|
| Author |
Message |
Arab Paul
Boot Cleaner
User is Offline
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
737 FF Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Points deduction for Luton Town |
|
|
After 2 succesive relegations its going to be a tough start in League 2 for Luton Town.
Luton will begin the League Two season on the back foot after it was confirmed they will kick off in August with a 15-point penalty.
The Hatters slipped into administration in August and it got no better on the field, as they were relegated from League One.
The club’s new owners, LTFC2020 group, have confirmed they will soon exit administration, but they will face a mountain to climb in the new campaign.
A statement on the club's official website said: "We were selected as the preferred bidder in January but were advised by the Football League that their priority was to resolve the Leeds United situation.
"We were the only club in administration at that time but with other clubs in financial trouble it was felt important to decide on a penalty for not agreeing a CVA.
"Our CVA was rejected in April.
"Following the rejection of the CVA, LTFC2020 has made our application to the Football League to exit administration without a CVA under their 'exceptional circumstances' procedure.
"This was the procedure followed by Leeds United and resulted in a further 15-point deduction for them.
"Our completed application reached the Football League before the verdict of the arbitration panel into the Leeds case was announced.
"Consequently we are now liaising with the Football League on the final stages of exiting the administration process.
"Both the Football Association and Bedfordshire Football Association - who have the right of veto over our application - have fully supported our application to become members of the league again.
"It is frustrating for everyone that we cannot move faster. However we have to deal with the situation in the best way possible and with the sole intention of achieving the best outcome for Luton Town."
(Setanta Sports) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VillaB6
The Gaffer
User is Online
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 5977
65064 FF Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's sad to see this happen to clubs each season - but they only have themselfs to blame for it i'm afraid
No doubt Luton will end up in the BSP or go out of business for good - going out of business would save them alot of heartache IMO
Crazy really when you think they were the surprise package in the CCC few years ago under Mike Newell and looked good - with the money they recieved for players like Edwards - Davies - Vine etc they should be fine
_________________
Paul ''Magic Man'' Merson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arab Paul
Boot Cleaner
User is Offline
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
737 FF Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VillaB6 wrote: |
It's sad to see this happen to clubs each season - but they only have themselfs to blame for it i'm afraid
No doubt Luton will end up in the BSP or go out of business for good - going out of business would save them alot of heartache IMO
Crazy really when you think they were the surprise package in the CCC few years ago under Mike Newell and looked good - with the money they recieved for players like Edwards - Davies - Vine etc they should be fine |
I think Bournemouth and Rotherham could be facing the same punishment as they were struggling to agree a CVA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheltenham_Ashley
Treble Winner
User is Offline
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 1143
10940 FF Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This case is completely different to the Leeds one. The current owners wern't the ones who racked up huge debts put the club into admin unlike Leeds. Luton should not have the same penalty, the football league need to take a good look at this rule. After seeing this I expect Bournemouth and Rotherham to be given the same punishment
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arab Paul
Boot Cleaner
User is Offline
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
737 FF Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheltenham_Ashley wrote: |
| This case is completely different to the Leeds one. The current owners wern't the ones who racked up huge debts put the club into admin unlike Leeds. Luton should not have the same penalty, the football league need to take a good look at this rule. After seeing this I expect Bournemouth and Rotherham to be given the same punishment |
Where do you get your information from that the current owners racked up Leeds debt? 
Two years ago Leeds debt was £90 million and prior to going in to adminstration it had been reduced to £35 million. This was something the Football League noted and they stated after Leeds appeal that the £35 million debt was from a previous regime and no blame could be attributed to Ken Bates.
As for the Football League reviewing this rule, remember all 71 League teams apart from Leeds were given a vote on whether it should be a 15 point deduction. If they voted out of self interest rather than looking at the bigger picture then they only have themselves to blame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VillaB6
The Gaffer
User is Online
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 5977
65064 FF Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leeds were docked points for coming out of administration without a CVA. - Luton are going to be docked for coming out of administration without a CVA.
No one was docked points because of their owners -how is it completely different?
The way I see it - the FA have imposed this penalty for clubs coming out of administration without a CVA in place like Leeds last season - it appears that the group buying Luton are unable to get a CVA - but want to come out and this is the penalty - i believe that Rotherham will more likely be hit the same way - as I can't see a CVA being agreed for them but Rotherham is a hard one -they might just survive with getting one
_________________
Paul ''Magic Man'' Merson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeicesterFox
World Player Of Year
User is Offline
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1980
28038 FF Points
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VillaB6 wrote: |
Leeds were docked points for coming out of administration without a CVA. - Luton are going to be docked for coming out of administration without a CVA.
No one was docked points because of their owners -how is it completely different?
The way I see it - the FA have imposed this penalty for clubs coming out of administration without a CVA in place like Leeds last season - it appears that the group buying Luton are unable to get a CVA - but want to come out and this is the penalty - i believe that Rotherham will more likely be hit the same way - as I can't see a CVA being agreed for them but Rotherham is a hard one -they might just survive with getting one |
Why can't the cases be looked at individually? This is a mess that other people created then ran off and others are left to pick up the pieces. No one at the club now had anything to do with racking up debts with the IR. They are trying to get back on their feet but the FL keep pushing them down, they have already had a 10 point deduction and they have had a transfer embargo since January, they wouldn't even let them keep their loan players despite wages being paid in full be the parent club.
Bates is responsible (along with many others) for the mess at Leeds and he tried to squirm his way out of paying the IR. It should be Luton's previous owners that have to pay them, not club who the football league should not punish any further than it already has.
_________________
We Are The People
"Let others come after us. We welcome the chase"
- Bill Struth
Hullo, Hullo
We are the Rangers boys
Hullo, Hullo
You'll know us by our noise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheltenham_Ashley
Treble Winner
User is Offline
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 1143
10940 FF Points
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately for Luton, a precendent has been set by the Leeds United ruling. Coming out of administration without a CVA now incurrs a 15 point penalty. When the same offense has been committed, I really can't see how the Football League would be justified in handing out different punishments just because the owners had changed. That said, I really believe there should be harsher punishments for the individuals responsible for getting clubs into this sort of mess (who currently can walk away without being liable), and also that a deduction of that many points is draconian.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
