Will They Or Won't They 2nd Installment

[warriors]

I can't believe he's still pressing this. It was so obvious why he put Leeds in admin so in order not to have points off from this season then early this season not doing what every other club has to do in order to participate...pay their dues etc. What's next I ask myself? European court of human rights ? Race relation council?

Before anyone gets on there high horse with me just think about poor old Boston who did the same thng but were relegated two divisions !!

Couldn't agree more. They should have been docked 30 points for the disengenuity of it.

Interesting, that clubs like Rotherham, Lutom and Bournemouth aren't bleating on about it.

Correct me if I am wrong but did they not only get docked 10 points the others and Leeds got docked 15??

Any how good win at last sat against Swindon away.

MOT

[funfun]

I can't believe he's still pressing this. It was so obvious why he put Leeds in admin so in order not to have points off from this season then early this season not doing what every other club has to do in order to participate...pay their dues etc. What's next I ask myself? European court of human rights ? Race relation council?

Before anyone gets on there high horse with me just think about poor old Boston who did the same thng but were relegated two divisions !!

Couldn't agree more. They should have been docked 30 points for the disengenuity of it.

Interesting, that clubs like Rotherham, Lutom and Bournemouth aren't bleating on about it.

Correct me if I am wrong but did they not only get docked 10 points the others and Leeds got docked 15??

Any how good win at last sat against Swindon away.

MOT

10 last season, 15 this, thats 25! no?

[mrbojangles]

I have a very good mate who's a Leeds fan.

So I'm hoping they don't go up

Nah just joshing. Leeds and City fans have never really had any grudges (except the joint we hate united one) So i'm hoping they go up really.

[funfun]

I have a very good mate who's a Leeds fan.

So I'm hoping they don't go up

Nah just joshing. Leeds and City fans have never really had any grudges (except the joint we hate united one) So i'm hoping they go up really.

I have a very good mate whos a city fan!

but i cant remember who he is!!!!

[bendix]

I can't believe he's still pressing this. It was so obvious why he put Leeds in admin so in order not to have points off from this season then early this season not doing what every other club has to do in order to participate...pay their dues etc. What's next I ask myself? European court of human rights ? Race relation council?

Before anyone gets on there high horse with me just think about poor old Boston who did the same thng but were relegated two divisions !!

Couldn't agree more. They should have been docked 30 points for the disengenuity of it.

Interesting, that clubs like Rotherham, Lutom and Bournemouth aren't bleating on about it.

It's patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Leeds were docked 10 points (like Luton and Bournemouth) for going into administration. Fair and square, no arguments or appeals there.

The subsequent docking of 15 points has never been explained. The Football League have never given a reason for it, nor replied to many Leeds' requests to explain what rules they had broken during the summer.

The FL, in it's wisdom, then said Leeds could appeal, but who voted on that appeal? The other FL chairman, of all their rival clubs who have a vested interest in any of their rivals losing points.

Now they have finally caved to pressure and have agreed to an independent arbitration. Sadly, it's behind closed doors so we'll never hear what disengenuous reasons Lord Malwhinney can use to explain why we were docked an extra fifteen points and why we've never been told the reasons for it.

[chavy]

Try google, your answer is on there.

For the record, my club, Forest, were the only club to vote for Leeds from L1.

[bendix]

How would you know Forest voted for Leeds. The vote was a secret ballot. So far only Darlington and Barnsley have publicly acknowledged voting for Leeds, and Barnsley have continued their support by joining the legal action against the FL.

As for googling, there is nothing definitive there; just a bunch of half-arsed theories by football fans.

The conventional wisdom is that we got the extra fifteen points for going into Administration at the end of the last season. That is palpably not the case. Neither, for the record, was it a breach of any rules.

The 15 points was deducted, say the FL, for breaking FL rules but they have NEVER mentioned which rules nor explained how we broke them. If you can point me to somewhere in Google which explains it, I'd appreciate it. There is nothing even on the FL's own website.

[mrtoad]

I can't believe he's still pressing this. It was so obvious why he put Leeds in admin so in order not to have points off from this season then early this season not doing what every other club has to do in order to participate...pay their dues etc. What's next I ask myself? European court of human rights ? Race relation council?

Before anyone gets on there high horse with me just think about poor old Boston who did the same thng but were relegated two divisions !!

Couldn't agree more. They should have been docked 30 points for the disengenuity of it.

Interesting, that clubs like Rotherham, Lutom and Bournemouth aren't bleating on about it.

It's patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Leeds were docked 10 points (like Luton and Bournemouth) for going into administration. Fair and square, no arguments or appeals there.

The subsequent docking of 15 points has never been explained. The Football League have never given a reason for it, nor replied to many Leeds' requests to explain what rules they had broken during the summer.

The FL, in it's wisdom, then said Leeds could appeal, but who voted on that appeal? The other FL chairman, of all their rival clubs who have a vested interest in any of their rivals losing points.

Now they have finally caved to pressure and have agreed to an independent arbitration. Sadly, it's behind closed doors so we'll never hear what disengenuous reasons Lord Malwhinney can use to explain why we were docked an extra fifteen points and why we've never been told the reasons for it.

I'll hazzard a guess that Leeds may well get the points back. My feeling is that the FL, decided to add the 15 point penalty, as they felt that there was nos significant impact with the inital 10 points and wanted to send out a message to clubs using the loophole that Leeds exploited. This is now coming back to haunt the FL.

It is patently obvious that I do know what I am talking about, however in the legal aspects of this, Leeds are probably on a stronger footing than the moral ones. I am using a personal opinon regarding the docking of points and not one based ofrm the legal aspects of which I do not pertain to have significant knowlegde.

I just wonder if they paid of the St Johns Ambulance bill?

[bendix]

Let me try again.

Going into admin and receiving the initial 10 point deduction was both perfectly legal and common sense. It was in no way underhand. It might have exploited a loophole, but - let's face it - if a loophole exists it is the fault of those making the rules, not those seeking to take advantage of them. Everyone of us seeks to exploit loopholes in tax laws, visa laws etc if we can and if we have to.

Leeds were NOT docked another 15 points for doing that. The FL had no legal grounds for punishing them for on this basis. They instead claim that we 'breached competition rules'. The conventional wisdom by those in the know and closely associated to the case is that Leeds abandoned the CVA structure to come out of administration, which is not the FL's preferred methodology.

If that is the case (and I disagree, but that's irrelevent) but if that's the case it also needs to be remembered that NOONE involved with Leeds United had any say in the matter. At the time the club was being run by KPMG liquidators. Ken Bates and co had no influence. It was KPMG that abandoned the CVA (because of the threat of legal action from Inland Revenue 2 hours before the CVA was due to end normally) and in fairness to them they did so because it was KPMG's duty as liquidators to act in the best interest of Leeds' creditors.

When the CVA was abandoned, Leeds as it was previously ceased to exist. Zip. Nothing. Gone. No more Leeds United.

KPMG then had to put the assets (or what remained of them, including player contracts, brand, season ticket receipts etc) up for grabs and Bates and his backers formed a new company to buy Leeds United.

This new company then asked the FL for permission to play this season. That was given three days before the season, and it was at that point the 15 point penalty was given.

Again . . . . noone knows why. No reason given. No explanation of any rules broken. And no acknowledgement that the new existing Leeds had done anything wrong.

As for St Johns Ambulance debt. Yes, it was paid in full by Bates' new company even though - legally - all debts were wiped out when KPMG had finished their process.

[mrtoad]

Let me try again.

Going into admin and receiving the initial 10 point deduction was both perfectly legal and common sense. It was in no way underhand. It might have exploited a loophole, but - let's face it - if a loophole exists it is the fault of those making the rules, not those seeking to take advantage of them. Everyone of us seeks to exploit loopholes in tax laws, visa laws etc if we can and if we have to.

Leeds were NOT docked another 15 points for doing that. The FL had no legal grounds for punishing them for on this basis. They instead claim that we 'breached competition rules'. The conventional wisdom by those in the know and closely associated to the case is that Leeds abandoned the CVA structure to come out of administration, which is not the FL's preferred methodology.

