Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to 606 Rebels. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Wealso allow junior members.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
V interesting article
Topic Started: 13th August 2007 - 10:54 AM (212 Views)
Wickywhite
Member Avatar
best all-rounder
Moderator
FL league decision

This raises afew interesting points, not least why Ridsdale was allowed to vote given he started the demise of LUFC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
White Paul
Member Avatar
This is how the RD500YPVS would look if it were still made today
Wickywhite
Aug 13 2007, 10:54 AM
FL league decision

This raises afew interesting points, not least why Ridsdale was allowed to vote given he started the demise of LUFC.

"What's the difference between Leeds United and a compass? A compass has more points," was one particular effort. Another read: "The sun is lovely and warm over here in Bradford....but it's minus 15 in Leeds." :lolanimate: :lolanimate:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
strachans shinpad
Member Avatar
Most Sensible Poster 2005
Moderator
Email sent to Pat at the FL:

A few niceties that I won't bore you with and then.......

Quote:
 
Would anyone be willing to comment on any of the following points that have been made locally?

Who made the original decision a week last Friday to hit the club with a points penalty and why was this deduction so high when the previous record had been 10? Regardless of the sleight of hand in going into administration late last season when there was only a vague mathematical chance of staying up, it was completely within the rules.

A bit of transparency could have gone a long way here with the League's "exceptional circumstances" provision seemingly being used as justification to do anything they wanted.

Secondly, would the rival bidders (Redbus/Simon Morris and Adam Pearson) whom Ken Bates beat to seize control of United last month have been dealt with in an identical fashion had they been in charge at Elland Road?

This is, perhaps, the most intriguing of all the questions because if the administrators, KPMG, had sold the club to one of the other interested parties then a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) would still not have been completed, despite the League's demands.

A 15-point penalty would have been harsh on someone not involved with the club until a few weeks earlier, but unless some sort of 'Ken Bates' factor has been allowed to colour the issue then what other possible outcome could there have been?

The third question thrown up by the voting process is why was a man whose dreaming started United's slide in the first place allowed to sit in judgement on the current regime as the chairman of a rival club?

I am sure Peter Ridsdale sees nothing wrong in the above but his presence at last week's meeting certainly did not impress the United fans chatting in the pubs around Prenton Park on Saturday.

Finally, on what basis did the 70 club representatives, who voted 54-16 in favour of the original 15-point penalty being upheld, make their decision?

It is to be hoped they considered the evidence put to them by both Lord Mawhinney and Leeds' legal representative during the meeting and voted accordingly.

But that was not the impression given by a handful of the chairmen and chief executives interviewed by the media on their way out of the meeting. One wanted to know why Leeds and Boston United should be treated differently (the Pilgrims having been relegated twice at the end of last season after going into administration), while another said he had backed the League's stance because anything else would have been equal to a vote of no confidence in them.

The latter is a valid enough point, maybe, but surely completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding the outcome of this one particular case.

Clearly these are seriously posed questions that I believe could do with an answer.

One other question, will the FL be publishing how the various chairmen voted? There are plans in Leeds for clubs that voted against our position to be boycotted in terms of matchday purchases which many of our fellow league clubs will be looking forward to given our large following. It would be a shame to boycott those that had supported us.

Big questions I know, but ones that I believe deserve an answer - even if the FL decides it would rather not work with the same transparency that it demands of its clubs and players.

Yours - as ever - in Sport


I reckon I'll get a nice reply, but no answers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Rebels Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply