Martin Samuel responds to the debate: do Luton deserve to lose 35 points?

As Luton Town face more point deductions, Martin Samuel argues that penalties meted out in the lower leagues are increasingly draconian. It's a topic that has aroused great feeling from readers and here Martin responds to their replies.

It appears to me that the Football Association is afraid of the Premier League and this is why it has made half-hearted efforts to expose the illegal goings on there while getting tough with punishments to lower league clubs. The FA bully teams outside the Premier League. Ian Baldwin.

MS: There is some truth in this. The Premier League clubs wish to operate at the very outer-reaches of what is legal, and they also wish to self-regulate, which is why when a serious infringement occurs, for instance Ashley Cole’s meeting with Chelsea while still an Arsenal player, the FA is kept away. In turn, this probably suits the FA, which does not want to take on the most powerful clubs.

The big clubs are desperate to increase their market reach, hence initiatives like the 39th game. However, it is much easier to force a few local clubs out of business, bring the number of professional clubs down to 70 and mop up the floaters created by this meltdown. Kill off Stockport County and both Manchester teams can share the spoils; the same with Tranmere Rovers on Merseyside. It is pure Thatcherism and the FA will be much happier if we visit a handful of shiny grounds to see the umpteenth clash of Arsenal and Manchester United. The accountants at Old Trafford have this all on PowerPoint. Mark, Switzerland.

MS: I’m all for a good conspiracy theory, Mark, but that one is crackers. For a start, the FA is not in league with the big clubs financially, if anything they are at loggerheads, so creating a new fan base for Manchester United is not on their list of priorities. As for the demise of Stockport County boosting attendances at Old Trafford, I doubt anyone at United would even notice a longer queue at the chip shop. They get crowds of 70,000-plus quite comfortably already, thank you, and I have never, ever, in many years of talking to people in football, heard anyone at a major club envy or begrudge the 3,000 that turn up to watch the fourth division team down the road. Nobody at Arsenal is sitting in a corner, twirling his moustache, plotting ways to undermine Leyton Orient and add 5,000 names to their season ticket waiting list. And which dark power would benefit from Luton’s demise anyway? Watford?

The fraud squad should have been called in at the very beginning to investigate the criminal activities of the previous board. Why have they got away with such small fines? A football club is a business and in any other business they would possibly be facing a jail sentence. Tracey.

MS: No, they wouldn’t, Tracey; but I agree the punishment seems light on those responsible, in comparison to the damage done to the club.

Reading the FA statement it would appear there was no corruption, bungs or backhanders of any kind, and Luton Town’s crime was that payments were made through a holding company and not the FA. Had the payments been routed this way there would have been no breach. The FA had informally warned Bill Tomlins, the chairman, of this so were then negligent in not following up. In effect, Luton went from an informal warning to a £50,000 fine and a ten point deduction, with no formal warning stage in the middle, and the offence only came to light because the new owners reported it. Even then, various agents were also involved in this breach of regulations, yet were only given a slap on the wrist. Knowing this, I would like to ask the following: Was the FA aware of the irregular payments before they were reported as is suggested by the issue of an informal warning? Did the club benefit from the irregular payments? Is it now FA policy to punish a financial breach, which has no bearing upon matters on the pitch, with a playing sanction and in the light of the Carlos Tevez case, is it FA policy to punish a playing breach, which has an impact upon the pitch, with a financial sanction? What deterrent do sanctions have if those that commit the breach are no longer involved in the club? How does deducting a struggling club ten points protect the game? How do irregular payments cause detriment to the game? Why do the punishments have such variation? What incentive do club officials now have to report rule breaches? Why does tapping up a player, as Chelsea did with Ashley Cole, result in a suspended three point deduction, yet a technical breach results in a ten point deduction? Why has it taken 18 months to reach a decision on this matter, when the facts have been available from the start? Nick Pirie.

