Leeds and their 15 point deduction

[Dan]

Right, i just need to know if i've got my series of events correct here:

- The 15 point penalty was for not abiding by FL rules that a club coming out of administration should do so with a plan to pay some money back to its creditors.

- Leeds couldn't put this plan together so the League wouldn't let them have this Golden Share (needed to participate in the league) until they had.

- Leeds then did a deal with the League to take a 15 point deduction in order to get the Golden Share.

- Leeds also agreed not to take action to get the points back at any point, an agreement which i believe they are breaking at the moment.

- Should they now get back the 15 points through the courts, the FL are well within their rights to withdraw their golden share.

- This means they’d have to forfeit their place in the league.

Have i got anything wrong there?

[Milkman™]

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell, however the word Leeds should always be proceeded by the word 'mighty'.

If you don't mind, thank you.

[Dan]

Right, so if these facts are right, here's my take on it:

The rules only allow the transfer of membership from one company to another if the creditors are satisfied. This is measured through either the signing of a Creditors Voluntary Agreement or the transfer of all outstanding debts to the new company. Neither happened in the case of Leeds.

The company that used to own/run Leeds went into Administration, and they made a half hearted attempt to agree a CVA. The Creditors didn't agree to it, basically because Corrupt Ken and was tryingto screw them over.

Instead, the Administrator simply liquidated the company, selling all of the assets to a new company also owned by Bates. In other words, they did precisely the one thing the rules are trying to prevent.

Under the rules, the League Membership shouldn't have been transferred. Leeds United (and their league place) should have ceased the day that the old company was liquidated.

The 2007 version of Leeds United should have been considered a newly formed club, applying to join whatever league would have them. Much like Aldershot, and similar others have done when they were liquidated in the past.

[oldman]

therapy said:

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell, however the word Leeds should always be proceeded by the word 'mighty'.

If you don't mind, thank you.

the mighty fall from grace leeds united!

will that suffice ;D

[Rumpole]

oldman said:

the mighty fall from grace leeds united!

Sorry, but the words "grace" and "Leeds United " together in the same sentence. Never!

[Milkman™]

rumpole said:

oldman said:

the mighty fall from grace leeds united!

Sorry, but the words "grace" and "Leeds United " together in the same sentence. Never!

Care to explain?

[Rumpole]

therapy said:

rumpole said:

Sorry, but the words "grace" and "Leeds United " together in the same sentence. Never!

Care to explain?

Sorry but I remember the days of Bremner, Charlton, Hunter et al. Good at their job, but dirty so and sos.

[oldman]

hey old bite yer legs hunter, leeds v chelsea cup final, if played with todays refs would have ended as five a side games, great names like chopper harris, for chelski! That final and reply were x certificate football more like war had been declared!

[Milkman™]

No divers allowed

[grumpyminer]

therapy said:

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell, however the word Leeds should always be proceeded by the word 'mighty'.

If you don't mind, thank you.

Surely you mean "Dirty"

Even Tim Lovejoy knows that it is "Dirty Leeds"


Leeds chance of ever being "mighty" went the day Brian Clough lost his position there. Had he the chance to run the club the way he wanted then Leeds would have been bigger and more famous than Man Utd (IMO)

[LUFC]

upshall said:

Right, i just need to know if i've got my series of events correct here:

- The 15 point penalty was for not abiding by FL rules that a club coming out of administration should do so with a plan to pay some money back to its creditors.

- Leeds couldn't put this plan together so the League wouldn't let them have this Golden Share (needed to participate in the league) until they had.

- Leeds then did a deal with the League to take a 15 point deduction in order to get the Golden Share.

- Leeds also agreed not to take action to get the points back at any point, an agreement which i believe they are breaking at the moment.

- Should they now get back the 15 points through the courts, the FL are well within their rights to withdraw their golden share.

- This means they’d have to forfeit their place in the league.

Have i got anything wrong there?

First point, the rules state that football creditors should be paid first, this is actually against the law of the land and so the inland revenue took leeds to court over it. However bates struck a deal with them over planned monthly payments so they ended dropping the case.

Point Two. The Golden share was given back under a sub rule of the main rule. it is an emergancy activated rule for such matters where a CVA couls not be given. There was and never has been any points deduction added to this rule.

