Revie And Morris Look To Usurp Bates At Leeds

[taxexile]

Revie and Morris look to usurp Bates at Leeds

Duncan Revie has expressed his dream of taking over Leeds - but only if he can find a 'genius' of a manager to recreate his father Don's glory days at the club.

Revie, a football entrepreneur, claims he has financial backing from a Middle Eastern consortium, but faces competition from former Leeds director Simon Morris who has launched a £10million bid to buy the club and build a new 50,000-seater stadium.

Revie said: 'Ken Bates wants proof of funds but the money is not a problem - my problem is can I recreate my Dad's team and getting the people who can find those players.

'I will not do this unless I can do it 100%, and I have a lot on my plate at the moment in terms of my business, but my heart is ruling my mind.

'I don't want to mess about, it has to be getting back to where we were.

'Some would say that's a pipe-dream, but when Dad walked into the dressing room when we were in the old second division and changed the strip to all white and said 'I'm going to make you as great as Real Madrid', that was a pipe-dream too - except that it happened.

'We need a structure to identify the players, and a genius as a manager. Sir Alex Ferguson is a genius, Arsene Wenger is a genius. There are football geniuses and that's my challenge, to find one.'

Morris, a 29-year-old property entrepreneur, was recently named among the top 10 richest people under 30 in Britain with a fortune estimated at £69million.

He has tabled a £10million bid for the club and, if successful, claims he will provide a further £25million to bring financial stability to Elland Road.

SR Morris Group, who claim to be one of the fastest-growing property companies in the UK, insist they plan to invest '£400million' in the scheme.

'Our plans are fully costed and very well financed,' said Morris.

'They offer a great future for Leeds United and the club's fans, allowing us to put the troubles of the past behind it.

'Our scheme would also put Leeds where it belongs - at the top of the tree in the north of England for entertainment and urban regeneration.'

Leeds went into administration with debts of £35million last Friday following a winding-up order issued by the Inland Revenue, who are owed £5million in unpaid taxes.

The business was, with the administrators' approval, immediately bought by a new company, Leeds United Football Club Limited, of which Ken Bates is chairman.

But the sale is subject to approval by the club's creditors at a meeting later this month and also by the Football League, while SR Morris and other consortia are aiming to ambush Bates' plans to resume control of the club.

espn soccernet.

[muckypups]

but only if he can find a 'genius' of a manager to recreate his father Don's glory days at the club.

Not easy to find of course..But Roy Keane's exploits at Sunderland this season can't be overlooked.

[scousemouse]

but only if he can find a 'genius' of a manager to recreate his father Don's glory days at the club.

Not easy to find of course..But Roy Keane's exploits at Sunderland this season can't be overlooked.

Well , they need somebody .

[taxexile]

roy keane would have been perfect for the job , and i think , despite his history re. leeds united , the fans would approve of somebody like him.

[Pattayaman]

Ken (master) Bates is to football what Don King is to boxing and just drags the sport through the gutter

[muckypups]

The right thread for this I hope?...James Lawton in The Independent..:

Comment and prejudice are free, so are the facts

Rod Liddle, a former BBC person who writes a football column that is capable of sparking a fleeting if almost exclusively morbid interest in his views, tells us of how he and the nation felt when in 1972 Leeds United put on a spell-binding show of keep-ball against a Southampton trounced 7-0.

He said that if Manchester United - who, as it happened, had two weeks earlier conceded five goals at Elland Road - had put on a similar show everybody would have been entranced. But apparently "we" were so entrenched in our hatred of Don Revie's team we were muttering to ourselves, "Go on Bobby Stokes, kick that cultured thug Johnny Giles six feet up in the air. Break a leg or two. Especially Billy Bremner."

One can only guess where and in what state of mind Liddle was in when all this was going on, but the odds are he had been reading similarly overwrought drivel on some southern-circulated backpage.

After insulting gratuitously two of the greatest midfielders ever to play the game, he went on to say that Leeds' "pragmatism and invincibility" brought them only two titles and "nothing in the way of European success". Leeds qualified for Europe every year for 10 years, appeared in five finals, winning two Fairs Cups - which were competed for by clubs placed second in their national leagues - losing one, and finishing runners-up (after disgraceful refereeing) in the European Cup, against Franz Beckenbauer's Bayern Munich, and in the European Cup-Winners Cup.

Break their legs? Comment and prejudice, however crass, is free, but then so are facts. In the end, no team did more than Leeds United to earn a fair hearing.

Needless to say after reading this rebuttal I had to look for the original article; The Times..:

Football’s rough justice favours the big boys

Leeds and West Ham have got off lightly while so-called lesser clubs are the losers

Rod Liddle

DO YOU remember that game from 1972 when Leeds United, imperious and unassailable, trounced Southampton 7-0 at Elland Road? At one point the Leeds side engaged in a magnificently contemptuous game of keep-ball, the Southampton players scurrying hither and thither wishing that the ground might swallow them up. I reckon if Manchester United did a similar thing today we would be transfixed with awe and respect. Back then, we were instead transfixed with utter hatred. Go on, Bobby Stokes, we will have muttered to ourselves, kick that cultured thug Giles six feet up in the air. Break a leg or two. Especially Billy Bremner.

Leeds were loathed then for their wily pragmatism, their apparent invincibility (an invincibility that, paradoxically, brought them only a couple of league championships and nothing in the way of success in Europe). The loathing continues; their current misery is a source of jubilation throughout the land. Last weekend, on one of the Leeds supporters’ websites, fans of virtually every club across the four divisions posted messages dripping with bile and spite, revelling in the extreme likelihood of Leeds being relegated, for the first time in their history, to what all normal people call Division Three.

I cannot think of another team that could provoke such unanimous dislike – and especially not one from the lower reaches of the second division, a side beset in recent years by the most terrible misfortunes that could afflict a football club, ie Peter Ridsdale and David O’Leary.

As ever, the final satisfaction of seeing Leeds finally consigned to the third division was stolen from us at the last moment, in a very Leedsish manner. To have escaped relegation this weekend Leeds would have needed not only to win at the excellent Derby County but make good a nine-goal deficit on their closest rivals, Hull City. Let’s be clear: they were effectively relegated by last week’s home draw with Ipswich Town.

So to see them suddenly claim sanctuary in administration and have a meaningless 10 points deducted this season rather tarnishes the pleasure we might take in their humiliation. We wanted to see them start next season with minus 10 points: go on, Wisey, sort that one out. But it also seems to me against the spirit of the law and quite possibly against the letter of it. The 10-point deduction is intended as a punishment imposed as a result of a football club living way beyond its means. In Leeds United's case, way, way, way beyond its means. And yet in this instance it is not a punishment at all as Leeds were already down.

And so the laws that apply to the little clubs – such as nearby Rotherham United, forced to claw their way back from a 10-point deduction in a lower division (they almost did it, bless them) and, for that matter, Crawley Town – do not apply to the gilded likes of Leeds. So there we are, another reason to hate them and to further despise the football authorities, who must recognise this as a blatant piece of chicanery but are, as ever, disinclined to do anything about it.

The suspicion persists that there is one law for the big clubs – the Premiership sides, the supposedly sleeping giants from the lower divisions – and one law for the rest. Take, as an example, that footballing academy (by which I mean the likes of Marlon Harewood and Christian Dailly), West Ham; a £5.5m fine that will be wiped out at least sixfold by the money they will get for not being relegated. Now, I have little time for Dave Whelan and his clodhopping Wigan side – an artificially created Premiership club if ever there was one – and still less for al-Fayed’s Fulham. But it is inconceivable that a smaller club would have been treated with the leniency afforded to West Ham: indeed, they weren’t. AFC Wimbledon got told they were being clobbered with an 18-point deduction for fielding an ineligible player, before having this ludicrously severe penalty reduced to three points when the West Ham business hove into view. But still, three points – three points that, if applied equitably, could send West Ham down to the Championship.

The FA, in reaching its conclusion over the Carlos Tevez affair, took note of the fact that the corrupt dealings with the player were not the fault of the loyal West Ham supporters, who shouted really loudly during matches and were decent and blameless human beings. Well, sure, but what of the AFC Wimbledon supporters or, for that matter, the fans of Rotherham? Were they to blame for, respectively, their club’s incompetence in fielding an ineligible player or for sinking into administration? Of course not; they were as loyal and blameless as the West Ham fans. If you wanted prima facie evidence of one rule for the rich, one rule for the poor, you have it in the cases of Leeds United and West Ham.

Rod Liddle sounds like a man with a sharp axe and a busy grindstone to me...

[Chiangmai Foxy]

The right thread for this I hope?...James Lawton in The Independent..:

Comment and prejudice are free, so are the facts

Rod Liddle, a former BBC person who writes a football column that is capable of sparking a fleeting if almost exclusively morbid interest in his views, tells us of how he and the nation felt when in 1972 Leeds United put on a spell-binding show of keep-ball against a Southampton trounced 7-0.

He said that if Manchester United - who, as it happened, had two weeks earlier conceded five goals at Elland Road - had put on a similar show everybody would have been entranced. But apparently "we" were so entrenched in our hatred of Don Revie's team we were muttering to ourselves, "Go on Bobby Stokes, kick that cultured thug Johnny Giles six feet up in the air. Break a leg or two. Especially Billy Bremner."

One can only guess where and in what state of mind Liddle was in when all this was going on, but the odds are he had been reading similarly overwrought drivel on some southern-circulated backpage.

After insulting gratuitously two of the greatest midfielders ever to play the game, he went on to say that Leeds' "pragmatism and invincibility" brought them only two titles and "nothing in the way of European success". Leeds qualified for Europe every year for 10 years, appeared in five finals, winning two Fairs Cups - which were competed for by clubs placed second in their national leagues - losing one, and finishing runners-up (after disgraceful refereeing) in the European Cup, against Franz Beckenbauer's Bayern Munich, and in the European Cup-Winners Cup.