If that is the case (and I disagree, but that's irrelevent) but if that's the case it also needs to be remembered that NOONE involved with Leeds United had any say in the matter. At the time the club was being run by KPMG liquidators. Ken Bates and co had no influence. It was KPMG that abandoned the CVA (because of the threat of legal action from Inland Revenue 2 hours before the CVA was due to end normally) and in fairness to them they did so because it was KPMG's duty as liquidators to act in the best interest of Leeds' creditors.

When the CVA was abandoned, Leeds as it was previously ceased to exist. Zip. Nothing. Gone. No more Leeds United.

KPMG then had to put the assets (or what remained of them, including player contracts, brand, season ticket receipts etc) up for grabs and Bates and his backers formed a new company to buy Leeds United.

This new company then asked the FL for permission to play this season. That was given three days before the season, and it was at that point the 15 point penalty was given.

Again . . . . noone knows why. No reason given. No explanation of any rules broken. And no acknowledgement that the new existing Leeds had done anything wrong.

As for St Johns Ambulance debt. Yes, it was paid in full by Bates' new company even though - legally - all debts were wiped out when KPMG had finished their process.

Thank you for clearing that up Bendix, as I suggested in my previous post, I beleive that the 15 point penalty was given as an extra punishment outside of the FL's rules. Whether this is in relation to the methodology of coming out of the CVA or trying to make a point about the exploitation of the loophole, I guess we will have to continue second guessing. I also suggested that what they had done was within the rules, although it could have been considered as slightly cynical.

What is more important in the football context of things is that the club has survived, and even though I am no fan of Leeds United it would have been a crying shame to see a club with a history like Leeds no longer playing in the league. As for the conduct of the Football league, it is hardly suprising that they act in the way that they do when they have a failed politician running the show.

[bendix]

Rumours are rife that the FL is urgently trying to do a 'deal' with Leeds to avoid going to the arbitration which has been agreed. There are stories that the FL has offered Leeds 7-8 points of the deduction back, but Leeds have rejected the offer on the basis that they feel arbitration is the right way to go. Leeds' rejection is also based on the fact that if the FL is independently offering some points back, it's basically an admission that the punishment was unfair and so there should be no punishment at all.

What an utter shambles. Malwhinney should be fired. It's curious the smug bastard is keeping very quiet now.

And now we hear of other Division One clubs threatening legal action against the FL if Leeds get points back because, according to one club (Leyton Orient), "we built Leeds deduction into our plans". <deleted>?

[chavy]

Where are these rumours coming from ? Perhaps the same source that told me Forest were the only L1 club to vote for Leeds in their sorry plight to get the points back.I've no idea about the thinking of L2 or championship teams, it really does't matter or really concern them. At the end of the day, if Leeds had played by the rules of the FL none of this would be happening. Bates, twisting & turning trying to evade the debt has caused this for Leeds so all this bitching & moaning is down to him & him alone.

[bendix]

Where are these rumours coming from ? Perhaps the same source that told me Forest were the only L1 club to vote for Leeds in their sorry plight to get the points back.I've no idea about the thinking of L2 or championship teams, it really does't matter or really concern them. At the end of the day, if Leeds had played by the rules of the FL none of this would be happening. Bates, twisting & turning trying to evade the debt has caused this for Leeds so all this bitching & moaning is down to him & him alone.

Admittedly, from a friend of a friend who is close to the club, but as I said . they are unsubstantiated.

You keep repeating this mantra "if Leeds had played by the rules of the FL" . . . but neither you nor the FL have explained what rules have been broken. Last time I asked you, you came out with the classic advice to google it.

And as i explained already, Bates did not twist and turn to evade debt. The Inland Revenue called in KPMG to place the club in administration. If you know ANYTHING about business law, you will know that at that point the administrators alone decide the best course of action for all interested parties including secured and unsecured creditors, employees and the club itself.

KPMG placed the club under a CVA. At that point, the club was up for sale to anyone interested. KPMG were then under a legal obligation to accept the offer which, in their opinion, was the best for the club's creditors.

Nothing illegal. Nothing immoral. And nothing there to break any FL rules.

[chavy]

Is that why Bates threatend to sue if the club was sold to anyone else but him ??

Also your right, I don't know ANYTHING about insolvency laws etc & if I'm honest, I'm not interested either....suffice to say Leeds weren't given the 15 point deduction on a whim. Bates was sailing far too close to the wind & paid the price for messing with the FL, creditors etc & now he's trying to rescue what he sewed in the first place.

[funfun]

Where are these rumours coming from ? Perhaps the same source that told me Forest were the only L1 club to vote for Leeds in their sorry plight to get the points back.I've no idea about the thinking of L2 or championship teams, it really does't matter or really concern them. At the end of the day, if Leeds had played by the rules of the FL none of this would be happening. Bates, twisting & turning trying to evade the debt has caused this for Leeds so all this bitching & moaning is down to him & him alone.

Admittedly, from a friend of a friend who is close to the club, but as I said . they are unsubstantiated.

You keep repeating this mantra "if Leeds had played by the rules of the FL" . . . but neither you nor the FL have explained what rules have been broken. Last time I asked you, you came out with the classic advice to google it.

And as i explained already, Bates did not twist and turn to evade debt. The Inland Revenue called in KPMG to place the club in administration. If you know ANYTHING about business law, you will know that at that point the administrators alone decide the best course of action for all interested parties including secured and unsecured creditors, employees and the club itself.

KPMG placed the club under a CVA. At that point, the club was up for sale to anyone interested. KPMG were then under a legal obligation to accept the offer which, in their opinion, was the best for the club's creditors.

Nothing illegal. Nothing immoral. And nothing there to break any FL rules.

ere leeds myselfe, there were better offers on table, but where would we have played? east end park?

[funfun]

Forgot To Say "What a result" sat! only 20 behind!

[bendix]

Is that why Bates threatend to sue if the club was sold to anyone else but him ??

Also your right, I don't know ANYTHING about insolvency laws etc & if I'm honest, I'm not interested either....suffice to say Leeds weren't given the 15 point deduction on a whim. Bates was sailing far too close to the wind & paid the price for messing with the FL, creditors etc & now he's trying to rescue what he sewed in the first place.

On your first point, we'll never know the ins and outs of the various offers. There was a lot of posturing by buyers at the time (including from Don Review's son), but in the end only three offers came in and those were confidential. Given KPMG's legal obligation to take care of the creditors first, we can only assume Bates' offer was the best. I'm led to believe (but again, it's hearsay), that the Redbus offer was larger BUT failed in the critical FL test of taking care of football-related debts first. Had the Redbus offer been accepted, we would DEFINITELY have breached stated FL regulations. So that was never gonna win.

Your second paragraph is contradictory. In one breath you say they didnt get it on a whim, in the second you say he paid the price for messing with the FL. Ummmmmmm . .i'm not sure what to make of that.

Leeds United either broke FL regulations, or they didnt. There is no other way points can be deducted legally. And - to date - noone has told Leeds or the public or the media which FL regulations were broken or how.

So far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the FL rule book against 'sailing close to the wind'.

[chavy]

I would say your right Bendix, there is nothing against sailing close to the wind.

For this topic I haven't got much more to contribute to be honest. Let's hope Leeds get the justice they deserve because I would like to see you go up after the magnificant season you've had. Ok, just recently you've 'wobbled' a bit but who doesn't? L1 doesn't deserve the likes of Leeds & ( I'd like to think ) Forest as we've shown throughout the season both sets of attendances warrant at the very least Championship football.

[warriors]

2 -0 Walsall Is there light at the end of the tunnel??

Play offs maybe

[Sunderland]

Leeds 0 Brighton 0

Light at the end of the tunnel? Yes, it's a train coming the other way with its headlights on!

[bendix]

1-0 against a very strong Doncaster side. One point of the playoffs with the 15 points still deducted.

The arbitration for the points deduction takes place less than two weeks from now. The FL is really in a corner on this; it has to resolve it by the end of the season, or risk running the wrath of other FL teams. According to a mate of mine who works on Fleet Street, the FL secretly offered to five 5 points back last week, but Leeds rejected it on the basis that Leeds either broke the rules or didnt - if we did, we'll accept the deduction. If we didnt, we want them back.

The other FL chairmen seem to be coming around to the view that Malwhinney acted too hastily and the tide of opinion is changing.

The FL's secret position is that they hope Leeds make the play-offs without needing to give points, but that giving any points back will not push them into an automatic promotion place.

Spineless bastards.

[funfun]

Leyton Orient 0-2 Leeds

Leeds boosted their play-off hopes with a comfortable win at Leyton Orient.

O's defender Tamika Mkandawire had to clear off the line moments before Jermaine Beckford put the ball in the net, only to be ruled offside.

Paul Huntington did put Leeds ahead when he got the final touch to a Bradley Johnson free-kick.

O's keeper Glenn Morris saved from Jonathan Howson and Dougie Freedman before Freedman crossed from the left for Beckford to slot home.

1 Swansea 41 12 5 4 33 18 12 5 3 41 20 36 82

2 Carlisle 41 17 1 2 37 13 6 8 7 23 24 23 78

3 Doncaster 42 12 4 5 30 18 9 6 6 29 20 21 73

4 Nottm Forest 41 11 7 2 32 10 7 8 6 24 19 27 69

5 Southend 41 11 4 5 31 18 9 4 8 33 33 13 68

6 Leeds 41 13 4 4 36 15 10 6 4 28 19 30 64

7 Tranmere 42 12 4 5 31 16 5 7 9 19 26 8 62

[bendix]

More importantly, perhaps, the arbitration to decide on the fifteen point deduction commences this week. It's expected to last a week. One Leeds representative, one from the FL and one independent.

While I want points, another part of me wants to get nothing and then to get promotion by winning the playoff final at Wembley, 60,000 Leeds fans singing "<deleted> off to the Football League."

[funfun]

More importantly, perhaps, the arbitration to decide on the fifteen point deduction commences this week. It's expected to last a week. One Leeds representative, one from the FL and one independent.

While I want points, another part of me wants to get nothing and then to get promotion by winning the playoff final at Wembley, 60,000 Leeds fans singing "<deleted> off to the Football League."

that would be brill, but i reckon a bit of under the table might still be waiting and deals sorted, sounds like we played well yesterday reading comments on bbc, lets hope we carry on!!

chris

[taxexile]

Will Leeds owner Bates land sell-off bonus?

Last updated at 23:08pm on 5th April 2008

The Football Association tribunal to hear Leeds United's appeal against their 15-point deduction, expected to last a week, will start at a secret location next Monday.

And it is not just the club's long-suffering supporters who are on their knees hoping for a favourable outcome.

As far as owner Ken Bates is concerned, any reduction in the penalty would be worth millions when he comes to sell the League One club in the summer. Leeds are on the fringe of the play-off places and Bates, in talks with a number of interested parties, could extract a much higher price if the club were promoted to the Championship. Ominously for him, the word is that the penalty, imposed last summer because Leeds went into administration, will be ratified.

from the daily mail

whilst it would be a great way to secure promotion (winning the playoffs at wembley), leeds united have a terrible record when it comes to crucial matches , especially finals.

i would be happy to take any scraps the football league throw our way and wouldnt want to let pride get in the way of pragmatism.

[bendix]

Will Leeds owner Bates land sell-off bonus?

Last updated at 23:08pm on 5th April 2008

The Football Association tribunal to hear Leeds United's appeal against their 15-point deduction, expected to last a week, will start at a secret location next Monday.

And it is not just the club's long-suffering supporters who are on their knees hoping for a favourable outcome.

As far as owner Ken Bates is concerned, any reduction in the penalty would be worth millions when he comes to sell the League One club in the summer. Leeds are on the fringe of the play-off places and Bates, in talks with a number of interested parties, could extract a much higher price if the club were promoted to the Championship. Ominously for him, the word is that the penalty, imposed last summer because Leeds went into administration, will be ratified.

from the daily mail

whilst it would be a great way to secure promotion (winning the playoffs at wembley), leeds united have a terrible record when it comes to crucial matches , especially finals.

i would be happy to take any scraps the football league throw our way and wouldnt want to let pride get in the way of pragmatism.

