Another 10 point deduction, that makes 25 in the past six months.

QPR supporters (and others) have all kinds of reasons not feel warm and fuzzy about Luton Town and their fans, but I can't help but wonder why the wrong people are being punished. Those guilty of mismanagement and misconduct are gone but the club and its supporters continues to pay the price. Also, it's probably paranoia but a decline in Luton's fortunes suspiciously parallels a rise in MK Dons'. If the club slides into the Conference — a distinct possibility — who benefits? Where do the fans go? A coincidence perhaps, just like the white shirts.

It's a problem, isn't it?

I have no time for Luton because I have first hand experience of the plastic pitch and identity card nonsense, but a good portion of the people who are suffering here are decent folks who once wore straw boaters and cheered Ricky Hill.

And at the same time serial offenders like Risdale, Bates and Batchelor are allowed to run free.

I continue to think that any solution to what is admittedly a difficult problem has to include a serious approach to the fit and proper person test. I'm the first to admit that the North American system is very, very far from perfect, but the degree of scrutiny that potential franchise owners are subject to is one of its better aspects.

I know they exist but are the FA's "Fit and Proper Person" criteria written down anywhere?

I have a soft spot for Luton. When I first moved to Hertfordshire from London, we used to get free tickets for Luton matches quite a lot. Also, I lived in one of those peculiar places which had two ITV regions, which meant that we had two regional football programmes each Sunday ("The Big Match" on London Weekend and "Match Of The Week" on Anglia). Luton also fell between these two regions and were covered by both channels a lot in the early 1980s - as much as The Big Clubs were at the time.

The plastic pitch and ID card nonsense were both after that, as was the decision to replace the Bobbers stand with a line of executive boxes, which are at Kenilworth Road to this day. All three of those "innovations" were the fault of the vile Tory MP, David Evans. It seems harsh to be blaming anything that was the fault of that odious little reptile on LTFC this far down the line.

Amor, from previous discussions with much more knowledgeable people (like Phoebe and Nathan), I believe the answer to that is essentially no and that the history is that essentially no one has ever failed it (though there does now seem to be a limit on how many clubs one can take into administration).

Ah, grazie 200. I've never seen those before.

The FA's are here. The Football League have a slightly different set - it doesn't relate to other sports or countries, but does stop people on the sex offenders list, which we all know is a very real problem.

The PL's doesn't apply to other sports (I think...) but does include crimes committed of a similar nature overseas.

It's a tough one; I want stronger sanctions against financial fuckups and idiocy; only by on-pitch sanctions will off-pitch behaviour improve. However, the point holds that the misdemeanours were committed by others no longer there. However, someone has to pay, so the problem for me isn't that punishment is visited on people not around at the time, its that the people around at the time are not vetted, scrutinised or otherwise overseen in any way.

There has been one failure, the guy at Rotherham who has overseen them go into two administrations. The FL argue that the lack of failures isn't evidence that it's not working, more that potential failures withdraw from the field and so never take the test, as it were.

A serious issue though for the game here is that the FA, FL and PL have all to varying degrees been dominated by laissez-faire promoting commercial lawyers in the crucial area of regulation. People shouldn't be under any misconception here; regulation not only doesn't happen because of the difficulties in getting regs approved by the members of various leagues (turkeys and xmas and all that) but getting them proposed is an uphill struggle.

We have a class of regulators who, if they are assertive at all, are paralysed by fear of legal challenge to their very authority.
Essentially, every regulation is a test-case that could remove the power to regulate. You can see the flaw though - the upshot is the same - no regulations in areas that matter.

Why oh why can't some way to be found to punish Leeds for this?

Nathan, let's let Joely and ursus minor get a bit older, and allow my pension to accrue, and then you and I can do a remake of Thelma and Louise with much less photogenic leads and (hopefully) a more upbeat ending.

twohundredpercent wrote:

QUOTE:
I have a soft spot for Luton.

I've always enjoyed trips to Kenilworth Road (apart from the time when I burned my mouth out on a pie). Also during my youth they were a top flight club for a few seasons so I've often imagined that their importance is far higher than it actually is.

I also remember a friend of mine asking his mum for a Liverpool shirt for Christmas and getting a Luton Town shirt (the one sponsored by BEDFORD). How this mistake could possibly have been made I'll never know - I'll also never understand why he still wore it.

That story almost mirrors a very famous Canadian children's book.

This is a total disgrace, actually.

Without Luton employees blowing the whistle, the FA would not have known a thing. The club have co-operated at every level, and the club has lost out financially, first by making extra, unneccessary payments, now by a fine. Tomlins was the perpetrator, and the only person who refused to co-operate. Naturally, the club has nothing to do with him anymore, so the club gets the bigger fine, and again has it's league status but under threat because of Tomkins (who also, helped guide them into administration).

Hopefully, Luton will appeal, and the powers that be will see sense, like they did when they overturned Spurs' 12 point deduction after Sugar blew the whistle on his predecessors' transgressions.

As for the 'Fit and Proper Persons Test'. It's a sham, and a total mockery. The test appears to consist of three questions:

Are you barred from being a company director?
Have you been a director of two football clubs who have been in administration since thethe 1st January 2004?
Can you read and sign your name?

If the answers are NO, NO, and YES, then you are a fit and proper person in the football league.

Ken Bates who liquidated Chelsea, at the expense of creditors in 1994, who has had three liquidations officially scrutineered, and placed Leeds in administration, retaining power thanks to major creditors being owned by unknown offshore investors, IS a fit and proper person.

David Sheepshanks, whose club still owed £32million *after* administration, is not just a fit amd proper person, but has also subsequently been appointed to the Football League Board, the Football Association Main Board and the Professional Game Board.

Alex Guterman, who did little to hide his intention of closing Wrexham FC, so he could sell the ground for proift IS a fit and proper person.

Only one person is currently not a fit and proper person, and that is Rotherham chairman Denis Coleman, who inerited their financial difficulties when he arrived. Had he stepped down the day before their second administration, he would be fine.

I know they exist but are the FA's "Fit and Proper Person" criteria written down anywhere?

That Burger King wrapper remains under lock and key in Soho Square, I'm afraid.

The League certainly don't have a soft spot for Luton. The've been docked another TWENTY points (30 in total), again for the actions of previous regimes.

QUOTE:
The Board of The Football League, at its meeting today, considered the current circumstances of three of its member clubs - Luton Town, Rotherham United and AFC Bournemouth.

LUTON TOWN

In the case of Luton Town, the Board considered an application from a new company, called Luton Town 2020, which has applied to join League 2 in place of the existing club, which is in administration.

Luton Town was unable to agree a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with its creditors and as a consequence is unable to satisfy the normal conditions of The League's insolvency policy for exiting administration. The Board decided, however, that it was prepared to exercise its absolute discretion under its 'exceptional circumstances' provisions in order to accommodate the new entity.

In accordance with recent precedent, the Board decided to include the following principle conditions of entry as a pre-requisite to the exercise of that discretion: -

1. The new company (Luton Town 2020) should pay the unsecured creditors the amount offered at the time of the CVA hearing (16 pence in the pound).
2. A 20 point deduction should apply in the 2008/09 season, which also takes into account the fact that this is the club's third insolvency event in the last ten years.