posted Nov 24, 2007

To people wanting the facts re. the CVA. There was one in place after the Administrator,who was appointed to run the company,put the offers to the creditors who accepted the Bates'offer to buy the club out of administration. It required the agreement of 75% of the creditors to enable a CVA (creditors voluntary agreement),to be granted. This was obtained when between 75%and 76% of the creditors voted for it. In order to regain the golden share,(this allows the club entry into the league,gives them the players registered to the old company and allows the new company to register new players with the FL), from the football league the new company had to pay off all football creditors. When this was done by Bates it meant that the football creditors,who had voted for the deal, were no longer creditors so the %voting for accepting the deal dropped below 75% so when the tax man appealed minutes before the deal would have been accepted into law the administrator couldn't renew the CVA. The Taxman then withdrew his appeal. It could be described as malicious but it was nothing more than a technicality and the club was in a catch 22 situation as it couldn't get the golden share without paying the football creditors,(a rule introduced by players union man Gordon Taylor),yet paying the football creditors allowed the taxman to prevent the administrator from granting the CVA.

Morally and in principle Leeds did all they could to comply with legal requirements so it must be seen by all reasonable people that Mawhinneys'inflicting the fifteen point penalty because of a technicality is pernicious and malicious and he should be drummed out of football for his disgracefull behaviour.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

Leeds deserve an independant adjudication on the 15 point ruling. If leeds have broken regulations then the 15 point should remain or perhaps 5 points given back (in fact 10 point deduction would be in line with administration). If not then the concerns expressed over bates and the administrators are well founded--- and i am a leeds fan.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

lets just stop whingin and moanin and go win the league stuff the fa and there 15 points we can still win it and after giving every other team a 15 points head start so lets get out of politics and get back to the football andyc70

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Agree 100%.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

Original Koppite actually has the cheek to claim Leeds acted morally and correctly in thier dealings.

What is morally correct about the following:

1) When administration is imperative waiting until relegation is confirmed and therefore the deduction of points irrelevent. Maybe technically acceptable and legal, but moral???

2) Driving many small local business to the brink of extinction and leaving charities out of pocket just so a man who lives in Monte Carlo can get a club for peanuts to sell in the future??

3) Circumventing the rule preventing previous owners from buying back the club they have taken into administration ( as happened at Neighbours Bradford)?? This was a hidden but another very real reason the CVA was bypassed.

4) After all this, claiming the vote ( carried out democratically among other clubs) to punish by 15 points is wrong. The punishment was fair and aimed to balance the wrong doing and poor management of Leeds against the well run but much smaller budget clubs of this division. As it turns out, it hasnt hampered the team, and well done for that.

You sound like a spoilt teenager crying " it wasnt me" when the facts are all around.

Dont claim morality in this, there is none. Bates is a business man and has done what he has done to make money, and he will make make lots.

Legal Yes, Ethical and Moral - not a chance.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

Exactly why I wrote my post. ZZZZZZZZ

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 3, 2007

thay took 25 points away from us !!! if bates sayz we havnt broken any rules then y have we been deducted another 15? we should get that back because we lost 10 at the end of last season leeds till i die!!!! up the whites

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 4, 2007

In response to Markristals points.
I am not and would not want to be seen as an excuser of Bates. I am entering into this debate in good faith and though I am a life-long LUFC fan and am pained by their struggle I am trying to be logical. I haven't seen the company accounts but it seems probable that the administration only became imperative when relegation became unavoidable and projected income drastically reduced. As Bates said he would have been failing in his duty to the company had he not taken the course that he did. That he was allowed to personally gain from the manoeuvre is the fault of the authorities not the fans.

The administration rule was introduced by Mawhinney. It might in theory be morally correct but it is badly drafted and legally inept. Mawhiney is responsible for that and it is he who has cast aside all pretence of legality because Bates has taken advantage of his incompetence. The welfare of local businesses and charities will not benefit from Leeds being brought to its knees, they will benefit, and as football itself will benefit, from a financially strong and successful Leeds United.
The club finds itself in its present predicament because of Ridsdale. He is either an incompetent clown or a crook. Bates has come along in the same manner that Freddie Shepherds Newcastle ….…Liverpool and Levy’s Spurs, as a predator to take advantage of the clubs defenceless position. If this is unacceptable punish the chairmen not the club as collateral damage is unavoidable and unacceptable.
It is normal practice in business for directors to buy back all or parts of a business they have put into administration. If Mawhinney doesn’t like this practice he has the power to prevent it happening.
That you claim the vote was fair is disingenuous. The mechanical happening of the vote may have been legal but as an attempt to produce an independent forum to ensure justice was done it was cynical and contrived and calculated to ensure Mawhinney's will was done
Bates is what Bates is and I don’t like him any more than you do. It is the club I am defending. That clubs are at the mercy of any chancer, as is demonstrated by the make up of the owners of Premier League clubs, or predator is the fault of the governing body not the fans.

add comment | complain about this comment