posted Apr 26, 2008

"A three-man panel reviewing the penalty is expected to make their ruling before Leeds' trip to Millwall on 19 April."

So why didn't this happen?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 26, 2008

Leeds themselves should have been pushing for a speedy resolution to the situation - now is not the time. Therefore, sad as it may seem for Leeds, the initial penalty should stand.
--
Er, we have

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 26, 2008

"A three-man panel reviewing the penalty is expected to make their ruling before Leeds' trip to Millwall on 19 April."

So why didn't this happen?

--

I have no idea. Still not sure what your point is

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

stonnallsaddler (U3173811)

sure the 10 points Leeds were docked last season were meaningless...

but as they weren't mathematically relegated at the time it was 100% consistent with the rules.

The fact that Bates was a bit "cute" with the timing probably irritated the league - hence they were looking for a way to punish Leeds some other way...
which they did.

Its not Leeds' fault the rule allowed them to make the 10pts meaningless... anyone with any sense would've ensured that if they were in such a situation they timed thing as Leeds did.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Leeds is a small place in Sheffield remember it .
--
would you like a map for christmas?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Fair-minded people interested in understanding this dispute should understand that Haw-Haw was offended by the fact that Bates, by following the rules to the letter, escaped any effective disadvantage when he put the club into administration.

The rules concerning clubs going into administration, introduced by Haw-Haw, didn't do what he wanted them to do so he determined to get Bates on the way out.

The rule he used was a technicality and so vaguely worded that it could have been interpreted in any way Haw-Haw wanted.

If another person had bought Leeds out of administration the rule wouldn't have been applied which is why Leeds fans are so irate because their club has been used by Haw-Haw as a vehicle to settle a vendetta with Bates.

To criticise Bates for appealing after giving an undertaking not to is facetious. What Haw-Haw did was similar to a kidnapper returning your child on the understanding you will not prosecute. Should the kidnapper be allowed to hide behind the fact that you signed the undertaking to prevent you gaining justice. Well that question is nonsense. To adhere to such an undertaking would be a licence to criminals to commit crime with impunity which is why the high court dismissed Haw-Haws appeal against the matter going to trial which caused Haw-Haw to offer arbitration in camera. What has he got to hide? I don’t doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time and when it is we’ll find out what Haw-Haw has to hide.

In short some small minded critics of Bates and Leeds are allowing their dislike of the man and the club to impair their judgement of this matter. Some others are being deliberately obtuse, know the truth and are being mischievous and the rest are too thick to tell right from wrong.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

yes they should I remember watching a finance expert on tv saying wot ken bates did to save the club was a loop hole through the system and he used it to save the club.

It would be perfectly legal in the real world so y aint it in the football world they are the same thing, if other clubs wana moan then fine but if we get our point back then they cant blame leeds they must blame the league

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Most Leeds fans had very little time for Bates but Mawhinneys assault of the club when he was really having a go at Bates has brought more of the fans onto Bates side.

Make no mistake Mawhinney is driving the FL he is not a servant of it; he initially introduced the 10 point penalty; when Leicester went bust and they received no penalty so Linacre’s mob paid much less for the new company than Bates paid for Leeds.

There is no mention of 15 points in the rules! What it says is clubs should come out of administration via a CVA and Mawhinney, as a creditor and despite the League being a preferential creditor and receiving his money in full, voted against Leeds being awarded a CVA after it had been withdrawn because of the taxman’s appeal.

The taxman appealed because he quite rightly objected to football creditors being treat as preferential creditors and therefore getting paid in full when other more worthy creditors received a pittance. The administrator therefore having two alternatives, to proceed without a CVA or allow the Club to go out of existence chose the former and decided to proceed without a CVA which was more the fault of Mawhinney than Bates. Mawhinney, an unscrupulous operator as a politician engineered the whole process with malice of forethought.

add comment | complain about this comment