduction is over the top to be honest, i agree there must be some sanction for clubs that run far beyond their means, but then there are clubs in the premier league which are at the top that live beyond their means, look at Man U, the biggest club on earth, yet they are 700 million in debt almost entirley due to the glaizers take over, so my question would be why are these directors even being declared fit and proper to run football clubs in the first place, which is a point raised by the new Luton board. The Fl declared the old board fit and proper to run the club, yet they clearly wern't, yet despite the Fl's balls up in allowing these muppets to run the club all the blame has been placed upon the new board who really have very little to do with what happened. Yes clubs need to be acountable, but directors who basically destroy a club should also be held accountable as well, and it is a bit harsh to punish the owners of a club for the past misdermeanors of old directors. It's not a new thing either, Swindon years ago were refused entry to the premier league because of the actions of a previous board who no longer had anything to do with the club, so it's hardly something new. The FL need to strike a balace between deterring clubs from taking the piss, but they really shouldn't i don't think be basically pushing a club potentially into the abyss, just to deter other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.