How many points will Leeds have back by the 19th April

[billy_bremner]

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 aside, just like that.

Spot on !!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

One of the creditors in favour of the CVA was Yorkshire Radio. Do they not broadcast from their studios based at Elland Road ? Is Yorkshire Radio a company that is owned by Leeds United ? Basically it all stinks , the FL rules state that in exceptional circumstances a club can still compete in the League without a CVA of 75% of creditors in agreement - hence the 15 points deduction. Mr Bates managed to get a 75.1% vote in favour of paying back 1p in the £ but which HMRC objected to. Leeds only had 2 options , being wound up to pay off tax debts or accept a 15 points penalty with a new company taking over (lu07).

 

[Starry]

One of the creditors in favour of the CVA was Yorkshire Radio. Do they not broadcast from their studios based at Elland Road ? Is Yorkshire Radio a company that is owned by Leeds United ? Basically it all stinks , the FL rules state that in exceptional circumstances a club can still compete in the League without a CVA of 75% of creditors in agreement - hence the 15 points deduction. Mr Bates managed to get a 75.1% vote in favour of paying back 1p in the £ but which HMRC objected to. Leeds only had 2 options , being wound up to pay off tax debts or accept a 15 points penalty with a new company taking over (lu07).

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 preferred creditor. it is why they are objecting to cva all over the place. the fl removed their preferential status and they want it back.


>>the FL rules state that in exceptional circumstances a club can still compete in the League without a CVA of 75% of creditors in agreement - hence the 15 points deduction.<<

yes. the rules say you can have EC if no cva and that a cva is the preferred route. not that it is the only route, nor that if you come for your golden share any other way you will be punished by a deduction.

the deduction is not in the rule book. nor is having a cva a rule, just a preference.

leeds did not get a cva and the other clubs voted in favour of the deduction.

then..... this summer perhaps.

luton do not get a cva and the other clubs vote yes to a 15 point deduction

bournemouth do not get a cva and the other clubs vote NO to a 15 point deduction

rotherham do not get a cva and the other clubs vote no to a 15 point deduction.

what then?

 

[fatbadger]

what then?

Personally, I've always been in favour of membership organisations resorting to democracy and a free vote of members when it comes to discipline. An international membership organisation (the members of which were commercial enterprises which required the membership organisation to carry out their work) which I once worked for always used a free vote of members whenever major rule breaches or problematic operating issues relating to a member came up. Minor issues were dealt with in-house by an investigations team (of which I was a member).

 

[sten_super]

This is one thing I don't understand; Leeds are saying that there's no provision for punishment, just that the rules state that a CVA is the preferred route out of administration, but other routes are allowed in exceptional circumstances. However, since this rule had never previously been tested, while there is no specific provision for a punishment, nor is there any statement ruling out punishment.

The oddest thing seems to be (as Starry has said) that the FL haven't updated their rule book saying that exceptional circumstances are punishable with a deduction. The implication of course being that they don't want it to be a catch-all applicable to all clubs, in case HMRC do challenge each and every CVA.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

the deduction is not in the rule book. nor is having a cva a rule, just a preference.

leeds did not get a cva and the other clubs voted in favour of the deduction.

then..... this summer perhaps.

luton do not get a cva and the other clubs vote yes to a 15 point deduction

bournemouth do not get a cva and the other clubs vote NO to a 15 point deduction

rotherham do not get a cva and the other clubs vote no to a 15 point deduction.

what then?

The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route. Presumably when the clubs vote yes or no to a points deduction they are recommended to vote in unison to maintain the "status quo" so all clubs would receive the same penalty.

 

[billy_bremner]

" The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route "

I think you have got it completely wrong there ! The 15 points deduction had nothing to do with what route we took last season to get into admin !

 

[steward 433]

" The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route "

I think you have got it completely wrong there ! The 15 points deduction had nothing to do with what route we took last season to get into admin !

No you are correct BUT it is how you came out of admin

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

" The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route "

I think you have got it completely wrong there ! The 15 points deduction had nothing to do with what route we took last season to get into admin !

Following the logical process of coming out of administration without the requisite CVA in place by an agreed date , the 15 points deduction was imposed , not for what happened the previous season when the the rules were used snidily to go into administration, knowing honestly that the club would be relegated (none of this mathematical bollocks , please).

 

[Starry]

The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route. Presumably when the clubs vote yes or no to a points deduction they are recommended to vote in unison to maintain the "status quo" so all clubs would receive the same penalty.

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 do so since.

anyway. i'd be looking around for some decent odds on leeds to get the points back right about now, if i were a betting man of course

 

[Seagull73]

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 do so since.

anyway. i'd be looking around for some decent odds on leeds to get the points back right about now, if i were a betting man of course

Presumably, were that to be the case, seeing as the other Leeds United is still in administration, they could refuse to hand the Golden Share to them again next season?