Point Three. See point two for how the shares where given back.

The Football League sanctioned that into the agreement for us to get our share back. without signing it we could not play so the league forced it upon us. However under European Law, no such contract is legally binding as anyone has the right should they deem so to take legal/court action even if such a document has been signed.

You final point. Pety pure and simple.


The way the league rules currently stand break the Law.
The law in this country states that the Tax man(IR) should be paid all monets owed through a CVA or IVA should a company go into administration. Now because the league have these rules that break the law, every time a club, Leeds, Luton or Bournmouth (i choose them other two as they are currently in administration) then they have to pay back the taxman first, but are not allowed too by the football league. Thus the taxman always opposes a CVA or IVA, thus meaning the club cannot gain the golden share.

So the way it has been handled is that Leeds got given a 15points deduction for a rule that the league made, that contraviens the Law meaning that any club is in danger of being taken to court by the taxman. The league is at fault here not the clubs. I say this as a broad football fan here not just a leeds fan. Teams like Luton and Bournmouth are in deep poo poo, and the league piles it on more with 10point deductions straight away (often relegating teams and causing more financial ruin for them) and to top it up have a rule that breaks the law, causing taxman vs club fights.

Something just doesnt add up with the league rules and it needs sorting. As latest stats show nearly 30football league teams run in the red. Imagine alot of them going bust, Millions in taxes lost. many many 15point deductions ontop of 10point admin deductuions. The league would be in ruin. a mockery as the taxman would rightly and lawfully take each club to court unless like leeds they agree repayments. It just isnt right. The football league need to be kicked into gear.

[andyd]

I'm sorry NJ but from where I sit (and have sat all along) Leeds think they're above the rules whether the rules are 'legal' or what. 12 months ago you took anything you could get your hands on to avoid going the way of Aldershot and now you've steadied the ship in you come with "what we agreed to was illegal in the first place so give us our points back".

If it was illegal why did you agree to it? Because you were fighting to stay alive and now that you aren't begging to be saved you swan back as if you've been cheated. If the rules were illegal don't sign the agreement, take them to the European Court. You didn't, you signed, and now you have to take what you got. As per my analogy of a few months ago relating to a grievance policy at work...an analogy, as it happens, that you side stepped and ignored.

[Shorty]

This all seems very similar to the chap who is trying to sue the bookies.

clicky

[LUFC]

andyd said:

I'm sorry NJ but from where I sit (and have sat all along) Leeds think they're above the rules whether the rules are 'legal' or what. 12 months ago you took anything you could get your hands on to avoid going the way of Aldershot and now you've steadied the ship in you come with "what we agreed to was illegal in the first place so give us our points back".

If it was illegal why did you agree to it? Because you were fighting to stay alive and now that you aren't begging to be saved you swan back as if you've been cheated. If the rules were illegal don't sign the agreement, take them to the European Court. You didn't, you signed, and now you have to take what you got. As per my analogy of a few months ago relating to a grievance policy at work...an analogy, as it happens, that you side stepped and ignored.

We had 1 week to go to sign to get in the league. You tell me when have you ever seen a court case be it high court, european or whatever go to court and be over within a week. Just doesnt happen. Leeds would of been out of the league alltogether. Get to grips with reality. Any club would of signed to be able to play and challaneged afterwards. ANY club.

[Dan]

Obviously i'm still learning the facts, but i don't understand how you can contest this.

It's the equivalent of getting a loan and then sueing the bank for the extortionate interest fees that you agreed to.

[andyd]

neolad said:

andyd said:

I'm sorry NJ but from where I sit (and have sat all along) Leeds think they're above the rules whether the rules are 'legal' or what. 12 months ago you took anything you could get your hands on to avoid going the way of Aldershot and now you've steadied the ship in you come with "what we agreed to was illegal in the first place so give us our points back".

If it was illegal why did you agree to it? Because you were fighting to stay alive and now that you aren't begging to be saved you swan back as if you've been cheated. If the rules were illegal don't sign the agreement, take them to the European Court. You didn't, you signed, and now you have to take what you got. As per my analogy of a few months ago relating to a grievance policy at work...an analogy, as it happens, that you side stepped and ignored.

