| 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. |
| Apparently private arbitration has been agreed; SCOOP!!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 29th February 2008 - 03:11 PM (500 Views) | |
| Fitz | 29th February 2008 - 03:11 PM Post #1 |
|
Perfectly formed member
![]()
|
Scoopy, scoopy. Surprised if it has, i thought Ken wanted all the washing done in public LUFC agreed under protest |
![]() |
|
| Fitz | 29th February 2008 - 03:41 PM Post #2 |
|
Perfectly formed member
![]()
|
LUFC |
![]() |
|
| garlic bread | 29th February 2008 - 05:44 PM Post #3 |
![]()
SHIRT LIFTER!!!!!!!!!!
|
love to know when the date is. i thinks its a good move, get this sorted out asap. hoewver, going to arbitration is also a good move as it would not be looked on in a favourable light at high court if you reject an arbitration meeting. |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 29th February 2008 - 06:44 PM Post #4 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
More wasting of club finances from the chelsea one to fight his own personal vendettas. The finances will make interesting reading when he leaves/pops his clogs. |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 29th February 2008 - 06:51 PM Post #5 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
And if it's found we get the 15 points back and we get promotion? Still going to complain? |
![]() |
|
| onloantodiv1 | 29th February 2008 - 07:16 PM Post #6 |
|
100% Leeds
|
fair question |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 29th February 2008 - 08:06 PM Post #7 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
Yes, if we'd have spent sensibly and used money wisely (not just on this, but other cases) we'd have picked them 15 points back anyway. As it is we still have a chairman at the top who prefers to drag the club through the disputes over personal vendettas. If we get them back, so be it, congrats Mr Bates. I personally believe this whole thing is having a detrimental effect on the players, who seem to be relying on us winning in the courts because we can't win on the pitch. We were brought into this mess by the same person who many will congratulate if we win this case. funny old world. |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 29th February 2008 - 08:17 PM Post #8 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
KPMG took us down that route, as did my employers. Bates, for once, had nothing to do with it. Bates also tried to clear debts before administration was taken. He could have taken Admin long before. And was advised to do so by the very same people who challenged the CVA.... |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 29th February 2008 - 08:53 PM Post #9 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
We failed to meet a procedure set out, it was incompetent in my opinion, but then neither of us, or anyone else outside of higher powers know exactly what rules we broke, so my opinion is simply that based upon guess work, as is yours. The joys of being an average football fan in modern times. |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 29th February 2008 - 09:02 PM Post #10 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
We had no choice but to not meet it. A CVA can not be exited without proper process. A CVA can not be exited without all appeals being resolved. HMRC set a date after the start of the season, we couldn't play without exiting the CVA cos we had no money, nor any players. Where in that was the incompetence? |
![]() |
|
| NorfolkLeeds | 29th February 2008 - 09:19 PM Post #11 |
Team Favourite
|
I can't help but think that if we had a different Chairman we would not be in this position. |
![]() |
|
| onloantodiv1 | 29th February 2008 - 09:32 PM Post #12 |
|
100% Leeds
|
me too, but thats all ifs and buts |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 29th February 2008 - 09:51 PM Post #13 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
my point entirely chris. Incompetence in putting us in danger of breaking the rules in the first place. |
![]() |
|
| Lee D'su | 29th February 2008 - 10:15 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Funniest Poster and Getter of tickets
![]()
|
Pity we didn't think this years ago. |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 29th February 2008 - 10:29 PM Post #15 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
and there's the real problem, it's not Bates it's Ridsale et al that need this abuse. not the "chelsea" problem as some say. |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 29th February 2008 - 10:52 PM Post #16 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
Ridsdale never broke the rules and got us points deducted, if indeed rules have being broken. |
![]() |
|
| KenDoddsDadsDogsDead | 1st March 2008 - 12:07 AM Post #17 |
|
Have you ever shoed a Horse?
