How do you want Dick Knight to vote on Leeds?

[unnameable]

It's going to be hot in the UK today, except in Leeds, where it will be minus 15.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

*sigh* You can be an irritating self righteous muppet whenever anyone on here has a pop at a big club.

Where the f*** are MOST people on this thread suggesting that the 15 point deduction be upheld JUST BECAUSE it's Leeds?

Right......

So you are telling me if it wasnt Leeds but in fact a smaller club there would not be people saying what a bunch of wankers the FA are?

Some of the people on this thread who are saying up hold are the same people this time last year who had been saying its wrong for Rotherham to be duct 10 or when it seemed Wrexham would be given the same punishment had made it quite clear that it wasnt fair - When with out going into much detail its the same sort of thing happening to Leeds as it is Wrexham someone is trying to screw the club over.

And I said uphold so I wasnt really standing up for people who are having a go at a "big" club was I?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It has to be 'uphold', as the deduction, rightly or wrongly is the the only sanction that the football authorities have seen fit to impose for Bates' actions.

If even that lenient sanction is reduced, what message are you sending to the other devious prospectors out there?

 

[veade]

before he makes a decision he wants to remember what Bates said about teams like Brighton and it wasn't very nice

 

[Simster]

Right......

So you are telling me if it wasnt Leeds but in fact a smaller club there would not be people saying what a bunch of wankers the FA are?

Some of the people on this thread who are saying up hold are the same people this time last year who had been saying its wrong for Rotherham to be duct 10 or when it seemed Wrexham would be given the same punishment had made it quite clear that it wasnt fair - When with out going into much detail its the same sort of thing happening to Leeds as it is Wrexham someone is trying to screw the club over.

And I said uphold so I wasnt really standing up for people who are having a go at a "big" club was I?

Did Wrexham FC Ltd screw their creditors by ensuring that the more generous takeover offer was never given a chance owing to the fact that some dodgy off shore company was "owed" 70% of the money?
Did Wrexham FC Ltd take the piss by going against the spirit of the law by having it enforced at a meaningless point of the season.

And finally, you find me some threads that point to MOST of the contributors to this thread suggesting that Wrexham or Rotherham should be let off. And I mean MOST, because that is what you said.

 

[Stinky Kat]

uphold

and lock up that crook Bates

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

*sigh* You can be an irritating self righteous muppet whenever anyone on here has a pop at a big club.

Where the f*** are MOST people on this thread suggesting that the 15 point deduction be upheld JUST BECAUSE it's Leeds?

Uphold it. It's irrelevant who exactly is to blame as it's against Leeds Utd FC and not an individual.


I want Leeds f***ed. I want Wise to suffer. I want Bates humiliated.


Uphold it-with an additional 5 points because it's Leeds.


are just points on this thread, there are others on other threads but the search is not working and I am going to go out now.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Did Wrexham FC Ltd screw their creditors by ensuring that the more generous takeover offer was never given a chance owing to the fact that some dodgy off shore company was "owed" 70% of the money?
Did Wrexham FC Ltd take the piss by going against the spirit of the law by having it enforced at a meaningless point of the season.

And finally, you find me some threads that point to MOST of the contributors to this thread suggesting that Wrexham or Rotherham should be let off. And I mean MOST, because that is what you said.

Where did I also so People had been mention Wrexham on this thread LI?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Increase it.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Increase it.

Raise your increase it by 6.

 

[Seagullible]

Uphold

 

[Nemesis]

Uphold it. It's irrelevant who exactly is to blame as it's against Leeds Utd FC and not an individual.

Uphold it-with an additional 5 points because it's Leeds.

2 points on this:

Firstly, Leeds have tried taking the piss at every opportunity: The FL, The Taxman, other clubs, creditors, CHARITIES, etc. For that alone they deserve a minimum of 15 points deducted-when the FL knows which Leeds United to deduct the points from. Their fraudulent actions are like no other.

Secondly, on a personal level I hate Leeds, and for that alone I'd like to see another 5 points deducted. No moral reasons-I simply hate them.

Don't like that? Tough-deal with it.

 

[supaseagull]

2 points on this:

Firstly, Leeds have tried taking the piss at every opportunity: The FL, The Taxman, other clubs, creditors, CHARITIES, etc. For that alone they deserve a minimum of 15 points deducted-when the FL knows which Leeds United to deduct the points from. Their fraudulent actions are like no other.

Secondly, on a personal level I hate Leeds, and for that alone I'd like to see another 5 points deducted. No moral reasons-I simply hate them.

Don't like that? Tough-deal with it.

I'd agree, however, i'd give them a 50 point deduction...15 points can still be made up quite easily.

 

[severnside gull]

The italian league tried overly strict punishments in terms of points deduction and couldn't make it stiick in the face of other clubs reaction and the threat of legal action in response so think the suggested 15 points is realistic and edging towards being overly fair.

If they had started at a deduction of -20 you would have expected an appeal to result in a revision down to -15 anyway.

It can't go down further as -10 is the standard for being in admin and the other 5 is for not doing it through a formal CVA as required by league rules and repeatedly requested

 

[supaseagull]

The italian league tried overly strict punishments in terms of points deduction and couldn't make it stiick in the face of other clubs reaction and the threat of legal action in response so think the suggested 15 points is realistic and edging towards being overly fair.

If they had started at a deduction of -20 you would have expected an appeal to result in a revision down to -15 anyway.

It can't go down further as -10 is the standard for being in admin and the other 5 is for not doing it through a formal CVA as required by league rules and repeatedly requested

yes, but they still relegated Juventus..The league should have put them into league 2

 

[Storer68]

uphold.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

2 points on this:

Firstly, Leeds have tried taking the piss at every opportunity: The FL, The Taxman, other clubs, creditors, CHARITIES, etc. For that alone they deserve a minimum of 15 points deducted-when the FL knows which Leeds United to deduct the points from. Their fraudulent actions are like no other.

Secondly, on a personal level I hate Leeds, and for that alone I'd like to see another 5 points deducted. No moral reasons-I simply hate them.

Don't like that? Tough-deal with it.

Proves my point I think.

I dont really care who you like or dont like to be honest.

 

[Starry]

It can't go down further as -10 is the standard for being in admin and the other 5 is for not doing it through a formal CVA as required by league rules and repeatedly requested

that is what the appeal is though. you are saying the penalty is 15points for going into admin and exiting without a cva. the club went into admin, was deducted 10 points [(albeit those points were worthless anyway) and as far as the fl were concerned never left admin] and by the way the fl rather foolishly worded their penalty should have 'only' been deducted a further 5.

making it 15 points, rather than 25.

 

[Yorkie]

it would have.

Thanks Paddy. I thought I had read your previous posts correctly.

 

[ChapManiA]

I think Knight should vote for the points deduction to disappear.