[Duckys Moved]

spireiteblue, on Jul 15 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Hoare is a sad little man lets face it he hasn't even got a team to support

Don't you agree then SB ?

[mouldred]

Wiltshire Spireite, on Jan 14 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

You've got to feel sorry for the fans. We all want to beat any team on the pitch but for a club to go bust and end a history of football for a town is not good. Luton today - who tomorrow? I wouldn't rejoice for as the old saying goes 'by the grace of God go I'. The boot could easily be on the other foot for 95% of the football clubs in this country.

I feel sorry for Luton because they have been treated unfairly by the FA.

18 months ago West Ham got away with arguably more for alot less in punishment and it pains me to say the Blades shouldve stayed up.

One rule for big boys etc

[Tips M'Gee]

Totally agree. It would help Luton if they had an ex-player in a position of power at the FA!

[Duckys Moved]

spireiteblue, on Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

Of course not,lets look at it another way if the bigger clubs go then us little clubs have done.

Not necessarily.

I bet my house that if Roman pulled the plug on Chelsea and they went bust and were found guilty of irregularities they wouldn't get docked 30 points and every pundit on the planet would be asking everybody to help this giant of football as football would not be the same without Chelsea!!

[Sammy Spireite]

Duckys Moved, on Jul 15 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

Not necessarily.

I bet my house that if Roman pulled the plug on Chelsea and they went bust and were found guilty of irregularities they wouldn't get docked 30 points and every pundit on the planet would be asking everybody to help this giant of football as football would not be the same without Chelsea!!

If the plug was pulled from the Roman Bath at Stamford Bridge, Chelsea wouldn't go bust. Like Man Utd they would have a huge debt but it would be a servicable one.

I don't know the figures but i'd suggest most Premiership Teams are in 7 or 8 figure debt.

[Aspire_webby]

Alex Green, on Jul 16 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

looks like they may well need to be on league winning form just to stay up. i think they will be looking at 80 points to stay up which would take them to 50 points. If they dont, they are royally twaddled and down to the BGBLPD (British Gas Business League Premier Division)

75 would have done it last season - a solid play-off season. Problem is they are in rebuilding mode and unlikely to put that kind of side together quickly I think. Also they will have to put in a play-off season and will still prbably confirm survival only on the last day of the season. That will take some character - I guess they are looking for a few players with the Rob Page attitude - "We need to be ruthless".

I do feel sorry for them - but I feel more sorry for football. The FL seem to have lost control of the situation and are dealing with it by making increasingly draconian decisions that are making life difficult for new owners who are trying to act with integrity and put a club back on a sound footing. That isn't good or football and neither is a competition that is compromised by an increasing number of administrative decisions. Division 2 will probably start with 4 deductions confirmed and you may possibly add 1 or 2 more deductions to that during the course of the season. That doesn't create the circumstances for a competitive league.

[dtp]

Aspire_webby, on Jul 16 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

75 would have done it last season - a solid play-off season. Problem is they are in rebuilding mode and unlikely to put that kind of side together quickly I think. Also they will have to put in a play-off season and will still prbably confirm survival only on the last day of the season. That will take some character - I guess they are looking for a few players with the Rob Page attitude - "We need to be ruthless".

I do feel sorry for them - but I feel more sorry for football. The FL seem to have lost control of the situation and are dealing with it by making increasingly draconian decisions that are making life difficult for new owners who are trying to act with integrity and put a club back on a sound footing. That isn't good or football and neither is a competition that is compromised by an increasing number of administrative decisions. Division 2 will probably start with 4 deductions confirmed and you may possibly add 1 or 2 more deductions to that during the course of the season. That doesn't create the circumstances for a competitive league.

First of all I have to say I feel sorry for the supporters of Luton - I've enjoyed a little banter with them over the years and fully appreciated their response to the vintage Glyn Hurst goal.

However, the buck has to stop somewhere - I think a 15 points, not 20, would have been in line with previous punishments but I don't know the full circumstances.

Again though, look what happened at Rotherham (again I feel for their supporters) - the lot that took them out of admin the last but one time led them back into admin rather quickly again - why? Because they didn't handle the finances cautiously enough. They spent when other clubs prudently didn't. Their spending gave them an advantage in playing terms over those clubs that handled their budgets better - isn't that unfair competition? So equally it would be unfair to allow such clubs to do this willy nilly by not punishing them.

[Aspire_webby]

dtp, on Jul 16 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

First of all I have to say I feel sorry for the supporters of Luton - I've enjoyed a little banter with them over the years and fully appreciated their response to the vintage Glyn Hurst goal.

However, the buck has to stop somewhere - I think a 15 points, not 20, would have been in line with previous punishments but I don't know the full circumstances.

Again though, look what happened at Rotherham (again I feel for their supporters) - the lot that took them out of admin the last but one time led them back into admin rather quickly again - why? Because they didn't handle the finances cautiously enough. They spent when other clubs prudently didn't. Their spending gave them an advantage in playing terms over those clubs that handled their budgets better - isn't that unfair competition? So equally it would be unfair to allow such clubs to do this willy nilly by not punishing them.

I don't disagree that something has to be done to ensure a level playing field. In that case a deduction should apply to the season in which the advantage is percieved to have been gained. At the moment we are looking at a severe deduction being imposed before a ball has been kicked. I also can see that there are some situations that deserve a punishment whatever other circumstances occur. However, the FLs position has continued to harden with the number and severity of penaties rising and yet clubs are still getting into difficulties and earning deductions and fines.

This tells me that the FL have thir heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that the current approach is failing and needs an urgent review. In particular they might ask why people who are undoubtedly unfit to run a football club are still apparently taking control of the clubs under the FLs influence with such ease. That requires judgements to be made and action to be taken before the event not afterwards.

In the case of Luton it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the deductions meted out mean the club will be relegated. If that is the FLs intention then they should stand up and be counted and relegate Luton. If not then they should review the deductions and ensure that they are reasonable in relation to what I always assumed was their intent - that is, to ensure Luton gain no advantage from their misdemeanours.

[Wooden Spoon]

dtp, on Jul 16 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

Again though, look what happened at Rotherham (again I feel for their supporters) - the lot that took them out of admin the last but one time led them back into admin rather quickly again - why? Because they didn't handle the finances cautiously enough. They spent when other clubs prudently didn't. Their spending gave them an advantage in playing terms over those clubs that handled their budgets better - isn't that unfair competition? So equally it would be unfair to allow such clubs to do this willy nilly by not punishing them.

You would think that the first couple of years after a CVA, the club would be running its finances as tightly as league status would allow, and then perhaps loosen the strings. To `gamble` at that stage is stupid, and while I sympathise with the fans, I can but shake my head in dissbelief at the club and its directors.