We had 1 week to go to sign to get in the league. You tell me when have you ever seen a court case be it high court, european or whatever go to court and be over within a week. Just doesnt happen. Leeds would of been out of the league alltogether. Get to grips with reality. Any club would of signed to be able to play and challaneged afterwards. ANY club.

Judge: What do you plead?
Defendant: Not Guilty
Judge: Why then do I have a signed confession from you?
Defendant: Because they made me by saying I couldn't continue in my job if I didn't sign it by the end of the week.
Judge: Why then didn't you contact the police for being blackmailed with an unfair position that would cause you loss of earnings?
Defendant: Errrrrrrrrr...

Don't kid yourself NJ.

[LUFC]

Judge: What do you plead?
Defendant: Not Guilty
Judge: Why then do I have a signed confession from you?
Defendant: Because they made me by saying I couldn't continue in my job if I didn't sign it by the end of the week.
Judge: Why then didn't you contact the police for being blackmailed with an unfair position that would cause you loss of earnings?
Defendant: Well sir, i had the employment of hundreds of people to consider before and above anything. After consultation with lawyers we thought it prudent to sign, then take action once the club was secure.
Judge:Fair assesment of the situation, so how would you like to proceed.
Defendant:We would like to have the contract annuled on the basis we was coerced into signing, and under european law that is perfect grounds for annulling what was signed.

And if i was to go on ide say how this could effect the whole league, that as a result of the league adding illegal clauses to the contract that infact every result from the start of the season is nullified making all promotion/relegation places pointless and a whole season down the drain, all because the league didnt abide by the law of the land.

The league consulted with their lawyers, who came back to them telling them they cannot go through the courts, so have instead asked us if we would like an arbetrational hearing. This is all we ever asked for in the first place. and it took the threat and eventual start of court proceedings to push this through. What has the league got to hide from the courts? Alot. they have no legal standing so instead are pushing for a behind closed doors hearing.

Once this hearing has been done, the league, the teams can then move on. Personally i believe it is unfair on other teams who have battled hard most of the season and got into pretty fair positions, only to have the league right a wrong and give us it back, i can only imagine the heart ache should this happen. Where as if the league had not acted wrongly, then those teams would of known what was needed from the start. I aint sure on the points being returned now. however i do think we will be heavily compensated, enough to cover the possibility of double promotions. Up to Championship and then premiership. It has been done in the past and for all the league know could of been done again should we of been promoted with full 15 points.

Either way, i still stand by the point that the law is the law, reguardless of the league rules, no league is above the law.

[NottinghamMatt]

neolad said:

It has been done in the past and for all the league know could of been done again should we of been promoted with full 15 points.

But we will never know if that was the case, I'd imagine without the no one likes us spirit you started the season with you would have done anywhere near as well as you have. So how can it be fair that you are compensated as though you would have been promoted without the deduction?

[Dan]

NJ, if we're talking about 'fairness', can you please explain to me how your 10 point deduction last year affected you at all? Isn't it supposed to be a punishment or is that the FA picking on you again?

[LUFC]

Oh you want to talk about fairness. Ok hows this. Over the past 4 Seasons since they brought in the 10 points deduction. Every team that has been deducted points has been relegated. Some of those teams would of been without the 10 points, but most the 10 points sunk them.

So tell me, is it really fair to relegate a team thats in financial trouble when infact helping that team survive and get stable again is what the league should do. Instead they brand them with an iron, slam them into more and more debt by helping them lose money through relegation. How is that fair? Is that fair on the fans, the staff that work at these clubs? Is that fair on the league, that other teams benifit by not having to play as good, but still survive the drop?

Fairness in football doesnt come into this. But going what is right by Law does.

[Dan]

neolad said:

Oh you want to talk about fairness. Ok hows this. Over the past 4 Seasons since they brought in the 10 points deduction. Every team that has been deducted points has been relegated. Some of those teams would of been without the 10 points, but most the 10 points sunk them.

So tell me, is it really fair to relegate a team thats in financial trouble when infact helping that team survive and get stable again is what the league should do. Instead they brand them with an iron, slam them into more and more debt by helping them lose money through relegation. How is that fair? Is that fair on the fans, the staff that work at these clubs? