Jump to content

Spare a thought for Luton Town


alpine_saint

Recommended Posts

Will we be feeling like their fans in a couple of weeks' time ?

 

I understand the philosophy behind the points deduction rules, but its too much.

 

Mawhinney and the Football League basically killed LTFC that 30-point deudction.

 

Will they be signing our death-warrant ? I personally find it a disgrace that they bottled acting on their own clearly-defined rules last week, to enable us to get on with finding a buyer to enable the club to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they didnt bottle it at all, they are fully aware that we have not breached there clearly defined rules on administration, this causing significant embarrassment to themselves. they are desperate to punish us, hence the 'independent' investigation into our financial affairs, as if the reports by the clubs auditors arent independent, im sure they are allowed to make fraudulent statements in the company reports!

 

they are looking for us to have failed to pay the cleaning lady for one extra hour of work that they failed to report correctly so that they can allege financial impropriety's, and if they cant find that they will try to change the rules and apply the retro-actively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They missed out by one season on being founder members of the Premier League (along with Notts County who's YTS player, Rob Matthews, sent Luton down with a 2nd half hat-trick - the only reason I know is that my Luton supporting mate Ian, and Rob, were good mates at Uni until that point).

 

Anyway, the point really is that all the old "we'll walk this league" crap should now be in sharp focus for us. We could go the way of Luton, or we could do a Man City who I can remember the Skates relegating to the old Div 3 not that long ago.

 

I do think the League are going to take more than 10 points though if they can. 1) Rupert made plenty of enemies there I'm sure (like he does everywhere, even his supporters say he's divisive) and 2) they've been made to look stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will we be feeling like their fans in a couple of weeks' time ?

 

I understand the philosophy behind the points deduction rules, but its too much.

 

Mawhinney and the Football League basically killed LTFC that 30-point deudction.

 

Will they be signing our death-warrant ? I personally find it a disgrace that they bottled acting on their own clearly-defined rules last week, to enable us to get on with finding a buyer to enable the club to survive.

 

Have to agree with this, I cannot stand the sight of Mawhinney, after all what does he really bring to the party; basically the square root of nothing! He went to the lawyers and I bet their instruction was, find a way for the football league to give Southampton football club a ten point penalty, he will ensure that no leaf is left unturned in achieving his goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with this, I cannot stand the sight of Mawhinney, after all what does he really bring to the party; basically the square root of nothing! He went to the lawyers and I bet their instruction was, find a way for the football league to give Southampton football club a ten point penalty, he will ensure that no leaf is left unturned in achieving his goal.
to be fair whatever he does he upsets someone.

Luton were punished to an extreme leve l an cant work out why hurt a club that is on its knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we had some great contests with Luton when they had a really good side, with Saints often coming off worst.

The true Luton fans will stick with it, and they will be back before too long.Its truly nonsensical to condemn a town of Lutons size to not having a league team.

Will always have fond memories of Kenilworth road, if only for the win there in 78.

Good luck to them in the conf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 30-point deduction imposed on Luton was a joke.

 

The Football League pretty much killed the club and never gave them a chance of staying up.

 

I was very much hoping they'd pull off a mini-miracle by beating the drop, but it wasn't to be.

 

Here's hoping they make a swift return to the Football League!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair whatever he does he upsets someone.

Luton were punished to an extreme leve l an cant work out why hurt a club that is on its knees.

 

Simply as a deterrent to stop other directors of football clubs playing fast and loose with money. That much is obvious. Luton got deducted 30 points for both admin and irregularities. That is the right thing to do. On the face of it we should get 10 points deducted courtesy of fools like Lowe, no matter how we hope some lawyer will prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply as a deterrent to stop other directors of football clubs playing fast and loose with money. That much is obvious. Luton got deducted 30 points for both admin and irregularities. That is the right thing to do. On the face of it we should get 10 points deducted courtesy of fools like Lowe, no matter how we hope some lawyer will prevent it.

But thats the problem the punishment does not act as a deterrent (sp?), the directors who caused the problem have not paid any price at all. It is the players and supporters who have been punished, just as it will be when the FL impose a penalty on us, Lowe & Wilde will get away with it scot-free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats the problem the punishment does not act as a deterrent (sp?), the directors who caused the problem have not paid any price at all. It is the players and supporters who have been punished, just as it will be when the FL impose a penalty on us, Lowe & Wilde will get away with it scot-free.

 

I assume they will lose the one-time value of their shareholdings as there will be nothing left after the creditors have had their payments. Lowe may have paid nothing because of the original reverse-buy out but Wilde will lose his cash purchase value of the shares. And even Lowe had to gear his nursing homes against the buyout in 1996. Though I expect he clawed that back pretty quickly and obviously he will have made plenty in salary as chairman over the years since.

Edited by TopGun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats the problem the punishment does not act as a deterrent (sp?), the directors who caused the problem have not paid any price at all. It is the players and supporters who have been punished, just as it will be when the FL impose a penalty on us, Lowe & Wilde will get away with it scot-free.

 

I think the Chairman and Directors at the time were fined and a football ban slapped on them, but it certainly wasn't as draconian at the -10 for dodgy agent payments and a futher -20 from failing to agree a CVA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will we be feeling like their fans in a couple of weeks' time ?

 

I understand the philosophy behind the points deduction rules, but its too much.

 

Mawhinney and the Football League basically killed LTFC that 30-point deudction.

 

Will they be signing our death-warrant ? I personally find it a disgrace that they bottled acting on their own clearly-defined rules last week, to enable us to get on with finding a buyer to enable the club to survive.

 

If they hit us with similar pentalties as luton have been hit with.........

 

Will YOU still feel PROUD of YOURSELF for calling FOR ADMINISTRATION for so long.....?

 

Or are you now going to say you did not keep saying bring on administration .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 30-point deduction imposed on Luton was a joke.

 

The Football League pretty much killed the club and never gave them a chance of staying up.

 

I was very much hoping they'd pull off a mini-miracle by beating the drop, but it wasn't to be.

 

Here's hoping they make a swift return to the Football League!

 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to hate Luton when they had that plastic pitch and they used that old ID card system. BUT they have decent fans who have to suffer thrugh n fault of their own. I believe that a 30 point deduction was OTT and I really hope that they come back at the 1st attempt.

 

Next season they may end up playing Oxford Utd in the conference, this game was a TOP FLIGHT FIXTURE back in the 1980's!!! I remember Luton beating Oxford 7-5 in the old 1st division! ALSO in 1991 Luton were in the old Division 1 and Eastleigh were ELEVEN divisions below in the Wessex League. Next season they may well meet in a league fixture!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sat next to Mahwhinney at a dinner once. I have never met a ruder, surlier or more unpleasant man in supposedly polite society. I was extremely pleased when as soon as he had finished eating our food and wine he stood up and said "I'm going , I've got business in the House."

All he brings to football is a knowledge of the trough (HoC) and contacts.

He is really a rugby man, was VP of one of my rugby clubs.

(I played as a forward-was too big for football-my first love)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they hit us with similar pentalties as luton have been hit with.........

 

Will YOU still feel PROUD of YOURSELF for calling FOR ADMINISTRATION for so long.....?

 

Or are you now going to say you did not keep saying bring on administration .....

 

Nope, I called for it and am not ashamed of the fact.

 

But I called for it to happen BEFORE the cut-off date, so that the club would have time to get its house in order once completely Lowe-less, BEFORE next season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I called for it and am not ashamed of the fact.

 

But I called for it to happen BEFORE the cut-off date, so that the club would have time to get its house in order once completely Lowe-less, BEFORE next season

 

You did start a thread saying that anyone who had disagreed with you should apologise and hail administration though, once it had happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did start a thread saying that anyone who had disagreed with you should apologise and hail administration though, once it had happened.

 

Yes, because those with the agenda who were trying to scare everybody about the prospect of administration were going on about asset-stripping, no-one interested in the club as a going concern and the end of the club, and were highly abusive to those that disagreed.

 

At this time NONE of those things have happened, and there is apparently plenty of interest in the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that a 30 point deduction was OTT

 

Isn't there a chance we could end up with -30 next season if it all goes against us?????

 

-10 for going into administration after the cut off

 

-20 for not agreeing a CVA (although I think Luton got more than others because they had been here before)

 

Or would we only be up for one of these????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a chance we could end up with -30 next season if it all goes against us?????

 

-10 for going into administration after the cut off

 

-20 for not agreeing a CVA (although I think Luton got more than others because they had been here before)

 

Or would we only be up for one of these????

 

Also somewhere in their points deduction was where they got caught paying agents illegally and tried to cover it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a chance we could end up with -30 next season if it all goes against us?????

 

-10 for going into administration after the cut off

 

-20 for not agreeing a CVA (although I think Luton got more than others because they had been here before)

 

Or would we only be up for one of these????

 

I think we will be in line for -25, -10 for admin, -15 for the CVA.

 

I know Bournemouth got -17 for the CVA but that was because they have been in admin before. I think 15 is what Leeds got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also somewhere in their points deduction was where they got caught paying agents illegally and tried to cover it up.

 

They got -10 for financial irregularities (re agents etc) and a further -20 for not agreeing a CVA.

 

They had their -10 for administration last season!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you and Denzil dont expect sympathy from fans of other teams then, should the worst case happen to us.....

 

We,as a club,made our bed,therefore we should l liedown in it.

 

We will not,and i do not expect,to get sympathy from any supporter of another football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

luton always used to be a regular on my awaydays in the 80's, had some good and bad experiences there but i will be sad to see them go,they were treated a bit harshly imo,the fans deserve better,they have been shafted by the knobheads in charge.

as a fan of football i dont like to see football fans treated unfairly and luton fans have every right to feel p1ssed off,especially if we dodge the 10 point deduction,i will feel for them but if there is a loophole and we get away with it then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they didnt bottle it at all, they are fully aware that we have not breached there clearly defined rules on administration, this causing significant embarrassment to themselves. they are desperate to punish us, hence the 'independent' investigation into our financial affairs, as if the reports by the clubs auditors arent independent, im sure they are allowed to make fraudulent statements in the company reports!

 

they are looking for us to have failed to pay the cleaning lady for one extra hour of work that they failed to report correctly so that they can allege financial impropriety's, and if they cant find that they will try to change the rules and apply the retro-actively

 

They did bottle but not the way you are intimating. The league's lawyers have been through the rules with a fine tooth comb, as have the club's lawyers and the Administrator's lawyers.

 

The rules do not allow for the penalising of a wholly owned independent solvent subsidiary of a public company in administration.

 

The league's problem is that their rules stipulate the football club has to be a completely separate entity from it's public owner. To allow it to be a member of the football/premier league clubs have to undertake to abide by the grievance procedures/tribunals laid down in the rules and give up the right to sue the football authorities. The really neat thing is public companies can't comply with that rule under public company rules.

 

The problem the league have is that if they act despite their rules the public company can sue the pants off them for the losses they would suffer, by action taken against an asset they own, in contravention of the league's rules as the member club is not in administration.

 

The league's lawyers will have already thoroughly advised them of their position. If the rule could be applied then the league would have issued a clear statement that Southampton would be dealt with in accordance with the rules after the final game of the season.

 

The fact they didn't and called a 'forensic' independent legal enquiry shows that they have a problem legally. They already know the position as their lawyers will have advised them of their position.

 

This is a 'Mawhinny' political answer to a too difficult to deal with problem. Get somebody else to make the decision. If the independent enquiry says they are independent and not in administration, the league can hold their hands up in mock horror and promise to try and close the loophole. Apart from banning public companies from owning football clubs there is little they can do.

 

That stance then takes the heat off them from the clubs who have been already docked points. Only Derby I believe was a public company with a subsidiary not in administration. All the others the whole structure was in administration as far as I can make out. The rules had been changed bringing in the points penalty prior to the Derby affair in 2003, they suffered no points penalty.

 

In any event those clubs that are threatening to sue the league are talking crap, and both they and the league know it is just posturing because under the rules they can't sue the league, only use the grievance procedures and that's where we came in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did bottle but not the way you are intimating. The league's lawyers have been through the rules with a fine tooth comb, as have the club's lawyers and the Administrator's lawyers.

 

The rules do not allow for the penalising of a wholly owned independent solvent subsidiary of a public company in administration.

 

The league's problem is that their rules stipulate the football club has to be a completely separate entity from it's public owner. To allow it to be a member of the football/premier league clubs have to undertake to abide by the grievance procedures/tribunals laid down in the rules and give up the right to sue the football authorities. The really neat thing is public companies can't comply with that rule under public company rules.

 

The problem the league have is that if they act despite their rules the public company can sue the pants off them for the losses they would suffer, by action taken against an asset they own, in contravention of the league's rules as the member club is not in administration.

