Leeds verdict may not be until end of season
- Thread starter Dirty Dave
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
Difference is that Foster was questioning a rule that was already in place.
Leeds are questioning whether a rule actually exists.
It isn't a very popular viewpoint on here, but it's the league that has created this mess.
The original 10 deduction ruling was flawed since it allowed clubs to take the hit after or just before near certain relegation, thus allowing those clubs to start the next season clear.
The 100% football creditors ruling is so unpopular with the Inland Revenue, it appears they now have a policy of disagreeing with any CVA that doesn't give them what they believe to be a fair share.
There isn't anything in the rule book that says what happens when a club does come out of administration without a CVA, it just states it will be allowed under special circumstances.
Now, there is something very wrong when a club to be able to wipe out millions pounds of debt, start a new club under the same name and carry on as if nothing has happened. But if the system appears to allow it, then someones gonna try and get out of it.
Personally, I think that Leeds should have taken on the chin and simply got on with it.
Last edited:
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
Is this going to have any bearing on the outcome?
Digger: Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisal | Football | The Guardian
Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisalMatt Scott The Guardian, Wednesday April 23 2008
Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, sent a letter to Football League clubs last month setting out the grounds for the club's challenge to the 15-point penalty imposed, in apparent breach of rules governing football arbitrations.
The club and the League undertook to adhere to the Football Association's regulations in the arbitration that concluded on Monday, meaning they were bound by the confidentiality clauses underlined under FA rule K6: "The parties shall preserve and respect the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings, including the issues in the dispute and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties."
Yet by the end of Harvey's five-page letter, sent out on March 20, Leeds had put everybody on notice about the eight points they would argue. He asserted a belief the club would prove a lack of independence in the League's attempts to legitimise its 15-point penalty through a club vote, adding that in voting on the issue all of Leeds's League One competitors would have "a vested interest". Sir Philip Otton, who chaired the FA's independent arbitration panel, is believed to be considering the letter's implications. He is known to hold the confidentiality of his proceedings paramount, giving all parties what one source referred to as "a big talking to" and threatening reprisals for breaches.
The League took this so seriously that they were even refusing to confirm the existence of the arbitration the night before it began.
Digger: Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisal | Football | The Guardian
Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisalMatt Scott The Guardian, Wednesday April 23 2008
Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, sent a letter to Football League clubs last month setting out the grounds for the club's challenge to the 15-point penalty imposed, in apparent breach of rules governing football arbitrations.
The club and the League undertook to adhere to the Football Association's regulations in the arbitration that concluded on Monday, meaning they were bound by the confidentiality clauses underlined under FA rule K6: "The parties shall preserve and respect the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings, including the issues in the dispute and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties."
Yet by the end of Harvey's five-page letter, sent out on March 20, Leeds had put everybody on notice about the eight points they would argue. He asserted a belief the club would prove a lack of independence in the League's attempts to legitimise its 15-point penalty through a club vote, adding that in voting on the issue all of Leeds's League One competitors would have "a vested interest". Sir Philip Otton, who chaired the FA's independent arbitration panel, is believed to be considering the letter's implications. He is known to hold the confidentiality of his proceedings paramount, giving all parties what one source referred to as "a big talking to" and threatening reprisals for breaches.
The League took this so seriously that they were even refusing to confirm the existence of the arbitration the night before it began.
cjd
Well-known member
Interesting UB..............but of course, this doesn,t apply to Leeds. They can do what they like...............Starry/Paddy will, in a roundabout way, inform of this.
If they're going give back the points, the FA should use the same maths Bates used to 'repay' all those creditors like St Johns Ambulance, catering firms, programme printers and the like:
For every quid we owe you, you'll get 11p. We'll then carry on as if nothing's happened, spunking a whole load more cash on players like before. Tough shit.
So, by my reckoning, they should get 1.65 points back.
Making us the only team to miss out on the playoffs by 0.65 of a point.
For every quid we owe you, you'll get 11p. We'll then carry on as if nothing's happened, spunking a whole load more cash on players like before. Tough shit.
So, by my reckoning, they should get 1.65 points back.
Making us the only team to miss out on the playoffs by 0.65 of a point.
not all that interesting, bit of piss poor journalism. the 'letter' is what the high court case defence was based on and has been in the public domain since february before the arbitration was agreed. never yet know the guardian to print facts but i am sure, like all the other papers printing apologies, the guardian will be on the line in the next few weeks 
amazing how some people will believe the media when it suits.
amazing how some people will believe the media when it suits.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
What was sent out on March 20th then ? Just interested like...
a copy of public information that was already in the public domain.
