poor old leeds

[Fred Elliot]

well said Rob

[Simon Pieman]

Regardless of our situation, given Ken Bates and the fuck hole decisions I sympathise with the club

[RANDYFATTY]

poor leeds

[herthab]

Fuck Leeds.

[Simon Pieman]

Jump Leeds

[jayohaitchenn]

Down Leeds!

[West Country LaLaLa]

Apart from the Wise thing, there isn't (and shouldn't really) be any real 'rivalry' between leeds and town. No real recent history of playing them, not local etc etc. If anything it should be the people in charge of leeds (bates, wise, poyet) that should, if that's the right way of looking at it, be targeted. Not the club as a name and fans/players itself.

I have a lot of sympathy for leeds, docked in effect 25 points (more than Juve and the Italian rest for matchfixing!) and they are hated by the majority. This mostly stems from the 70's 'dirty leeds' tag, stupid really when a good handful of fans weren't even born then and nobody from that era is still at the club or connected to its present day to day running in any way.

[neville w]

I'm probably being hopelessly optimistic here, but on the (massive) assumption that there is an agreement to the revised scheduling of the CVA, I really don't see how that can be breaking insolvency rules. If it's legal, surely that should be good enough for the League ?

I don't recall there being any evidence produced that we'd definitely get a penalty,(if we did, Roberts would probably miss it ) and the creditore would ostensibly still get their money.

Having said that though, I have just bought some rather nice rose tinted specs.

[RobertT]

Leeds didn't break any rules either Nev, not insolvency ones anyway.  The bent FL rules, whereby you get punished for going into Insolvency related states.  The rules are flexible, very flexible, and basically are there to prevent football clubs gaining an unfair advantage by rescheduling debts.  In the real business world, doing this merely helps the business continue to struggle along and ensures the creditors get some money in most cases.  The difference in football, and hence the rules, is financial performance is not directly linked to the success or otherwise of the club.  A normal business aims to make a profit as it's goal, a football club will happily run at a loss (with a backer or by loading up debt) to ensure success on the pitch.

That's the rub, do the FL consider extending a CVA (never been done before by a football club under the FL rules) as a way of gaining an advantage.  In theory it's a clear yes (we'd be stuffed on the playing budget if we had to shell out £900k this summer).  Legally, nothing wrong with what the business is trying to do.  The rules themselves don't suggest a punishment, but then again, they don't preclude one.  So without guidance, it could go either way.

[neville w]

Clarity personified Rob,  but the League has actually showed leniency as they could exclude Leeds altogether. Perhaps our poor treatment in the past might actually help us here ?

[Summerof69]

Apparently, Leeds have lost their appeal against the 15 point deduction.

[Luci]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6937521.stm

 :shock:

[land_of_bo]

The chairmen of the other 71 Football League clubs voted "overwhelmingly" to sanction the club and then again to uphold the original punishment.

In both cases, the outcome was higher than a 75% majority vote.

Fooking hell, pretty comprehensive!

[STFC_Gazzza]

Well thats them down then.... Bye Bye Wisey.

[Tails]

They won't go down.