|
I do think its easy for the Anti Chelsea/Bates brigade to wear blinkers on this one, i do tend to agree to a certain degree, that Bates has upset so many of the establishment over the years, there may be some with personal vendetas, taking it out on Leeds as his present club. Obviously when the appeal for 15 point deduction was taken to the other 71 FL clubs, we had no chance of it been overturned. |
![]() |
|
| Sir Quej Of Quejdom | 1st March 2008 - 12:13 AM Post #18 |
|
100% Leeds
|
Stubbsy, you are not listening to what Matt is saying. Ridsdale et al started the whole thing. Bates came in and couldnt stop us falling without the Administration. I'll try and put it simpler for you.....If one guy pushes you off the edge of a cliff and another guy just fails to grab you in time.....Who is responsible for your splattered brains? Is it the guy who pushed? Or the the guy who tried to save you but was a little late? Answers on a postcard.... |
![]() |
|
| KenDoddsDadsDogsDead | 1st March 2008 - 12:19 AM Post #19 |
|
Have you ever shoed a Horse?
|
Its the guy who is splattered's fault, he shouldnt walk so close to the edge of a cliff. |
![]() |
|
| Fitz | 1st March 2008 - 01:34 AM Post #20 |
|
Perfectly formed member
![]()
|
Leave Cliff out of this, he's had some great songs........ |
![]() |
|
| Stubbsy | 1st March 2008 - 01:41 AM Post #21 |
![]()
100% Leeds
|
No mis-understanding, perhaps just a difference in opinion as to where our debts started and were continued. How long before we stop blaming Ridsdale for the failures of numerous chairmen? As KD4 says, it's probably easy for me to jump on his back, i'm sure most know i'm a 'chelsea out' person if you wish to categorise, but i like to think it's based upon reasoning. Daz, i was referring to personal vendettas by Bates, rather than towards him, but you're correct in that certain actions could be percieved in such a manner. How many people have we sued however since Bates came to power? We've taken on Chelsea, several newpapers - both local and national, and even some of our own fans. Where do such funds come from? Bates has done good things for this club, undoubtedly. He has put money in to players, he's talked a good game with regards to improvements of the ground etc, his long term strategy for this club is refreshing. His passion in which he has taken this court case on from the moment in which we docked points is applaudable, but it seems to me to be in the ways of a vindictive ex rather than a reasoned argument. If we get 15 points back, brilliant. I'm sceptical, but if we do so, it may well have being worth the legal fees we've paid for it. Read the title though, "private arbitration", when the policy all along was for us to fight for a public appeal - we've lost the battle already. "This club will be debt free by the end of the season". Technically true Mr Bates, but what was failed to be mentioned is that it would cost the club 25 points. So, did we plan for administration and this mess all along, or was there a catastrophic miscalculation of our finances? We'll probably never know, much like the Ridsdale era, but my point Quej was that we were meant to be debt free, and we weren't. You can't blame Ridsdale for that, unless there is evidence that Bates was "under duress" by Ridsdale to do so. The thought of Bates being nobbled by Ridsdale... :lolanimate: |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 1st March 2008 - 09:49 AM Post #22 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
I'll make it simple: Is it Bates fault that he is attempting to rid the club of debt (which he has done - albeit taking advantage of rules that were there) that Ridsdale et al (note i'm not just blaming Ridsdale) managed to rack up? or Is it the fault of the people who got us into debt to start with?? If there was no debt to be managed/got rid of there would be no Bates in charge. I don't doubt that Bates is using Leeds as a vehicle to shout his mouth off on occasions and he has freely admitted he wants one last shot at football. However, i feel that the things he has done to sort the club out far outweighs the "dodgy" things he has done. Please don't forget that he was advised to take the club into admin a good 12 months before he did, but he chose not to to try pay people off in full. Is that the method of a crook and a dodgy dealer?? |
![]() |
|
| Fitz | 1st March 2008 - 10:12 AM Post #23 |
|
Perfectly formed member
![]()
|
How many court cases has he lost, last count? |
![]() |
|
| Matt | 1st March 2008 - 10:21 AM Post #24 |
|
Dee's a liar....
|
None?? |
![]() |
|
| Mugsey | 1st March 2008 - 11:30 AM Post #25 |
|
100% Leeds
|
i'd say the max we'll get back is nine which'd be great tbh as we badly need some sort fo lift at the moment |
![]() |
|
| Fitz | 1st March 2008 - 06:06 PM Post #26 |
|
Perfectly formed member
![]()
|
And does he keep the resultant pay out himself? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Rebels Chat · Next Topic » |









3:40 PM Jul 11