Author Topic: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread  (Read 73396 times)

stew

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #180 on: April 19, 2008, 04:16:44 PM »
Leeds should take their punishment of 15 points, get on with qualifying for the play-off, and if that is achieved, concentrate on winning promotion. Unfair to change the rules at this stage. If Leeds get some or all of the points back there will be some loser out on a automatic or play-off promotion place. If Leeds are good enough they will go up, plus there will be greater satisfaction.

Leeds should have expected the same fate as West Ham except the fine should have been smaller given that they play in a much lower league. The should never have been docked the points imo in the first place. To impose that kind of sanction on a team already strugling for survival is ridiculous in my opinion, this action would kill most clubs who  already circle the drain.
Armagh, the one true love of a mans life.

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #181 on: April 25, 2008, 10:18:41 PM »
Yeovil 0 Leeds 1 FT, great result. Now we are guarnteed the play offs.
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

Hurler on the Bitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Bring Back Dinny Cahill....
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #182 on: April 25, 2008, 10:24:14 PM »
Must say.. On Leeds... I have finished Dave Peace's book 'The Damned United' on Brian Clough's 44 days at Leeds in 1974 and I must say it is a cracking read... although there is a bit of poetic license, regarding what went on, he has the facts surrounding the whole thing right and has Clough sussed out ... too big for his boots, young man....

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #183 on: April 25, 2008, 10:27:40 PM »
Must say.. On Leeds... I have finished Dave Peace's book 'The Damned United' on Brian Clough's 44 days at Leeds in 1974 and I must say it is a cracking read... although there is a bit of poetic license, regarding what went on, he has the facts surrounding the whole thing right and has Clough sussed out ... too big for his boots, young man....

Himself and Giles got on well though according to that book ::).
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #184 on: April 25, 2008, 10:32:54 PM »
Leeds should take their punishment of 15 points, get on with qualifying for the play-off, and if that is achieved, concentrate on winning promotion. Unfair to change the rules at this stage. If Leeds get some or all of the points back there will be some loser out on a automatic or play-off promotion place. If Leeds are good enough they will go up, plus there will be greater satisfaction.

In fairness Leeds didnt break the rules. The 15pt deduction is completely seperate to the adminstration which we were already deducted 10pts. It is do with the work carried out by our adminstraters and ethicetc(cant spell that word) around coming out of adminstration. I posted a full article Yorkshire EP on AFR but will post it here so everyone can read it for themselves.

In fairness to us as everyone says football is won on the field. If that was the case we'd be top by 2 tonight.
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #185 on: April 25, 2008, 10:40:46 PM »
Here is the article on Leeds 15 pt hearing, make your own mind up..............

The confidentiality clause by which Leeds United promised to solemnly abide has not prevented an air of confidence from flowing through Elland Road in anticipation of next week's arbitration tribunal.
The club agreed reluctantly to allow the hearing to proceed in private, but it does not take a talent for reading between the lines to gauge their mood.

Leeds are optimistic; optimistic to the point of expectant, and convinced that their dissection of an alleged injustice has produced a compelling argument against their 15-point penalty.

Ken Bates was not exaggerating when he said United were burrowing into every area of the Football League's rules and policy, and the 27-page claim form submitted to the High Court in February is evidence of how deeply Leeds have delved to undermine the legitimacy of their deduction.

United's appeal did not reach the judiciary but the claim submitted on February 12, and signed by their director Mark Taylor, is likely to be employed in its entirety when a panel of three convene to rule on the 15-point punishment next week.

The legal establishment's understanding of a complex case is better than ours, but it is clear that Leeds will enter the arbitrational proceedings pre-armed.

Their case against the Football League is thoughtful and detailed, the result of six months of investigating the whys and wherefores of their penalty. While not a guarantee of outright victory, it gives Leeds a credible chance.

Details of the League's defence are not on public record, but the organisation will be asked to answer some pertinent questions.

Why, for example, did the League vote against the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposed by Leeds when agreeing a CVA was a fundamental part of their insolvency policy?

The body stood to be paid in full for the 188,000 they were owed, and the absence of a CVA was largely responsible for United's points deduction. The League's rejection of the arrangement put to them was "arbitrary and unfair", Leeds claim, and evidence of prejudice.

