|
An Indipendant view of the situation
|
|
Topic Started: 2nd May 2008 - 11:40 AM (533 Views)
|
|
Sir Quej Of Quejdom
|
2nd May 2008 - 11:40 AM
Post #1
|
100% Leeds
- Posts:
- 1,612
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #414
- Joined:
- 4 June 2004
|
http://www.footballpools.com/pundits-corne...he-easy-option/
Nice to see what TRULY independant people think of it....
|
|
|
| |
|
strachans shinpad
|
2nd May 2008 - 12:18 PM
Post #2
|
Most Sensible Poster 2005
- Posts:
- 9,576
- Group:
- Moderator
- Member
- #214
- Joined:
- 4 February 2004
|
Indeed it is, but speaking as a fan of Ken, I wonder if the author would feel the same if he read the full text and realised just how much sleight of hand was being utilised by Mark Taylor.
Having stuck up for KB before now, the disclosure of the shennanigans of Taylor - and the knowledge that we could have started in League 2 or take the fifteen point hit are making me wonder if I have got it right.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sir Quej Of Quejdom
|
2nd May 2008 - 12:59 PM
Post #3
|
100% Leeds
- Posts:
- 1,612
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #414
- Joined:
- 4 June 2004
|
- strachans shinpad
- May 2 2008, 11:18 AM
Indeed it is, but speaking as a fan of Ken, I wonder if the author would feel the same if he read the full text and realised just how much sleight of hand was being utilised by Mark Taylor.
Having stuck up for KB before now, the disclosure of the shennanigans of Taylor - and the knowledge that we could have started in League 2 or take the fifteen point hit are making me wonder if I have got it right.
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
We will go down in history as the ONLY club that has or will ever be given a 25 point deduction.
|
|
|
| |
|
305miles2EllandRd
|
2nd May 2008 - 01:06 PM
Post #4
|
Stand up Comedian
- Posts:
- 4,224
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #98
- Joined:
- 5 December 2003
|
It will be very interesting to see if Bournemouth & Luton start next season on -15, I bet they won't.
I haven't had time to read the full text yet but it sounds as if KB & co were trying to be too clever for their own good.
|
|
|
| |
|
Matt
|
2nd May 2008 - 01:11 PM
Post #5
|
Dee's a liar....
- Posts:
- 11,134
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #122
- Joined:
- 14 January 2004
|
- 305miles2EllandRd
- May 2 2008, 01:06 PM
It will be very interesting to see if Bournemouth & Luton start next season on -15, I bet they won't.
I haven't had time to read the full text yet but it sounds as if KB & co were trying to be too clever for their own good.
You might be surprised
|
|
|
| |
|
strachans shinpad
|
2nd May 2008 - 01:21 PM
Post #6
|
Most Sensible Poster 2005
- Posts:
- 9,576
- Group:
- Moderator
- Member
- #214
- Joined:
- 4 February 2004
|
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 11:59 AM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not.
I'm not disputing anything else, I was just pointing out that having been a supporter of Ken and his policies, I am disappointed to only hear about this alternative now and not at the beginning. My understanding was the choice of points deduction or oblivion, nothing about League 2.
|
|
|
| |
|
spud
|
2nd May 2008 - 05:48 PM
Post #7
|
Tech Expert
- Posts:
- 3,545
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- 24 November 2003
|
- strachans shinpad
- May 2 2008, 12:21 PM
My understanding was the choice of points deduction or oblivion, nothing about League 2.
I do remember hearing about the League 2 thing last summer - cannot remember where though... it was about the time of the Scarborough going bust and having to start at the bottom of the pyramid, and *think* something was mentioned then... the gist being about being allowed to rejoin 2 divisions below current position, or the next league down after that which had space to accomodate a new team.
Sorry for not being less vague.
:unsure:
|
|
|
| |
|
Carlo Algatrensig
|
3rd May 2008 - 12:33 AM
Post #8
|
Board Villain
- Posts:
- 2,321
- Group:
- Away fan
- Member
- #691
- Joined:
- 2 June 2005
|
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour.
What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments.
I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
|
|
|
| |
|
Exiled in the Black Country
|
3rd May 2008 - 12:48 AM
Post #9
|
100% Leeds
- Posts:
- 2,329
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #783
- Joined:
- 28 February 2006
|
Hows it going dude??? Been a while!
|
|
|
| |
|
Carlo Algatrensig
|
3rd May 2008 - 12:49 AM
Post #10
|
Board Villain
- Posts:
- 2,321
- Group:
- Away fan
- Member
- #691
- Joined:
- 2 June 2005
|
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:33 AM
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour. What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments. I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
as an addition to what i've just said, if there challenge was about the Football creditors rule then HMR&C could have challenged the straight sale out of administration but they didn't. I think that shows that what they did in Leeds Uniteds case had nothing to do with the football creditors rule.
|
|
|
| |
|
Matt
|
3rd May 2008 - 04:04 PM
Post #11
|
Dee's a liar....
- Posts:
- 11,134
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #122
- Joined:
- 14 January 2004
|
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:49 AM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:33 AM
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour. What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments. I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
as an addition to what i've just said, if there challenge was about the Football creditors rule then HMR&C could have challenged the straight sale out of administration but they didn't. I think that shows that what they did in Leeds Uniteds case had nothing to do with the football creditors rule.
It was all to do with the FL's creditors rule, as it is with every other club.
|
|
|
| |
|
Fitz
|
4th May 2008 - 06:57 PM
Post #12
|
Perfectly formed member
- Posts:
- 16,007
- Group:
- Moderator
- Member
- #183
- Joined:
- 30 January 2004
|
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:49 AM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:33 AM
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour. What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments. I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
as an addition to what i've just said, if there challenge was about the Football creditors rule then HMR&C could have challenged the straight sale out of administration but they didn't. I think that shows that what they did in Leeds Uniteds case had nothing to do with the football creditors rule.
