-15 points next season.

But on the bright side Watford loose 6-1 in the playoffs.

How do you feel?

tenchting myself more than you could ever imagine...

But still your pleased with -15 ??? It wont be as easy to overcome it as what we did and you could easily struggle again. Ill miss luton away :(

What are the exact reasons of the 15 point deductions?

I thought Leeds was because they did it after going down. So why have Luton now had 15 off (maybe)?

no no no no no nick

We got 10 points for going into admin (like luton, rotherham, halifax and bournemouth) it didnt matter about the timing. We did what was best for club at the time
We got 15 taken off us last summer for exiting admin without a CVA which the football league say you need. The taxman however wont accept the CVA (which means football creditors get paid in full in think) so we cant exit admin with one. Therefore the FL came up with -15 points or you go out of the league.

It wasnt a rule when we had the deduction but the FL have been make to make it a rule from now on

Well it hasn't happened yet. The chairman of 2020 confirmed this and so it does on the official site http://www.lutontown.co.uk/page/NewsDetail...1312516,00.html.


They (2020) said they will find out by early next month from the FA. What puzzles me is why Sky (and some others) published this, some people say they miss read the 2020 mission which is on the official site.

So you cant win then. That sounds a bit unfair.

Well done for last night I was delighted. Looked like great celebrations. One win away from Leeds away. It would be the third and fourth games I'd be looking for on the fixture list.

Erm, you realise you can only play Leeds away once, right? ;)

I know mate was an awesome night. The celebrations will stay with me forever. The terracing just added to the effect, you could dive wherever you wanted. Im not thinking about the final yet. I want afew more days to enjoy the fact that were off to wembley and then begin to worry next week sometime...especially if we play donny. Shame we cant play at a small ground like that again where the pressure is off

I dont even want to think of the games we could have again next year. Iv seen what this club does to you too many times to get ahead of myself

Good point. I should have worded that a bit better. The home one last season was just as good as the away one, and I'm not used to saying that.

Saw Donny but there fans were terrible. Southend outsung them at 4-0 down and were doign conga. Fairplay Sothend byut Donny were a joke

Its official.



http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/Ne...ement4Jun08.htm


10 points
50k fine

And still the -15 is in the balance about the CVA and all that stuff.


Punished for the wrong doing of others. How the trout Mitchell only gets 250 quid fine is fcuking sicking he should be hung from the goal posts at Kenilworth road the fcking cnut. The people fault it is get away scott free while the club and its fans suffer and left to pick up the pieces.

THE FA YOU ARE F**KING C**TS

But of course Grants sacking is much more important along with those yanks at Liverpool to the media instead of a proud club which is 123 years old and one of the first in the south to turn pro nearly going out of businesses and getting pillaged by certain people.

Its unfair.

A premiership club did something similar. They got fck all points taken off them (West Ham)


We a established league team get points off. While the people who are guilty ARE NO LONGER AT THE CLUB.

A small league team get punished by getting relegated twice. (Boston)

Its the unfairness that annoys me. I honesty believe the FA only want the prem and the rest of us are a mere hindrance.


As for England I changed my view. Fck them anything to do with the FA can fck off for all I care.

Would you rather a £5m fine then like West Ham got? :rolleyes:

Don't worry we also got a fine. Not that much compared to that but for a club our size a big enough fine. As for 5 million West Ham I guess they were thanking their lucky stars it was just a fine when they could of got points and therefore relegated.

While we get both <_<

Personally I think that any club that has got away with not paying its creditors in full without being liquidated has got off lightly. Don't forget that it is the club, as a legal entity, that spent more money than it had (and it shouldn't be forgotten that it is other people's money that they have spent), regardless of who was running the club at the time. Having said that, I do agree that the individuals responsible should also be held accountable moreso than they are now. A ban from involvement with football would be a start.

Can't argue with this one!

I agree with you on this one. The media bias towards the big clubs and the whole disregard for the lower leagues is something which I cannot stand. Very little coverage has been given to the liquidation of Halifax Town or Nuneaton Borough. However, the simple way to avoid this biased coverage is to ignore it. Since I started doing this I feel much less annoyed by it.

To spend beyond your means is cheating, just like match fixing and drug taking. There has to be a strict punishment to follow and Luton have recieved this, although I think 10 is enough. But I can see why your peed off, the person in charge of this should also be sternly punished, but Luton can not just enjoy the benefits of the money being pumped into them a couple of years ago, there have to be reprecussions.