 

[Starry]

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 the club anymore.

 

[Seagull73]

leeds united football club limited (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 the club anymore.

Sorry I must have missed something here then. So are you saying that the old company is about to be wound-up without repaying any of the debt that it had when it went into administration?

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

Sorry I must have missed something here then. So are you saying that the old company is about to be wound-up without repaying any of the debt that it had when it went into administration?

Therein lies the rub Seagull73 this is at the heart of the matter. Leeds Utd could not resolve its differences with its creditors so it folded, it is no more.

The current entity that is Leeds Utd (LU07) is a different organisation completely. This is why (Starry can correct if I am wrong) the reason why the FL had to cite 'exceptional circumstances' in granting Leeds their share, because without a deal with creditors there wasn't actually a football club to enter the competition known as League One. This is what marks the situation out as pretty exceptional as (technically at least) we are not dealing with the same company that participated in The Championship last season.

The old Leeds Utd went out of business and the new one had not sorted out its affairs to the satisfaction of the FL by the time we were approaching the start of the season. However rather than deny the club entry into the competition and their golden share, the FL cut them some slack, albeit with a penalty of 15pts for not getting themselves into line quick enough.

 

[Easy 10]

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 the club anymore.

And Leeds wern't "mathematically down" when they went into administration last season (they'd have had to have won their last game something like 21-0 and have other results go in their favour to have stayed up).

Smoke and mirrors with your lot.

Grubby
Grubby
Grubby

 

[Simster]

Therein lies the rub Seagull73 this is at the heart of the matter. Leeds Utd could not resolve its differences with its creditors so it folded, it is no more.

The current entity that is Leeds Utd (LU07) is a different organisation completely. This is why (Starry can correct if I am wrong) the reason why the FL had to cite 'exceptional circumstances' in granting Leeds their share, because without a deal with creditors there wasn't actually a football club to enter the competition known as League One. This is what marks the situation out as pretty exceptional as (technically at least) we are not dealing with the same company that participated in The Championship last season.

The old Leeds Utd went out of business and the new one had not sorted out its affairs to the satisfaction of the FL by the time we were approaching the start of the season. However rather than deny the club entry into the competition and their golden share, the FL cut them some slack, albeit with a penalty of 15pts for not getting themselves into line quick enough.

That is how I see it.

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 the club anymore.

In that case, and given what Row Z Creased Shirt has said, LU07 should have been made to start at the BOTTOM of the league pyramid like every other club.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would have thought that to operate as Leeds United in the Football League the new company must have had to buy the old Leeds Utd league registration and then that would be were the Golden Share comes into being. If not if Bournemouth went bust any team even up in Cumbria could start up as Bournemouth and go straight into Div 2 of the FL.

 

[NMH]

" The point I am trying to get across is that due to "exceptional circumstances" the FL imposed the 15 points deduction as a benchmark for all clubs to observe in the future as the penalty for pursuing this or a similar route "

I think you have got it completely wrong there ! The 15 points deduction had nothing to do with what route we took last season to get into admin !

Look, it's got to be set example vs example set, and if you dodge the punishment then you will have set a bad example, when the league are setting theirs - regardless of whether this or that club "would do the same".
I actually don't believe our club would have done it the way LUFC did, as it happens.

My opinion is that your club found that rather large and glaring loophole in what the league's set out to stop exactly your sort of behavior, and I hope you have your punishment upheld!

It's also an affront to clubs that have had to go into administration since - and have had to accept points deductions that HAVE put dents in their status and futures. What an affront, if Leeds manage to prosper because of slickness and timely ducking and diving!

And yes, I do still feel very slightly for many of the fans, even though you have a really bad track record for your fans as well.

 

[NMH]

And Leeds wern't "mathematically down" when they went into administration last season (they'd have had to have won their last game something like 21-0 and have other results go in their favour to have stayed up).

Smoke and mirrors with your lot.

Grubby
Grubby
Grubby

The arguments are even undermined by their tenuous assertions, but to suggest "we would do the same" is another statement that gives light to the root of this attitude. I'm not keen on their wanting to taint us with the same brush at all.

 

[beorhthelm]

if they get their points back i think i might just give up on football. Premiership is full of over paid tossers and FA is run by a bunch of spinless muppets. if the FL cant do this thing right, then whats the point?

and i really really hope bates and co walkk into the arbitration with Starry's badge on, because it sums everything up neatly. To think i felt genuinely sorry for the Leeds fans in July/August when it looked like they wouldnt have a club anymore.