act smiley Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 I don't get how they get -20 when Leeds got -15 - they try and justify it as its not a "first offence", but neither was it Leeds'. What ****s.
Joe. Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 Bastards! Way to go and cripple a club. They've got no chance of staying up after this. I just hope they can stabalise the club and not end up doomed.
Joe. Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 That is stupid, they are taking advantage of smaller clubs, if it was a club like chelsea or UTD they would say dosent matter. Sorry Joe but that's a stupid comment. Course they wouldn't do it to United or Chelsea because club of their size would never get themselves into this position anyway!
Corky Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 What the Football League have got to do now is make sure every chairman, owner, consortium etc is fit and proper and able to run a football club the right way. They say this is a reflection on Luton going into administration three times before, but surely the Football League have a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of its members from crooks and no-gooders? Also, how does being in administration give anyone an advantage? You have a transfer embargo, many players may leave, the future, the very existence of the club is far from safe, how does that club benefit above stable clubs with minimal problems?
act smiley Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 Sorry Joe but that's a stupid comment. Course they wouldn't do it to United or Chelsea because club of their size would never get themselves into this position anyway! Manchester United have over £500m of debt secured against the club, Liverpool around £300m. Chelsea's debt is in the region of £600m but its owed to Abramovich instead of to banks like Man Utd and Liverpool's debts. Arsenal's are slightly lower, but they still got a fair few loans for the Emirates - think it was £150m? Newcastle had over £100m of debt and apparently were close to insolvency due to how badly run they were under Sheppard. A big club can get into trouble, it just takes an order of magnitude more debt and some really crap dealings to get them there. Its only seven years or so since a collapse of near that scale actually happened, after all.
Corky Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 Manchester United have over £500m of debt secured against the club, Liverpool around £300m. Chelsea's debt is in the region of £600m but its owed to Abramovich instead of to banks like Man Utd and Liverpool's debts. Arsenal's are slightly lower, but they still got a fair few loans for the Emirates - think it was £150m? Newcastle had over £100m of debt and apparently were close to insolvency due to how badly run they were under Sheppard. A big club can get into trouble, it just takes an order of magnitude more debt and some really crap dealings to get them there. Its only seven years or so since a collapse of near that scale actually happened, after all. And I bet that the authorities tried harder to help those clubs, compared with Luton.
Asha Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 What a joke, the authorities have basically killed Luton for this season. Unless they get 80 points, they are relegated. Why not just put them in the Conference now? That was the alternative. 30 point deduction or a place in non-league. It is harsh though, the 10 points maybe deserved, but an extra 20? Plus the fact they probably won't be able to buy players and have to accept any offer for any player means they're screwed.
MC Prussian Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 Unless Luton can pull off another Leeds the upcoming season, they're truly f"*%ed. I feel for the Hatters fans. Not really pleasant.
Bert Posted 10 July 2008 Posted 10 July 2008 Feel sorry for their fans. It's not their fault their club has been poorly run, but their taking the brunt of it, it will seem. Can see them going out of existence if they go down. I agree with what Daggers said about doing something.
Spiritwalker Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 Sorry Joe but that's a stupid comment. Course they wouldn't do it to United or Chelsea because club of their size would never get themselves into this position anyway! Many big clubs have got thmselves in trouble. Chelsea were apparently days away from administation before Abram took over. I'ts always the small clubs who get clobbered. -25 or -30 is extemely harsh when you consider W.Ham didn't have any points taken from them for staying up using an illegal player. I think the authorities make it up as they go along. This must be awful for the Luton fans, they are on the bring of extinction but instead of helping the league just sticks the boot in. What will make things worse for L.T fans is that up the road M.K's, a town with no football history were allowed to steal another clubs position in the league all with the blessing of the F.A and F.L . It's all total hypocrisy.
act smiley Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 The thing is, of the 3 clubs who are right in it at the minute, they're actually not in the worst shape - they've got a set of new investors coming in who, although though not that rich, have the money in place to stabilise the club. Its a hell of a long climb back up to where they were, but they're a lot less likely to be wiped off the map now. Bournemouth are the ones who looked to be screwed the most, I don't see where any extra cash is coming from for them - they just have that Mostyn chap messing about with them still. The thing that gets me is the repeated lies that West Ham try on doesn't get them points, yet when Luton's new guys come in and spot something dodgy done by the previous owners they come down hard on them but hardly touch the old lot. Not exactly logical, and now a completely unfair -5 bonus on top of it all.
DB11 Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 So explain how does going into administration give any advantage to on field activities, I don't quite know the in and outs of all these point deductions, not all are due to administration some (About 15 points I think ) are.How did it give us an unfair advantage on the field? With a transfer embargo? Couldn't pay our players - Yet they still performed for us? e.t.c? I normally have the view of "We (Leicester City) are the only club in the whole of the Football League who voted against a points deduction for going into administration, apparently everyone else voted for" If thats true my view is what goes around comes around but these points deduction's are just pathetic, crippleing and killing a football club. So you think starting the season on minus 30 points is perfectley fair? They're served more than enough punishment over the last few seasons!! If I was a luton fan, I'd be so dis-heartened by football now! I don't say I agree with the punishments but rules are there for a reason and these are the punishments that go with it.
Super Arj Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 feel sorry for them they were in the championship, with quality players and a quality manager look where they are now.. doomed to the blue square premier shit.. i thought leicester's story was bad enough
Lovejoy Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 Why punish the fans for the twats running the club and what they did? You look at the debts of the "big 4" and then see this happening, where's the justice?
Lichfieldfox. Posted 11 July 2008 Posted 11 July 2008 This whole thing is harsh. Luton's players are the prime example of "modern slavery." Where is Mr Blatter when you need him? Luton Town won't get him any headlines. Modern slavery is in Luton Town not with Manchester United's battle to hold on to Cristiano Ronaldo. Sepp Blatter come and help this poor little club stuffed by the FA
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.