United's legal team will ask the tribunal to consider whether it is appropriate for an organisation to reject a CVA and then sanction the club in question for failing to implement it.

The motivation for the legal challenge made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) against United's CVA is another area of fierce contention.

HMRC sought a judicial review after the voluntary arrangement was initially passed by a majority of 75.2 per cent, and their contest was the catalyst for the CVA's collapse in July. KPMG, who had drawn up the proposal, withdrew it with the insistence that Leeds lacked the funds to continue operating while the case was settled in court.

In what appears to be an attempt to distance themselves from the process of administration, Leeds will claim that the decision to complete an administrators' sale a direct sale made without a CVA was the responsibility of KPMG, and not the club.

Moreover, they will tell the tribunal that their bid for the club was the highest available, and the most rewarding for their unsecured creditors.
The full article contains 528 words and appears in EP Leeds First & County newspaper.

The offer made by Bates is listed in the High Court claim as being worth 52.9p in the , compared to 32.2p proposed by the second-highest bid.

The figure of 52.9p clearly includes the sum that will be paid to creditors in the event that United are promoted to the Premiership and the true pay-out is presently closer to 11p in the . But the Football League themselves appear to have conceded that the best offer on the table was the one accepted by KPMG.

On the question of HMRC's uncooperative stance, the debate over the reimbursement of 'football creditors' will also be raised again.

Leeds claim that the Revenue's challenge against the CVA was driven by what Bates calls "intransigence", and its dissatisfaction with Football League rules requiring players, managers and relevant footballing institutions to be paid in full by insolvent clubs. It is a key demand placed on every club in administration that wishes to regain its membership of the League.

HMRC an unsecured creditor has, by its own admission, adopted a militant stance towards CVAs proposed by professional clubs and its opposition has hindered Bournemouth's move out of administration. An administrators' sale is on the cards at Dean Court, which means, in theory, that another 15-point deduction may by in the offing.

Leeds' assessment of HMRC's stance is, in truth, only part of the story. According to the club's claim form, the legal challenge against the CVA was partially driven by the Revenue's doubt over the validity of the voting rights given to three different creditors Astor Investment Holdings Limited, Mark Taylor & Company and Yorkshire Radio Limited.

All three debts helped to approve the CVA and all were sanctioned with legal advice, but it does dampen the argument that HMRC's challenge was driven solely by frustration or spite. The Revenue felt it had a legitimate complaint, though the validity of its claim was never proved. The administrators' sale by KPMG killed the challenge instantly.

But it was the direct sale to Bates which made a CVA impossible to implement.

United believe that in meeting their football debts in full enough names were removed from the club's list of creditors to leave HMRC with a voting share in excess of 25 per cent big enough to oppose any offer put to them. No deal which promised less than the Revenue's entire debt of over 7m would have been considered acceptable.

The difficulty with which Bournemouth are shaking off insolvency is apparent evidence that the Revenue's opposition is being applied consistently, rather than specifically.

The crux of next week's argument, however, may be whether the Football League have the power or the jurisdiction to punish a club in United's position with a sanction of any sort.

Leeds contend that, in the eyes of the League, they broke no rules

They are also adamant that no area of the organisation's regulations relating to either membership of the League or the matter of insolvency offers provision to penalise a club with a 15-point deduction.

The rules are open to interpretation, and the League are likely to argue differently, but United's claim form reads: "There is no general jurisdiction for the League to impose penalties in the way it has done in relation to Leeds."

It is a point they will press on the tribunal with force. So closely have the rules been scrutinised that United's claim cannot be said to have been made on a whim.

Complications exist, inevitably, and Leeds are expected to be asked to explain why they are challenging the Football League when an agreement was signed in August confirming that they would not do so.

The club will state that they assumed the League had the power to impose their penalty, an assumption which they now believe was "wrong in law". They will also insist that their takeover met the three priorities stated by the Football League in a press release relating to Bates' takeover, which were "the continuation of the football club...secondly, payment in full to football creditors and, finally, the best possible return for all other creditors."

The tribunal might agree.

It is, inherently, a complex case about which no pre-conceptions can be made. According to those with knowledge of arbitration proceedings, talk of a pre-arranged deal returning a reduced number of points is nonsense. The men named on the tribunal panel Sir Philip Otton, Peter Cadman and Peter Leaver seem too legally-minded for that.

But while the Football League have seemed the most likely winners from the word go, it may not now be prudent to make assumptions about their success either.
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

Hurler on the Bitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Bring Back Dinny Cahill....
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #186 on: April 25, 2008, 10:52:58 PM »
Must say.. On Leeds... I have finished Dave Peace's book 'The Damned United' on Brian Clough's 44 days at Leeds in 1974 and I must say it is a cracking read... although there is a bit of poetic license, regarding what went on, he has the facts surrounding the whole thing right and has Clough sussed out ... too big for his boots, young man....

Himself and Giles got on well though according to that book ::).

Giles and Clough both hated each other with gusto   :P.. but the notion that old big head could walk in there and make a p***k out of  the whole team.. the last chapter when Clough is leaving leeds in a brand new Merc and a cheque for 25,000 makes you think....

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #187 on: April 25, 2008, 10:59:40 PM »
Must say.. On Leeds... I have finished Dave Peace's book 'The Damned United' on Brian Clough's 44 days at Leeds in 1974 and I must say it is a cracking read... although there is a bit of poetic license, regarding what went on, he has the facts surrounding the whole thing right and has Clough sussed out ... too big for his boots, young man....

Himself and Giles got on well though according to that book ::).

Giles and Clough both hated each other with gusto   :P.. but the notion that old big head could walk in there and make a p***k out of  the whole team.. the last chapter when Clough is leaving leeds in a brand new Merc and a cheque for 25,000 makes you think....

Makes you think - things were similiar under Risdale reign, I read fowlers autobiography aswell, His chapter on leeds is called "take the money and run son" a director of leeds said that him while he was driving away in his merc too :P. Although Bates is EX chelsea he wont throw away money like past regimes. 44 days book was good read for sure.
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #188 on: April 29, 2008, 10:46:23 PM »
According to SKY SPORTS NEWS the Verdict of the arbriatration will be announced at 5 o clock on Thursday. :-\.
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

Billys Boots

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5958
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #189 on: April 30, 2008, 09:18:47 AM »
Quote
Dave Peace's book 'The Damned United'

Absolutely marvellous read, best sports book I've read in a long, long time - even if it does take a bit of poetic licence.
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

Ryano

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Constans Hiberniae Cor
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #190 on: May 01, 2008, 05:07:33 PM »
Appeal rejected. Full 15 point deduction to remain. b**tards!

http://www.leedsunited.com/page/NewsroomDetail/0,,10273~1303526,00.html

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #191 on: May 01, 2008, 05:27:23 PM »
Leeds appeal rejected for no good reason only timing????????? and the effect it has on other clubs.
What about the fact that it was unlawful in the first place just ignored because it is so close to end of the season.
They also blamed leeds for the delays which were the football leagues fault. b**tards is right. I'll explain more later. >:( >:( >:( >:(
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

SLIGONIAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #192 on: May 01, 2008, 06:16:37 PM »
Right lads just listened to a 20 minute interview of Bates on Yorkshire radio.

Unbelieavble stuff. He said it was a morale victory for Leeds and that weve been done on a Technicality.

The arbitration said in a very gentlemanly way that the football league procedures have to change. Basically because of the procedure where club in administration have to waivy the right of appeal. Leeds were told by football to do this last yr or get kicked out of the league. So leeds signed and still pursued the matter. Only for our competiters to get to have a say on our punishment. Injustice or what.

Bates also said several chairmen who voted against leeds then have since admitted despite them feeling leeds were right that in there own SELF INTEREST they voted against us.

Also he said you'll see the swansea chairman saying decision was right etc and the gillingham chairman aswell both of whom dont know the facts. Lets stuff the gills this weekend and send them to Lg 2. Karma.

Leeds also stated the technicallity was them doing everything in line with the insolvency procedures of football league but it is not lawful in the eyes of the inland revenue. Leeds payed there creditors in full but not inland revenue. Which p**ied off Lord mawhinney and hes been out to get us since.

The arbitration panel put blame on leeds for the delays. Bates said that is false. We wanted arbitration since AUGUST. But football league decided to put it to our competitors.