Since HMRC have stated they are going to challenge every CVA for `Football Clubs, I can't see how it was anything BUT the creditors rule.
I also agree with SS. If I had known it was a choice betweeen L2 and -15, I wouldn't have supported KB bringing it to Arbitration. I feel we look a collective right tit now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lee D'su
|
4th May 2008 - 07:09 PM
Post #13
|
Funniest Poster and Getter of tickets
- Posts:
- 29,649
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #443
- Joined:
- 14 June 2004
|
- Fitz
- May 4 2008, 06:57 PM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:49 AM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:33 AM
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour. What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments. I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
as an addition to what i've just said, if there challenge was about the Football creditors rule then HMR&C could have challenged the straight sale out of administration but they didn't. I think that shows that what they did in Leeds Uniteds case had nothing to do with the football creditors rule.
Since HMRC have stated they are going to challenge every CVA for `Football Clubs, I can't see how it was anything BUT the creditors rule. I also agree with SS. If I had known it was a choice betweeen L2 and -15, I wouldn't have supported KB bringing it to Arbitration. I feel we look a collective right tit now.
Am I reading this wrong, but wasn't the relegation to L2 an option for teams who go into admin after being relegated (which we never) and wasn't us coming out of admin without a CVA unique and no punishment is written into FL rules and is therefore why they called the meeting. I think the panel have misunderstood the rules as I can't see anyone appealing when they've got away with murder.
|
|
|
| |
|
Fitz
|
4th May 2008 - 07:12 PM
Post #14
|
Perfectly formed member
- Posts:
- 16,007
- Group:
- Moderator
- Member
- #183
- Joined:
- 30 January 2004
|
- Lee D'su
- May 4 2008, 07:09 PM
- Fitz
- May 4 2008, 06:57 PM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:49 AM
- Carlo Algatrensig
- May 3 2008, 12:33 AM
- Sir Quej Of Quejdom
- May 2 2008, 12:59 PM
Regardless of the fact that we could have been made to start in league 2 or not. The fact remains that we were only in that situation because of the dispute between the FL and the HMRC regarding the fact that football creditors get paid in full. We must not lose sight of that fact?
Anything that went on after that fact, was just a football club fighting for it's very survival. It still all boils down to the fact that it was the football leagues own rules that prevented us from having a CVA in place. Instead of coming up with a solution, it was easier to punish Leeeds United in a way that has never been seen and will never be seen again.
Lose sight of what fact exactly? Leeds united weren't in the situation because of the leagues rules. The football Creditors rule has gone to court previously and has been shown to be in the football leagues favour. What HMRC were objecting to in leeds uniteds case as has been stated to in the KPMG letter to creditors (which is available somewhere on the internet) and the Arbitrations panel decision was the Voting rights assigned to certain parties most notably Astor Investments. I'll probably get some abuse from some for what i'm saying seeing as i'm not a leeds fan but I've actually put down the facts here even though i am slightly pissed.
as an addition to what i've just said, if there challenge was about the Football creditors rule then HMR&C could have challenged the straight sale out of administration but they didn't. I think that shows that what they did in Leeds Uniteds case had nothing to do with the football creditors rule.
Since HMRC have stated they are going to challenge every CVA for `Football Clubs, I can't see how it was anything BUT the creditors rule. I also agree with SS. If I had known it was a choice betweeen L2 and -15, I wouldn't have supported KB bringing it to Arbitration. I feel we look a collective right tit now.
Am I reading this wrong, but wasn't the relegation to L2 an option for teams who go into admin after being relegated (which we never) and wasn't us coming out of admin without a CVA unique and no punishment is written into FL rules and is therefore why they called the meeting. I think the panel have misunderstood the rules as I can't see anyone appealing when they've got away with murder.
Maybe you're right, but you'd expect a retired judge to be able to spot a loophole like that. I don't think KB refuted it either?
|
|
|
| |
|
spud
|
11th May 2008 - 12:23 PM
Post #15
|
Tech Expert
- Posts:
- 3,545
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- 24 November 2003
|
- spud
- May 2 2008, 04:48 PM
I do remember hearing about the League 2 thing last summer - cannot remember where though... it was about the time of the Scarborough going bust and having to start at the bottom of the pyramid, and *think* something was mentioned then... the gist being about being allowed to rejoin 2 divisions below current position, or the next league down after that which had space to accomodate a new team. Sorry for not being less vague.
:unsure:
I did some more research on this... apparantly the rule is - if the club folds completely, they can apply to rejoin as a new entity (aka Sacarborough AFC rejoining as Scarborough Athletic AFC) two divisions below the previous clubs final position.
So relegating us to L2 would almost have fit under this rule... except that we were already relegated to L1 and we hadn't folded.
Anyway... -15 points rather than L2 would always be preferable, but neither was a previously sanctioned punishment... think thats what we were appealing against.
|
|
|
| |
|
b milner
|
11th May 2008 - 10:33 PM
Post #16
|
Forum Scientist
- Posts:
- 1,577
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #27
- Joined:
- 23 November 2003
|
Hey Spud! Good to hear from a blast from the past!
|
|
|
| |
|
spud
|
12th May 2008 - 01:01 PM
Post #17
|
Tech Expert
- Posts:
- 3,545
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- 24 November 2003
|
- b milner
- May 11 2008, 09:33 PM
Hey Spud! Good to hear from a blast from the past!
...even if I am digging up old topics and replying to myself!!
:D
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|