I find your stance on this interesting, Starry. You say you dislike Bates (with good reason it seems as he's cost you moolah) but you're very happy to support him to the hilt whilst he fucks over all other creditors to the club aside from yourself, thereby cheating his way up the league table with this new LU07 or whatever you're called now and suing anyone that says anything that may or may not be factually correct and he seems to be loving every minute of it.
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
OK, the info contained in this letter may have been in the public domain since February. If so what was the point in the Leeds CEO sending a letter to all FL clubs about it then?
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
A wee bit defensive there.
indeed, he screwed me over in a pretty big way last summer at the same time as screwing everyone else from st john's ambulance to hmrc and just about everyone inbetween. we all got screwed in the same way and all ended up with the same % of our money back. and every day that narks me that he got away with what he did. i mean, no one is stupid enough to believe nothing dodgy went on. but he was one step ahead and had it sown up before we had chance to catch our breath and try and do anything that had any chance of going anywhere. we tried and failed. bates did plenty of things last summer that i find shameful and disgraceful.
i did not support bates' bid to buy the club back last summer, nor support him in screwing over anyone. but it happened. i am bitter about the money i lost but i can't spend the rest of my life chewing someone out.
but the crux of this? i don't like what went on last summer any more than the next person. but i do believe bates is right over the 15 point deduction and i have and will defend that stance because i agree with it. i don't agree with what got us to this place and i thought long and hard last august/september. i was ready to walk away from leeds, to take my 11.2p/£ and have nothing more to do with it. but i couldn't. bates is a small part of leeds united and that football club will be there long after he is gone. i don't support him in going after the newspapers - from the times down to the local village rag. but i can understand why he has done it - they are printing baloney as facts and it is being believed. the recent quotes from various managers/chairmen/players just shows that very few have a clue what is going on and even less of a clue on what they voted for last summer.
i think bates is right on the 15 points appeal. what went on before and to get us to a 15 point deduction wasn't necessarily right. i guess my moral compass is screwed or something.
If the 15 point deduction wasn't the right response from the FL... what was?
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
mmmm...
Well we can think of numerous legal cases where there are reporting restrictions on things that are already "in the public domain"
That doesn't sound like sloppy journalism to me, that sounds like sloppy admin on Leeds part.
Not that it should any bearing on the outcome.
I have to say I do agree with Starry on one thing - the 15 point penalty was just plucked out of thin air and part of me will be pleased if the entire penalty is revoked. Hopefully this will force the League to think long and hard as to what they should do the next time this happens
What SHOULD have happened is that the new Leeds should have been treated as a new club and made to work their way up from the North West Counties League or wherever - the same as Aldershot have. At the very least it should have been relegation by two divisions; instead they've been allowed to get away with being appallingly run without so much as a backward glance at the financial carnage they've caused - and the wider damage they've done to football in general.
Most people, having 'got away with it' would be delighted with such a powder-puff penalty as a 15 point deduction, but Bates isn't 'most people'; he can see the weakness of the League's position and intends to exploit it. In a warped way I admire his cheek: it's a bit like pissing through someone's letterbox and then knocking on their door and asking how far it's gone down the hallway.
What SHOULD have happened is that the new Leeds should have been treated as a new club and made to work their way up from the North West Counties League or wherever - the same as Aldershot have. At the very least it should have been relegation by two divisions; instead they've been allowed to get away with being appallingly run without so much as a backward glance at the financial carnage they've caused - and the wider damage they've done to football in general.
Most people, having 'got away with it' would be delighted with such a powder-puff penalty as a 15 point deduction, but Bates isn't 'most people'; he can see the weakness of the League's position and intends to exploit it. In a warped way I admire his cheek: it's a bit like pissing through someone's letterbox and then knocking on their door and asking how far it's gone down the hallway.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
This is what is being exploited as a technicality. The FL can allow a club to compete after coming out of administration without a cva in place UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The FL imposed a 15 points penalty which then allowed Leeds to start the 2007-2008 season as they were given back the "golden share". Leeds said they would appeal the decision to dock them 15 points which was ridiculous as the alternative would have been expulsion and starting again in the minor leagues. The FL is correct in its decision to make a points deduction in lieu of expelling a member club. If the points are re-instated it will make a mockery of the game and prove that the football authorities are toothless if any gobby club chairman decides he is right and everyone else is wrong.
severnside gull
Well-known member
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
I totally agree with you, let's hope the arbitrators agree.
Excellent question Titanic.
I would say that based upon the actual FL rules and part of Leeds' defence is that the arbitrary 15 point deduction was wrong becuase there was nothing in the"rulebook" then I would say the only response the FL could have taken that was clearly stated within there own rules (if you accept that Leeds situation was not exceptional circumstances) was expulsion from the FL.