MS: These are all valid questions, Nick, and the FA would be in a better position to answer them. All I would say is that if representatives of Luton Town do take the matter further, any pressure group must make sure it hones its target. The Tevez and Cole rulings were not made by the FA, but by the Premier League, and Soho Square cannot be held responsible. And, by the way, the Premier League would argue that Tevez was a technical rule breach, too. But more of that in a moment.

Having supported Luton Town since the sixties, I am appalled at the double standards of the FA. I have submitted the following to http://petitions.pm.gov.uk in the hope it will be posted online. It takes about five days if accepted. I urge all football supporters to sign in support. “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ask the Football Association to explain it's double standards when punishing clubs, referring to the huge discrepancy in the treatment of West Ham United (a wealthy Premier League team) and the disproportionate treatment of Luton Town (a team in administration) the first clearly gaining an on field advantage through its actions and the latter clearly not, given that Luton have suffered consecutive relegations. The lower echelons of football deserve equal treatment in order to preserve the long term future of football in this country.” Colin Dormer.

MS: Colin, you have my sympathy, but Tevez was nothing to do with the FA, and because so many posters have mentioned this case as either a precedent or a miscarriage of justice, it needs explanation. The full version of this is available in a column published on May 16, 2007. This is the quick capsule version. West Ham United broke rule U18 which governed third party influence on policy and performance. Until then, rule U18 was considered to deal with club ownership and be in place to prevent an investor having an interest in multiple clubs. With reference to players, there is no equivalent of it in many of the leagues around Europe. Tevez was a West Ham player from August 31. He did not need special dispensation to play. And the suggestion that he would not have been able to represent West Ham had the club told the truth about his contract is also a red herring. Even had West Ham disclosed every financial arrangement on the day of the transfer, the player would still have been registered, even with an unworkable contract. Premier League lawyers would then have spent several days with club lawyers knocking out each contractual arrangement that was not permitted, which is what happened when Javier Mascherano signed for Liverpool. Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, states that the large majority of contracts with foreign players need some work before being finally ratified. The clause that brought the signing of Tevez into dispute, stating a third party could move him on at any time, would have been ironed out. You may feel this is too lenient, but it is Premier League policy to read softly, as is the decision not to have set punishments for offences, unlike the Football League. Nothing in the rule book says West Ham should have been deducted points; this presumption comes from a misjudged and unnecessary statement made the by then independent panel that heard the case, saying it would have deducted points at a different time in the season. This does not alter the fact that West Ham officials lied, but they were given the biggest fine in football’s history for that.

This is supposed to be a debate. Where are the comments saying this is fully justified or that Luton deserve their penalty? Simon M.

MS: Meet Josh.

I don't hate Luton, and I feel sorry for the fans, but I can see a good case for the club being chucked out of the Football League. They have benefited from breaking the rules, albeit those benefits were squandered. While punishing the club now doesn't seem fair on Luton fans, not to do so is unfair on everyone else. If the crooks at Luton had not squandered the bounty of their rule-breaking, then there would be no debate about Luton being severely punished. Josh.

MS: I agree with the last point. There are many reasons to believe Luton were harshly treated but the fact that the benefits of their rule-breaking were squandered is not among them. Robbery is no less an offence if the robber fails to get away with the loot. Not that Luton’s wrong-doing literally equates to robbery, you understand.

The FA have had over a year to deal with this, in the meantime the previous board of Luton have legged it after putting the club into administration, so how is this punishment fair on the club, the current owners and the fans? Luton's new owners have had to deal with cleaning up the mess of the previous board and are now punished by the governing body for their previous misdemeanours. Mark.

MS: The delays in such cases are a joke. Never forget, the Premier League became aware of a problem with the Tevez transfer as early as January, and it was April before the disciplinary panel sat. Had it been dealt with more promptly the concerns about a points penalty equating to relegation for West Ham would not have been present; had FA action on Luton been swifter there would have been a greater chance of punishing the guilty men.

