posted Apr 25, 2008

Has anyone considered this: whenever you appeal against a legal ruling there is always the possibility of an INCREASED penalty. I would pmsl if the outcome was a 20 point deduction instead and no play off place, for wasting everyone's time with this stupid appeal. I, for one, would love to see Leeds remain in the lower divisions for ever - the shambolic financial management of this club over the last few years, plus Ken Bates involvement don't deserve anyhting more

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

holtender4life2, what crazy fantasy world do you live in?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 28, 2008

Sheesh, I'm deadly serious. Look back over the last few years. Peter Ridsdale spent close to £100 million pounds to buy a place at the top of the Premiership. Some success, semi-final of Champions League etc. When they failed to qualify for the CL the following season the income dried up, the players were all being payed too much and Leeds simply could not sustain the investment that was made against future projected income. At the same time 'deadly' Doug Ellis held the purse strings tighter than a duck's @r5e at Villa Park. No real success, but a firm foundation to build on. Now Randy Lerner has come in with some cash, but do you see Martin O'Neill buying £15 million players at every opportunity? No. Sensible, affordable investment that won't bankrupt the club. Who was right? Maybe you think the short term glory was worth it, but look at the present - Villa pushing for a top 5 finish in the Premier League, Leeds United making a desperate attempt to get back points that were rightly deducted (better than the other option - the FL withholding their golden share) in a vain attempt to get back in the Championship. Enough said.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 28, 2008

Villa pushing for a top 5 finish in the Premier League
--
After years of doing sod all.

Leeds United making a desperate attempt to get back points that were rightly deducted
--
yawn, rightly deducted?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 28, 2008

what a first class noob!

do u even know WHY these points were 'rightfully' deducted???

probably not, just another classic 'hate leeds' cos they're bigger than we'll ever be bandwagon boy!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 28, 2008

I believe the points were deducted as a result of a football league enquiry into the way Leeds were brought out of administration by Ken Bates. Having gone into adminstration when relegation from the Championship was virtually certain Leeds were hoping to avoid the deduction of points in League One for this season. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, just playing the system. However, the FA took exception when the SAME man that filed for a CVA then offers to buy the club from the administrators for around 8p in the £, wiping out most of the debt whilst shafting the creditors (don't forget one of the biggest creditors was the Inland Revenue - they don't take kindly to being ripped off). You could argue that all football creditors were payed in full, but that's little consolation for the remainder. Now as a result of Ken's actions, which the FA felt brought the game into disrepute, they (the FA) were within their rights to withhold the bond that Leeds United needed to compete in the Football League, effectively relegating Leeds to the Conference (at best) or causing the club to fold (at worst). The points deduction was a compromise agreed between the FA and Leeds to avoid the difficulties this would cause.

Am I close?

My view is that Ken and Leeds United should remember what could have happened, count themselves lucky and concentrate on winning the play-offs.

P.S. I don't hate Leeds for being a bigger club. Both Leeds and Villa are big clubs with a proud tradition and I wouldn't like to say who is the 'bigger' club, whatever that means. I was just using Villa as an example of how you can run a club without getting into financial trouble. No, I hate Leeds because of the arrogance of everyone connected with the club over the last few years (Peter Ridsdale and Ken Bates in particular)and the fact that they can't accept their punishment without bringing the game into disrepute for a second successive season.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2008

Understandable as it is for Leed`s fan`s to think their club was stitched up, the whole story needs to be examined.
Leeds were on course barring an unlikely set of results for relegation.At that time they cynically exploited a loop hole in the administration rules.Therefore being deducted a meaningless ten points.It could have been a million as it was immaterial.
Ken Bates then agreed with KPMG a deal that paid the creditors a pittance.Included in this was the highly unusual news that two large creditors were prepared to waive the money owed to them,only if Bates was successful.Unsurprisingly the Inland Revenue threatened legal action, forcing KPMG to put Leeds up for sale.Again Ken Bates was the winner due to the two large creditors,despite other offers for higher amounts.KPMG & Leeds then presented the deal as a fait accompli to the football league,despite the fact it didn`t comply with the football league`s financial rules for clubs that enter administration.The league asked KPMG & Leeds to revisit the deal & were told that it couldn`t be changed.
The football league were then left with a stark choice.Either expel Leeds from the football league or readmit them but impose a penalty.The league rightly chose the latter.The penalty had to be imposed to send a message to any other team that they had to comply with league rules.As part of the readmission procedure Leeds had to renter administration.So ineffect ten points is for entering administration again & five points for flouting league rules.
This caught Leeds out as they expected to bulldoze their way past the league.Leeds as was their right appealed to the other league chairman. Ken Bates was quoted in a number of media sources as saying he would accept the decision.The league chairman rightly upheld the league boards decision,albeit certainly from a self interest point of view.Ken Bates now wants to appeal to the FA, so much for accepting the decision.I congratulate the football league for having a backbone,unlike the Premiership who abdicated their responsability in the Tevez affair.
Leeds have now started purchasing players,some from higher divisions on higher wages any other League 1 club could afford.Administration has put them at a considerable financial & consequently competitive advantage.I am sure the numerous smaller creditors who lost a lot of money are disgusted by this.
The question should not be were Leeds stitched up but Were Leeds creditors stitched up ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2008

So ineffect ten points is for entering administration again & five points for flouting league rules.
--
Sigh. Entering admin twice? Nice try

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2008

Seems people don't know much about finance...

when questioning how Leeds could be insolvent and Bates able to buy it back...

Leeds UTD was owned by a company.. a separate legal entity.. it was insolvent (primarily due to historic financial commitments).
Ken Bates noting the reduced income streams that would follow relegation, decided not to prop up the company with yet more of his own funds. As such, complying with legal requirements not to trade while insolvent the company entered administration.

There were several bidders for the club, however the creditors (some of whom were significant offshore investment funds - possible links to Bates unknown) as per insolvency law chose to accept Bates' bid as part of a CVA.

The Inland Revenue then after deliberation decided to challenge the CVA in court...
As I recall Bates improved his offer (particularly in the event of Leeds gaining promotion to the Premier League within 5 years) and the court considered it acceptable.

So the Inland Revenue actually delayed Leeds coming out of administration.
& they and the other creditors are actually being punished by the league as if the points penalty stands it makes it less likely that Leeds will meet that 5 yr target.

Ken Bates is outspoken, he is controversial, but he's hardly someone I would call stupid.

The reason he's gone to arbitration is that failure to do so would have weakened his case in court.
To invest in the legal action (which would've been civil as is arbitration) Bates' legal advice must've indicated a strong case.

I can see 5pts being returned, making no real difference...
shame its not all or nothing.

Still well done Leeds on securing at least a play off place... and on the late season return to form after other disruptions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2008

DragonPhill

relatively accurate...

of course given that KPMG were the professionals and the creditors accepted the terms per the law; there was no other option. The football league could be seen as seeking to challenge insolvency law, when its (or rather the FA's) own stance on "football creditors" could be open to serious legal challenge.

add comment | complain about this comment