Search results

it's bad money after bad cjd, has been since the days of silver. seagull73 - the old company debts will be repaid at a rate of 11.2p/£ by the new company.

leeds united football club 07 ltd. (which is leeds united now) are not in administration nor have they ever been. the old leeds united (who went into admin) are liquidated now and will be dissolved shortly. the old leeds has nothing to do with golden shares or anything now, they don't own...

it wasn't due to ec that we were deducted the points it was in spite of them. the clubs might well have been encouraged to vote one or the other. but the fl cannot change the rule book to impose such penalties without a full member vote something they failed to do last summer and have failed to...

yorkshire radio - you can say that about astor, krato and anyone else sat in that room voting last summer (apart from me because i assure you i am not owned by bates and voted entirely of my free will) hmrc would have objected to anything that did not see them receive full payment as a...

that has absolutely nothing to do with what the arbitration is about, not even on the agenda. so whether taking the -10 when we did (not mathematically down) was was right or wrong or a slap in the face to the fl it has no bearing on whether the -15 was right. so yes, it can and has been waved...

they hadn't been paid and were creditors.

westlake is not on £7k. source - creditors list from kpmg.

just because it might cause carnage (and i don't think it will - not in reality) that doesn't mean the arbitration can make it a lawful decision to appease the other teams. as for saturday, we'll see if right said fred turn up again to take the buses apart. how scary.

so part time, i'm in bed with ken bates apparently ;) steward433- i think we will know the verdict before the weekend because as you say it is not far to us or other teams in and around the play off/auto spots to hold it back another week. and the verdict? i don't know. i think 15 points back...

nope. but in a round about way your sentence above is exactly why the fl find themselves in this situation.

i haven't voted. we might not find out by the 19th by the way, the fl are no considering a request from millwall that the 'verdict' is not made public until after this weekends game in case we go down there and cause bother.

The FA have nothing to do with this. The FL do and can, but unfortunately for them they haven't changed the rule book from this time last year.

he is spinning you a line, honestly. yes we did, just as the fl had the option not to dish out punishments for offences that do not exist.

nope. a cva is not law and the agreement regarding the golden share was akin to a forced confession on death row. it has been discarded from this weeks arbitration for pretty much that reason. legally, we did nothing to have a 15 point deduction enforced. the fl have been unable to tell leeds...

talksport are wrong. the arbitration is not ruling on whether 15 points was the right punishment they are ruling on whether the fl acted within it's rule book in deducting points. how many points they deducted is not the primary issue. deserve them back? legally we did nothing to deserve...

we will get a portion back if the fl make a deal with bates outside of the arbitration.

no they can't pal. all or nothing. 15 or 0.

Quite. But what does that have to do with the arbitration? This weeks arbitration has nothing to do with the 10 point deduction we quite rightly received for going into administration.

But what rules were broken, Bluejuice? This is the problem the FL have now. No rule was broken, they punished us for a rule that does not exist (and there has not since been a member vote to amend the rule book.) How could another club try to bring a court case if we do get our points back? On...

hard to say, sully. there are too many possible outcomes from this week. i assume your colleague means if our points are not returned bournemouth (without a cva) would have to be deducted 15 points and as such, could they survive that?