And on the Division 1 bias, ye, I think your spot on, especially the obsession with the big 4. SKY have wet dreams about the big 4.

Right this is a good way to explain this, I saw this on one of our forums.

You buy a new house where the people who lived there before you committed a crime in that house lets say murder for this example, yet you as the current owner with nothing to do with them get sent down for it.

Now if that happened it be unfair. Luton(the new owners) told the FA about this stuff which happened before they got in and where honest yet still get the book thrown at them for being honest. of course there should be a punishment but it is the way the FA has handled it. It took them a year to get to this A YEAR. The main mover and shaker got fck all done to him and its the fans that are punished and I bet we get the 15 off as well as we have Bates and his Leeds mob complaing if we don't. (fair enough I admit we both did wrong and should get the same punishment, even though 15 points is a bit steep). All I hope is Luton appeal and get the 10 points back over this.


Money pumped into them. It wasn't given to Luton it went in the greedy cnuts back pocket eventually. They did it for their own gain no one elses. They didn't care about Luton.

The problem is that the analogy doesn't really work because a house can't act for itself as a legal entity (conduct transactions/borrow money etc.) whereas a football club can. The parallel situation would be if your current owners were being held personally responsible for the actions of the previous regime. They are not, as far as I know. The club is being held responsible for its actions as a legal entity.

Yes, the club admitted it, but that doesn't mean that punishment should be avoided, as you said. As for the way the FA handling of such matters, the words "consistency", "decisiveness" and "efficiency" are three words which should never be applied to anything the FA does. I agree that they are a shambles, and I also agree that the culprit should have been held responsible properly. Another joke is the FA's "fit and proper persons test". All the dodgy owners still get through.

It always is, because we're the only ones who care.

As I said before, if you're not paying creditors in full or they haven't agreed to write off the unpayable debt (via a CVA or otherwise), then losing points is light punishment IMO. Spending beyond your means is cheating and borrowing money and not paying it back is theft IMO. Personally I think that the punishment for entering administration should be a two league demotion and the punishment for not paying creditors and not getting a CVA should be liquidation. It's about time the FA took a hard line like they used to. There needs to be a greater deterrent.

Maybe the money went into his back pocket eventually, but the club may have benefitted from the extra cash at some point.

Of course, as far as I'm aware, the -10 points is for not conducting financial transactions properly (paying agents via a third party, I believe) rather than for entering administration. In this case, I would say that -10 points is sufficient penalty.

The club hardly did, I even go as far that it didn't. Ok the agents fees bollcoks I can get that and should be punished. But 10 points is very unfair especially as the current owners have owned up for someones else's mis doings in the name of Luton Town football club, but still get the same punishment if those people where still there.

Maybe I am being so defensive because it is Luton. But as I have already said look at West Ham they got a fine (abeit it a bigger one than us but thats not the point 5 mil is fck all to them) where as points would of hurt them more (like it does with us). Like you have pointed out they are not consistent. One rule for the "big" teams (I hate using big there is only one big team to me) and one for the rest of us.

Well, you probably know more about the effects on the club than I do, so I won't argue that any further. The problem of course arises in that it may be impossible for the FA to tell whether the club benefitted or not, so they have to assume that they were trying to gain an unfair advantage and must punish them regardless of the success of the offence.

Fair enough! I will also admit that part of the reason that I advocate such harsh punishment is probably because it is exactly what happened to my club back in 1992. The club was liquidated and reformed at the bottom. Football League Division 4 to Kent County League Division 4 West is quite a drop! Admittedly it happened before my time, but the club is still recovering from it.

Don't forget that from my point of view, Luton are a big team! Conference rules, for example, on admistration, corruption and the like are a hell of a lot stricter than Football League ones. The Isthmian League (my own club's league and a feeder to the Conference South) are also known for being quite strict. They were the ones who deducted 17 points from Wimbledon for fielding an ineligible player (in multiple games). Of course Wimbledon, being a relatively big club for the league, could attract good lawyers to challenge the decision and eventually get it reduced: a luxury which is not open to the likes of Burgess Hill Town. The big club gets away with it while the little one doesn't.

It seems that the bigger the club, the lighter the punishment. If West Ham committed the same offence as Luton, then they should have got the same punishment. I also think that fines should related to income, because as you said, a given amount of money is a lot to one club and peanuts to another.