 

The league's lawyers will have already thoroughly advised them of their position. If the rule could be applied then the league would have issued a clear statement that Southampton would be dealt with in accordance with the rules after the final game of the season.

 

The fact they didn't and called a 'forensic' independent legal enquiry shows that they have a problem legally. They already know the position as their lawyers will have advised them of their position.

 

This is a 'Mawhinny' political answer to a too difficult to deal with problem. Get somebody else to make the decision. If the independent enquiry says they are independent and not in administration, the league can hold their hands up in mock horror and promise to try and close the loophole. Apart from banning public companies from owning football clubs there is little they can do.

 

That stance then takes the heat off them from the clubs who have been already docked points. Only Derby I believe was a public company with a subsidiary not in administration. All the others the whole structure was in administration as far as I can make out. The rules had been changed bringing in the points penalty prior to the Derby affair in 2003, they suffered no points penalty.

 

In any event those clubs that are threatening to sue the league are talking crap, and both they and the league know it is just posturing because under the rules they can't sue the league, only use the grievance procedures and that's where we came in.

 

Very interesting read and fingers crossed you're right.

 

However, with regards Derby the rules regarding points deductions for going into administration were introduced the following season (although they were announced just prior to Derby going in to Admin they did not apply at that ttime).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills

I hated Luton, the town, the supporters (animals to a man (sic)) and the bomb-site of a ground with its restricted view terraces.

 

However, what has been done to them is nothing short of criminal. I remember when Swindon were denied a place in the old first division for a financial 'crime' yet Tottenham were let off for a similar charge.

 

Hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did bottle but not the way you are intimating. The league's lawyers have been through the rules with a fine tooth comb, as have the club's lawyers and the Administrator's lawyers.

 

The rules do not allow for the penalising of a wholly owned independent solvent subsidiary of a public company in administration.

 

The league's problem is that their rules stipulate the football club has to be a completely separate entity from it's public owner. To allow it to be a member of the football/premier league clubs have to undertake to abide by the grievance procedures/tribunals laid down in the rules and give up the right to sue the football authorities. The really neat thing is public companies can't comply with that rule under public company rules.

 

The problem the league have is that if they act despite their rules the public company can sue the pants off them for the losses they would suffer, by action taken against an asset they own, in contravention of the league's rules as the member club is not in administration.

 

The league's lawyers will have already thoroughly advised them of their position. If the rule could be applied then the league would have issued a clear statement that Southampton would be dealt with in accordance with the rules after the final game of the season.

 

The fact they didn't and called a 'forensic' independent legal enquiry shows that they have a problem legally. They already know the position as their lawyers will have advised them of their position.

 

This is a 'Mawhinny' political answer to a too difficult to deal with problem. Get somebody else to make the decision. If the independent enquiry says they are independent and not in administration, the league can hold their hands up in mock horror and promise to try and close the loophole. Apart from banning public companies from owning football clubs there is little they can do.

 

That stance then takes the heat off them from the clubs who have been already docked points. Only Derby I believe was a public company with a subsidiary not in administration. All the others the whole structure was in administration as far as I can make out. The rules had been changed bringing in the points penalty prior to the Derby affair in 2003, they suffered no points penalty.

 

In any event those clubs that are threatening to sue the league are talking crap, and both they and the league know it is just posturing because under the rules they can't sue the league, only use the grievance procedures and that's where we came in.

 

Well done again. Good summary of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luton have suffered from a corrupted inequitable system that endows the rich and condemns the poor.

 

The very smug Football League have no-one to blame but themselves. It is their ineptitude that has created a ridiculous penal system that has destroyed Luton Town. Nobody is safe.

 

My heart goes out to Luton FC and their fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luton have suffered from a corrupted inequitable system that endows the rich and condemns the poor.

 

The very smug Football League have no-one to blame but themselves. It is their ineptitude that has created a ridiculous penal system that has destroyed Luton Town. Nobody is safe.

 

My heart goes out to Luton FC and their fans.

 

Ditto.

 

It is a very poor "leader" who becomes responsible for the destruction of the (in this case) clubs who he his supposed to be "looking after". (Read our lot as well as Mawhinney)

 

It isn't ever the people who cause the "discretions/mistakes" who get punished it is always the poor bl**dy fans.

 

 

(Although an evil part of me does also say - serves them right for that plastic pitch nonsense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...