I saw the Daily Mail article taxexile. Crappy journalism at its worst. They get so much wrong that it's immediately discountable.

It isn't an appeal; it's independent arbitration. It is no longer up to the FL; it is up to an independent arbitrator to either ratify or overturn the deduction. And, finally, the 15 points weren't deducted 'because Leeds went into arbitration."

It's sloppy journalism like that that perpetuates such myths.

But, more positively, it sounds like Macca is doing a great job. One commentator suggested he is getting Leeds to play the way he used to play, which can't be bad.

[miniwai]

Leeds 3-2 Carlisle come on you whites!

If we get our 15 points back it puts us 1 point off top spot I think. Justice must be served!!!!

Cant seem to find any news on the arbitration though anyone got any info? YEP is very sketchy about it all.

[percy2]

Leeds 3-2 Carlisle come on you whites!

If we get our 15 points back it puts us 1 point off top spot I think. Justice must be served!!!!

Cant seem to find any news on the arbitration though anyone got any info? YEP is very sketchy about it all.

Took the words right off my keyboard.

Well done boys.

Does Uncle Ken still have "The Real League 1 Table" in the program?

Cheers

[taxexile]

United points panel start date is set , a couple of articles from todays Yorkshire Evening Post

BREAKING: Leeds United tribunal date set

LEEDS United will begin their attempt to have a 15-point deduction overturned next Wednesday.

An independent tribunal will meet to decide if the Football League were right to deduct the points following the Elland Road club's relegation to League One.

Chairman Ken Bates, writing in Saturday's programme for the match against second-placed Carlisle, stated that Leeds have been "deluged with paperwork from the Football league's solicitors" and accused them of "trying to muddy the waters in the hope that the real issues are obscured."

He claimed that the League have yet to inform him what Leeds did wrong to lose 15 points; that Leeds complied with the League's regulations and rules and the laws of the land and that they feel the 15 points should be reinstated.

Last Updated: 12 April 2008 10:58 AM

The arbitration panel charged with ruling on Leeds United's 15-point penalty will begin hearing evidence on Wednesday.

A start-date of April 16 has been agreed for the independent review of the Football League's decision to deduct 15 points from United in August.

The validity of the League's sanction will be considered by a three-man panel, consisting of retired High Court judge Sir Philip Otton, former Premier League chief executive Peter Leaver and experienced lawyer Peter Cadman.

The hearing could last for up to three days and the tribunal's ruling is expected to be made public before United's League One fixture at Millwall on April 19, the club's third last game of the season.

Leeds agreed to independent arbitration against the Football League in February after initially serving a High Court writ on the organisation, and the club have drawn up a detailed argument against their 15-point deduction.

United are expected to argue that the Football League lacked the jurisdiction to impose the penalty, and will also contest the claim that they failed to adhere to the Football League's insolvency policy by exiting administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

Chairman Ken Bates believes the deduction was "unfair and unjust".

good result and a good performance this afternoon at elland road , they seem to hitting form again....but it aint over till its over..... nail biting times again for the long suffering fans of leeds united.

[percy2]

Some more.........

Whites set to learn points fate

The independent tribunal to consider Leeds' 15-point penalty imposed by the Football League at the start of the season will begin on Wednesday.

Leeds were deducted 15 points for allegedly breaking competition rules on insolvency, but the club have denied any wrongdoing and agreed to an independent arbitration hearing after initially serving the League with a High Court writ.

The League's sanction will be reviewed by a three-man panel, consisting of retired High Court judge Sir Philip Otton, former Premier League chief executive Peter Leaver and experienced lawyer Peter Cadman.

The tribunal could last for up to three days and the ruling is expected to be made public before Leeds' League One clash at Millwall on April 19.

Leeds were docked 15 points eight days before the start of this season for failing to exit administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,1...3414086,00.html

Cheers