severnside gull
Well-known member
no chance
cheating monney grabbing bastards
cheating monney grabbing bastards
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Will you sign the Leeds Utd petition?
- Thread starter Trigger
- Start date
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
Is your erect penis big enough to take a staple?
fair point - maybe i should have said drawing pin, although that would still be stretching it a bit
jonny.rainbow
Well-known member
- Oct 29, 2005
- 6,787
Nope, if money's tight sell some of that squad they managed to assemble whilst supposedly being hard up.
Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham didn't carry on spending like Leeds have been able to.
f***'em.
Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham didn't carry on spending like Leeds have been able to.
f***'em.
seven stands
New member
taken from the petition
The 15 point deduction which is to be applied to the start of the 2007/8 football season (on top of the 10 point deduction applied to the 2006/7 season) will effectively relegate Leeds United AFC to the 2nd division (4th tier) football during the 2008/9 season...
If the deduction occurs the team wont be able to strenghen its side with the quality of player it so requires.
Leeds United AFC puts the city of Leeds on the world map with fans across the globe, and the 'winding up' of the club, as i believe would happen due to relegation, could have financial implications on the city as a whole...
I believe this move by the football league to be unjust and unfair.
its an old petition they have brought up again to improve their play off chance, wankers
The 15 point deduction which is to be applied to the start of the 2007/8 football season (on top of the 10 point deduction applied to the 2006/7 season) will effectively relegate Leeds United AFC to the 2nd division (4th tier) football during the 2008/9 season...
If the deduction occurs the team wont be able to strenghen its side with the quality of player it so requires.
Leeds United AFC puts the city of Leeds on the world map with fans across the globe, and the 'winding up' of the club, as i believe would happen due to relegation, could have financial implications on the city as a whole...
I believe this move by the football league to be unjust and unfair.
its an old petition they have brought up again to improve their play off chance, wankers
Nemesis
SERIOUSLY!
I hope they get deducted another 15 points. Sign their petition? I think not!
Another successful weekend for you then Scott
Zesh Rehman
New member
1 persons said yes, and i wonder who that was 
just sums up how much leeds are hated
just sums up how much leeds are hated
crodonilson
He/Him
Leeds paid the price for going into administration by being deducted 10 points at the end of last season. This rule was totally unjust as they had already been relegated, however they used a loophole in the law to do this as other clubs had.
I have to wonder if this was Bournemouth, who have just been taken into administration, would everyone be so keen to penalise that club and the supporters (who are the people who really suffer)
I have to wonder if this was Bournemouth, who have just been taken into administration, would everyone be so keen to penalise that club and the supporters (who are the people who really suffer)
readingstockport
New member
They should have been ejected from the league for the disgusting way that bates manipulated the rules in order to con the taxman and all other football fans.
Not a chance I will sign any petition for them, sorry starry but lufc deserved all they got and more imo.
Not a chance I will sign any petition for them, sorry starry but lufc deserved all they got and more imo.
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
Er, let me think for a minute...
... NO
.
... NO
.
Southover Street Seagull
Well-known member
The difference is that Bournemouth are accepting their punishment for going into administration, Leeds aren't, and are also still signing players whilst they have huge debts to pay off.
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
If Bournemouth had Ken Bates as their Chairman and Deductions as their PR guru then yes, they would deserve it too. Come to think of it, even if it was us, we would deserve it as well, and I can't imagine Leeds queing up to save us if the tables were turned.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Sorry but if you cheat you deserve the punishment
I don't think the 15 point deduction had anything to do with the timing of their administration, but the manner in which they came out (I stand to be corrected, though).
And NO, I won't be signing any petition. They should think themselves lucky the FL allowed them to play in this division at all this season.
What will be funny is that the 15 points probably won't make a difference either way at the end of the season, despite the cash they've splashed on players this year. OTHER PEOPLES MONEY AT THAT!
Cheshire Cat
The most curious thing..
United caught in battle between taxman and Football League - Yorkshire Evening Post
United caught in battle between taxman and Football League
United caught in taxman's battle with Football League
By Phil Hay
Leeds United will argue that a conflict of interests between the Football League and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs left the club powerless to stave off a 15-point penalty when their bid to revoke the punishment reaches the High Court.
United chairman Ken Bates announced on Saturday that he was issuing a writ against the Football League over what Leeds claim was a "wrongful decision" to deduct them 15 points before the start of this season.
And the club's argument is expected to rest heavily on the dispute over football creditors which contributed to the collapse of Bates' proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
Leeds United 2007 Ltd – the company fronted by Bates – were handed ownership of Leeds by KPMG through an administrator's sale on July 11 of last year after HMRC launched a legal challenge against the CVA put forward by United's chairman.
Bates' CVA had been agreed in principle at the start of June with the support of the required majority of 75 per cent of United's creditors.
The deal initially promised to pay 1p in the £ to unsecured creditors – among them HMRC, who alone were owed more than £7million by Leeds – but government tax officials lodged a legal challenge against the deal an hour before the end of the 28-day cooling-off period provided by law for creditors to consider and contest a CVA.
United are likely to claim in court that the HMRC's prime motivation for fighting the deal was their dissatisfaction with Football League rules, which state that all football creditors – including players, managers and other clubs – must be paid in full before a club in administration is allowed to regain their 'golden share' in the League.
HMRC were until recently preferential creditors but their unsecured status left them in line to receive around £77,000 of the seven figure tax bill they were owed, while United's football creditors received full repayment.
Confirmation of HMRC's legal challenge saw administrators KPMG collapse the CVA and complete a private sale to Bates' company.
The move brought Leeds out of administration, but it conflicted with another area of Football League rules which requires insolvent clubs to implement an agreed CVA before their membership of the League is returned.
United's failure to move forward with a CVA in place began the sequence of events which saw their golden share returned through an "exceptional circumstances" clause within the League's regulations – but at the cost of a 15-point deduction.
Leeds are expected to present the timeline as evidence that the HMRC's policy towards the issue of football creditors left little or no prospect of the club adhering to Football League rules by agreeing a CVA.
At the time of the administrator's sale in July, KPMG expressed concern that the weeks and months spent deciding HMRC's legal challenge would threaten United's survival due to uncertainty over how the club would be funded in the interim.
HMRC's challenge was originally made on July 3 but their case against Leeds was not scheduled to begin until September 3 – a month after the start of the League One season. KPMG's decision to carry out an administrator's sale rendered the CVA redundant, and ultimately led to HMRC dropping their legal challenge.
Bates told the YEP: "We were in an impossible position.
"We'd agreed a CVA with a 75 per cent majority, as Football League rules said we had to, and then the taxman decided to challenge the agreement in court. They weren't happy with the fact that football creditors were being paid in full.
"If we hadn't paid our football creditors in full then we wouldn't have received our golden share in the Football League, because their rules also state that every club in administration must pay every penny they owe to football creditors.
"By meeting that requirement, we brought on a legal challenge from the taxman which meant we couldn't follow through with the CVA. We were damned if we did and damned if we didn't."
HMRC's attitude towards the issue of football creditors was confirmed in a letter sent by Richard Fleming, the joint administrator of KPMG, to Colin Burgon MP on July 10 – 24 hours before Bates bought back United.
In his letter, Fleming stated that "the policy of HMRC, as detailed in the Voluntary Arrangements Service Worksheet, makes it clear they would decline any proposals made by any member of any organisation that requires debt owed to its members to be paid in full, when all other unsecured creditors become bound on approval of the arrangement."
United's writ against the Football League was due to be issued this week, and League officials have so far declined to comment.
But the Football Association has rejected claims made by Bates in his match-day programme notes on Saturday that it advised United to sue the League rather than pursue independent arbitration against the FA itself.
Leeds requested arbitration under FA rules after failing to persuade the governing body to support their challenge to the 15-point penalty, but the club have now abandoned that route and proceeded directly to the High Court.
The FA has consistently maintained that the League followed their own rules appropriately by punishing United. A spokesman for Soho Square also refuted Bates' suggestion that the governing body had used "evasive behaviour and delaying tactics" during the dispute.
The full article contains 898 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 24 January 2008 8:53 AM
United caught in battle between taxman and Football League
United caught in taxman's battle with Football League
By Phil Hay
Leeds United will argue that a conflict of interests between the Football League and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs left the club powerless to stave off a 15-point penalty when their bid to revoke the punishment reaches the High Court.
United chairman Ken Bates announced on Saturday that he was issuing a writ against the Football League over what Leeds claim was a "wrongful decision" to deduct them 15 points before the start of this season.
And the club's argument is expected to rest heavily on the dispute over football creditors which contributed to the collapse of Bates' proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
Leeds United 2007 Ltd – the company fronted by Bates – were handed ownership of Leeds by KPMG through an administrator's sale on July 11 of last year after HMRC launched a legal challenge against the CVA put forward by United's chairman.
Bates' CVA had been agreed in principle at the start of June with the support of the required majority of 75 per cent of United's creditors.
The deal initially promised to pay 1p in the £ to unsecured creditors – among them HMRC, who alone were owed more than £7million by Leeds – but government tax officials lodged a legal challenge against the deal an hour before the end of the 28-day cooling-off period provided by law for creditors to consider and contest a CVA.
United are likely to claim in court that the HMRC's prime motivation for fighting the deal was their dissatisfaction with Football League rules, which state that all football creditors – including players, managers and other clubs – must be paid in full before a club in administration is allowed to regain their 'golden share' in the League.
HMRC were until recently preferential creditors but their unsecured status left them in line to receive around £77,000 of the seven figure tax bill they were owed, while United's football creditors received full repayment.
Confirmation of HMRC's legal challenge saw administrators KPMG collapse the CVA and complete a private sale to Bates' company.
The move brought Leeds out of administration, but it conflicted with another area of Football League rules which requires insolvent clubs to implement an agreed CVA before their membership of the League is returned.
United's failure to move forward with a CVA in place began the sequence of events which saw their golden share returned through an "exceptional circumstances" clause within the League's regulations – but at the cost of a 15-point deduction.
Leeds are expected to present the timeline as evidence that the HMRC's policy towards the issue of football creditors left little or no prospect of the club adhering to Football League rules by agreeing a CVA.
At the time of the administrator's sale in July, KPMG expressed concern that the weeks and months spent deciding HMRC's legal challenge would threaten United's survival due to uncertainty over how the club would be funded in the interim.
HMRC's challenge was originally made on July 3 but their case against Leeds was not scheduled to begin until September 3 – a month after the start of the League One season. KPMG's decision to carry out an administrator's sale rendered the CVA redundant, and ultimately led to HMRC dropping their legal challenge.
Bates told the YEP: "We were in an impossible position.
"We'd agreed a CVA with a 75 per cent majority, as Football League rules said we had to, and then the taxman decided to challenge the agreement in court. They weren't happy with the fact that football creditors were being paid in full.
"If we hadn't paid our football creditors in full then we wouldn't have received our golden share in the Football League, because their rules also state that every club in administration must pay every penny they owe to football creditors.
"By meeting that requirement, we brought on a legal challenge from the taxman which meant we couldn't follow through with the CVA. We were damned if we did and damned if we didn't."
HMRC's attitude towards the issue of football creditors was confirmed in a letter sent by Richard Fleming, the joint administrator of KPMG, to Colin Burgon MP on July 10 – 24 hours before Bates bought back United.
In his letter, Fleming stated that "the policy of HMRC, as detailed in the Voluntary Arrangements Service Worksheet, makes it clear they would decline any proposals made by any member of any organisation that requires debt owed to its members to be paid in full, when all other unsecured creditors become bound on approval of the arrangement."
United's writ against the Football League was due to be issued this week, and League officials have so far declined to comment.
But the Football Association has rejected claims made by Bates in his match-day programme notes on Saturday that it advised United to sue the League rather than pursue independent arbitration against the FA itself.
Leeds requested arbitration under FA rules after failing to persuade the governing body to support their challenge to the 15-point penalty, but the club have now abandoned that route and proceeded directly to the High Court.
The FA has consistently maintained that the League followed their own rules appropriately by punishing United. A spokesman for Soho Square also refuted Bates' suggestion that the governing body had used "evasive behaviour and delaying tactics" during the dispute.
The full article contains 898 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 24 January 2008 8:53 AM
fatbadger
New member
Justice?! What are they talking about?
They broke the rules, they were punished. Isn't that what justice is all about?
They broke the rules, they were punished. Isn't that what justice is all about?
Why is it that Leeds are the only club that this has happened to? It's not like they're the first to go into and out of administration. I'm really not clear why they are a special case.
Owing the Revenue £7M is rather inexcusable, though, isn't it? They put themselves in the position and have to face the consequences.
Owing the Revenue £7M is rather inexcusable, though, isn't it? They put themselves in the position and have to face the consequences.
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
i fail to see why they are a special case, and why they should get their punishment rescinded when many other teams have gone into administration and have accepted their punishments
maybe leeds should just shut the f*** up and stop spending like they're in the premiership........the most appallingly poorly run football.....no.....sports club......f*** it...BUSINESS ever?!
maybe leeds should just shut the f*** up and stop spending like they're in the premiership........the most appallingly poorly run football.....no.....sports club......f*** it...BUSINESS ever?!
Vatican Citys No.2 Keeper
Rebels & Albion
Nnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Quote from the LeedsUnited website: "This isn't about Leeds Utd - it's about justice and fair play"
MY ARSE IT ISN'T ABOUT LEEDS UNITED
MY ARSE IT ISN'T ABOUT LEEDS UNITED