Break their legs? Comment and prejudice, however crass, is free, but then so are facts. In the end, no team did more than Leeds United to earn a fair hearing.

Needless to say after reading this rebuttal I had to look for the original article; The Times..:

Football’s rough justice favours the big boys

Leeds and West Ham have got off lightly while so-called lesser clubs are the losers

Rod Liddle

DO YOU remember that game from 1972 when Leeds United, imperious and unassailable, trounced Southampton 7-0 at Elland Road? At one point the Leeds side engaged in a magnificently contemptuous game of keep-ball, the Southampton players scurrying hither and thither wishing that the ground might swallow them up. I reckon if Manchester United did a similar thing today we would be transfixed with awe and respect. Back then, we were instead transfixed with utter hatred. Go on, Bobby Stokes, we will have muttered to ourselves, kick that cultured thug Giles six feet up in the air. Break a leg or two. Especially Billy Bremner.

Leeds were loathed then for their wily pragmatism, their apparent invincibility (an invincibility that, paradoxically, brought them only a couple of league championships and nothing in the way of success in Europe). The loathing continues; their current misery is a source of jubilation throughout the land. Last weekend, on one of the Leeds supporters’ websites, fans of virtually every club across the four divisions posted messages dripping with bile and spite, revelling in the extreme likelihood of Leeds being relegated, for the first time in their history, to what all normal people call Division Three.

I cannot think of another team that could provoke such unanimous dislike – and especially not one from the lower reaches of the second division, a side beset in recent years by the most terrible misfortunes that could afflict a football club, ie Peter Ridsdale and David O’Leary.

As ever, the final satisfaction of seeing Leeds finally consigned to the third division was stolen from us at the last moment, in a very Leedsish manner. To have escaped relegation this weekend Leeds would have needed not only to win at the excellent Derby County but make good a nine-goal deficit on their closest rivals, Hull City. Let’s be clear: they were effectively relegated by last week’s home draw with Ipswich Town.

So to see them suddenly claim sanctuary in administration and have a meaningless 10 points deducted this season rather tarnishes the pleasure we might take in their humiliation. We wanted to see them start next season with minus 10 points: go on, Wisey, sort that one out. But it also seems to me against the spirit of the law and quite possibly against the letter of it. The 10-point deduction is intended as a punishment imposed as a result of a football club living way beyond its means. In Leeds United's case, way, way, way beyond its means. And yet in this instance it is not a punishment at all as Leeds were already down.

And so the laws that apply to the little clubs – such as nearby Rotherham United, forced to claw their way back from a 10-point deduction in a lower division (they almost did it, bless them) and, for that matter, Crawley Town – do not apply to the gilded likes of Leeds. So there we are, another reason to hate them and to further despise the football authorities, who must recognise this as a blatant piece of chicanery but are, as ever, disinclined to do anything about it.

The suspicion persists that there is one law for the big clubs – the Premiership sides, the supposedly sleeping giants from the lower divisions – and one law for the rest. Take, as an example, that footballing academy (by which I mean the likes of Marlon Harewood and Christian Dailly), West Ham; a £5.5m fine that will be wiped out at least sixfold by the money they will get for not being relegated. Now, I have little time for Dave Whelan and his clodhopping Wigan side – an artificially created Premiership club if ever there was one – and still less for al-Fayed’s Fulham. But it is inconceivable that a smaller club would have been treated with the leniency afforded to West Ham: indeed, they weren’t. AFC Wimbledon got told they were being clobbered with an 18-point deduction for fielding an ineligible player, before having this ludicrously severe penalty reduced to three points when the West Ham business hove into view. But still, three points – three points that, if applied equitably, could send West Ham down to the Championship.

The FA, in reaching its conclusion over the Carlos Tevez affair, took note of the fact that the corrupt dealings with the player were not the fault of the loyal West Ham supporters, who shouted really loudly during matches and were decent and blameless human beings. Well, sure, but what of the AFC Wimbledon supporters or, for that matter, the fans of Rotherham? Were they to blame for, respectively, their club’s incompetence in fielding an ineligible player or for sinking into administration? Of course not; they were as loyal and blameless as the West Ham fans. If you wanted prima facie evidence of one rule for the rich, one rule for the poor, you have it in the cases of Leeds United and West Ham.

Rod Liddle sounds like a man with a sharp axe and a busy grindstone to me...

no one likes us,we dont care.we are the new millwall.

really hope morris or revie takes over,we will be back in a few years.

as for the revie days,every pundit hates us,especially those who played against us.couldnt handle the physical side,that coupled with the craft and skill,we destroyed most teams every week.

btw liverpool didnt hate us,they applauded the players at anfield round the stadium with the league trophy.when we won it early 73 i think.b4 i was born lol.

good fans them scousers