I have never understood the docking of points when a club enters administration. If a club is in serious financial difficulties, it seems ridiculous to risk decreasing income and exacerbating the problem. Barrie Collins.

MS: It is to stop a club recklessly living beyond its means, buying players that give it an advantage over the opposition, and then using administration as a safety net. A club that is doing everything right could miss out on promotion, while a rival that spends with abandon and jeopardizes its future might, in the short-term, succeed. Viewed like this, the principle makes sense, although the punishments, particularly those related to Creditors Voluntary Agreements, seem draconian.

This is a letter I sent to the Football Association.

Could the FA please explain the rationale behind the disciplinary decision made on June 4, 2008 with regards to Luton Town Football Club? The principle behind any sensible disciplinary action must be (a) to punish the offender and (b) to deter anyone engaged in or contemplating similar offences. Bearing in mind that the perpetrators are no longer involved with the club and that, as the FA is well aware, the takeover by a new consortium is imminent, just who is the points deduction intended to punish? In relation to deterrent value, these issues were brought to the attention of the FA by long serving and loyal members of the club. It is those employees who are working with the prospective owners, in what I am sure are very trying circumstances to bring the club back to life after the previous administration. Does the FA accept that it is in fact employees in similar positions at other clubs who will be deterred as a result of the decision, whilst culpable directors will see themselves as largely untouchable as long as they jump ship before any decision is made? Could the FA please also explain the vast discrepancies in punishments meted out to Luton Town (who the chairman of the committee confirmed obtained no financial or sporting advantage), and to Premier League clubs found guilty of transfer irregularities that did result in advantages? What mitigating factors, other than the potential loss of Premier League revenue, were present in those decisions that were not present in the Luton Town case? Finally, could the FA please explain the delay in reaching the decision, and the reason for applying it prospectively? Surely a retrospective deduction to take into account the delay would have had precisely the same deterrent effect? I am writing as a supporter of the club for some thirty years and a supporter of lower league football generally. The FA’s attempt to clean up the sport is laudable, but if it does not do so in a sensible, fair and above all consistent way it will result in all but Premier League football being swept up and consigned to history for ever. Mark C.

MS: Brilliant letter, Mark, logical and therefore pretty much unanswerable by those in power. Good luck getting a satisfactory reply.

Luton’s crime? Paying legitimate fees from the wrong bank account. Not stealing or avoiding payments, but paying them in good faith and in good time. No advantage gained on the field of play. The FA decision is out of touch with football and its supporters. Neutered by the Premier League, it is determined to take its anger out on and destroy the sort of club that is football’s life blood. John RS.

MS: I agree, John. It does seem that the treatment of lower league clubs has grown inversely proportional to the FA’s power to pronounce on the behaviour of the Premier League.

An initial decision was made in November 2007, yet it has taken seven months to make a decision on the penalty. Steve Eade.

MS: So the punishment should have been retrospective, which is the point made by Mark in his letter to the FA. The bad precedent was set by the treatment of Boston United, who were promoted as a result of the benefits of financial irregularity, but were given a points deduction for the following season, which benefited the clubs in the fourth tier instead.

Let the Football League and the FA show that they believe in having fit and proper people running football clubs. The new owners are not Ken Bates, the Leeds United chairman, buying back a club he put into administration. Graeme Jones.

MS: Ah, Leeds United: the club that was given a 15-point deduction that the representatives of Luton Town voted for (along with a majority of Football League clubs). You’ll appreciate the irony. Now here is Scotty to explain why that was such a dumb move.

With the recent government rules regarding exiting administration, the Inland Revenue cannot negotiate a deal for special treatment and has to stand as a creditor alongside all the others. Once football debts are paid at 100 per cent as per FA and Football League rules, if the debt to the Revenue is over 50 per cent of the total (which is almost always the case), they have taken the stance to vote against any CVA even when all other creditors vote for it. It will therefore be impossible in most cases for clubs to exit via a CVA and therefore any club in administration is likely to face a ten point penalty going into administration and 15 the following season coming out. Scotty.

MS: And finally…

Perhaps if Luton Town had been formed by stealing a football club from 70 miles away, the FA might have looked upon us more favourably. Andy C.

MS: Don’t get me started, Andy. Don’t get me started.

Comments

[Roger Lambert]

As a longstanding Luton supporter of 50 years, I too believe that the punishment does not fit the crime, and agree with many of the comments made.
There is one matter that hasnt yet, to my knowledge, been aired or answered - Why were these payments made through Luton's Holding company?
I believe the answer may be simple - that the then Luton Manager Mike Newell didnt want to make payments to agents, and the then Luton Chairman was trying to hide these payments from Newell. Tomlins appeared to be weak in his dealings with Newell and didnt wish to rock the boat as at the time Luton were on the rise and Newell was generally well regarded by the fan base.
Perhaps Bill Tomlins or someone at the club can tell us the answer to 'why'.

[Steve Garrett]

Surely the simple solution to this issue would be to "suspend" the point deduction in light of the guilty parties no longer being a part of the clubs operation. IT would show that the FL and FA are prepared to dish out the points (the deterrent), but show consideration for the fans and the new ownership. If the new owners of LTFC are guilty of any future infractions over the next (let's say) five years, the point deduction is activated.

[Elaine]

The Leeds fans and players did nothing wrong, the FL always take the easy way out they never punish the directors concerned. Where was your support for Leeds when we needed it? Life is going to be tough for Luton good luck for next season

[paul]

I don't rememeber a 'do Leeds United deserve a 15 point deduction' article.

[Michael Flaherty]

Hi Martin
I've received a reply from the FA concerning an email I sent complaining about the severity of the points deduction. The gist of it is that the Regulatory Commission wanted the sentence to act as a deterrent to others. How it can act as a deterrent when the people who perpertrated the acts won't feel any of the effects of the punishment I don't know? Typically woolly-headed thinking from the FA in my opinion. If anything this is only likely to deter whistle-blowers from coming forward and encourage those who may be doing illegal acts that if they simply walk away the club will cop all the punishment. It's about time the FA required a bond to be paid by all directors which would be forfeit if they were found guilty of irregularities.

[Darren Brown]

Luton Town FC should recieve NO fine or points deduction

Leeds, may moan if we got let off the minus 15 points, but it's Bates who pulled off the fast one & tried to take the ten point penalty when it never mattered & then the he amazingly buys Leeds back, but with a lot less debt! the football League had to do something about this & so they rightfully deducted Leeds 15 points but in a sort of way had to justify this by setting it as a precedent, our case though is different, we shouldn't receive the same punishment

West Ham's crimes were far worse than ours & it's well documented by others & is a fact that they had a decision made in DAYS, not YEARS & received no point deduction & a fine which was a fraction of the jackpot they won by staying in the premiership. If thats their punishment on the points deduction then we also should receive a no points deduction.

Jayten, actually did this club out of money & ran off into the sunset as soon as they were rumbled by brave employees of the club & driven out by the supporters consortium 20/20, meanwhile the FA harp on about it's WHISTLE BLOWER HOT LINE. the club were harmed by jayten how can the club & it's new owners be punished for this, when the only ones benefitting were the crooks of Jayten?

Time, Finally the amount of time that has elapsed since Mike Newell blew the whistle 2 years ago, any FA punishment should of happened last season & not been dragged into a new season at a club that is innocent & clean where alsothe fans have had a horrendous time.

Football League 15 points is far to much, why not a maximum of 5 points or a suspended points deduction over 5 years,

Football Association, you have cocked this up big time, just admit it, I know you can't enforce anything on the members of Jayten, but it's wrong because of this to take it out on the football club it's incoming owners & most importantly it's supporters!

Wake up F.A.