Bates said there has been miscarriages of justice before and here we are again. He said hes sorted out the mess left by other owners.

The only way justice will be served IF LEEDS UTD GO UP. The fact of the matter is timing was the main reason they gave and that tough s**h yee delayed it. That means if we had got arbritration in October wed probably have won.

Bates last sentence was this, "If this is justice then Im a BANANA :D.






This next bit is more of the same from another forum.

A three-day hearing reached its conclusion behind closed doors on Thursday in London where Leeds failed to convince a three-man panel that the League acted unfairly when docking the points as punishment for breaking competition rules on insolvency.

The hearing's decision to rule in the League's favour sees Leeds stay in sixth place in League One - and they must now hope to secure promotion via a play-off place.

The hearing's decision to rule in the League's favour sees Leeds stay in sixth place in League One and they must now hope to secure promotion via the play-offs.

The verdict will be met with huge celebration by Swansea, Doncaster, Carlisle and Nottingham Forest, who had all been braced for possible legal action had the three-man panel overturned Leeds' sanction.

If Leeds had been handed back all 15 points they would have jumped from sixth to second, ousting Doncaster from an automatic promotion spot, while Swansea would not have been assured of the League One title.

Leeds chairman Ken Bates confirmed he would accept the tribunal's findings, but was aggrieved at its criticism of Leeds for the delay in bringing about the action.

A club statement said: "In making the decision the panel took into account the detailed submissions made by both parties.

"The panel were critical of the length of time taken by Leeds United in bringing this action to have the 15-point decision overturned.

"We feel this finding is unjust as the club sought to oppose the imposition of the penalty from August 30, 2007 onwards.

"We did accept the imposed condition of a 15-point penalty subject to an appeal to member clubs.

"As at August 3, 2007 we had no option but to do so. If we had not the club would have been lost forever, which was far too big a price for anyone to pay.

"It is galling therefore that we are criticised for the delay in bringing the appeal when it was delays by the Football League that effectively backed us into this corner in the first place."

The statement continued: "The appeal to member clubs was imposed by the Football League.

"We have been critical of this throughout and felt justified therefore that the tribunal felt it was unsatisfactory due to the level of vested interest in the appeal body.

"Leeds United will be proposing at the forthcoming Football League AGM a change to the regulations to this effect to protect other clubs in the future.

"If what football achieves out of this decision is clarity for clubs in the future (and there will undoubtedly be cases of insolvency again), then that can mitigate some of our disappointment as we want all clubs to survive through what are very difficult times.

"The matter is now closed and the focus can now return to the pitch. The decision to remain in League One was always correct from the club's perspective.

"If the team are now able to progress through the play-offs to the Championship, then it would be the appropriate reward for the efforts of the club's fans and players in overcoming the penalty imposed on the club."

Leeds were deducted 15 points for failing to exit administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

A majority of more than 75% of fellow Football League clubs then voted to uphold the sanction.

Bates had been forced to put the club in the hands of administrators last May due to debts of around 35million.

The club denied any wrongdoing and agreed to an arbitration hearing after initially serving the Football League with a High Court writ.

Bournemouth and Luton could start next season with a similar handicap after both recently failed to exit administration via a CVA.

Leeds have already ensured their place in the play-offs with victory at Yeovil last week.

Gary McAllister's side will play their final match of the season against Gillingham on Sunday in front of a sell-out crowd at Elland Road.

"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"

Mentalman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #193 on: May 01, 2008, 06:50:38 PM »
Hope it galvinises them for the play-offs - shove it right up the league administrators and their opponents.
"Mr Treehorn treats objects like women man."

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11813
    • View Profile
Re: The Super(ish) Leeds United Thread
« Reply #194 on: May 01, 2008, 08:02:58 PM »

Bates also said several chairmen who voted against leeds then have since admitted despite them feeling leeds were right that in there own SELF INTEREST they voted against us.

Also he said you'll see the swansea chairman saying decision was right etc and the gillingham chairman aswell both of whom dont know the facts. Lets stuff the gills this weekend and send them to Lg 2. Karma.
That's more than a bit dubious that rival clubs had a vote in the matter.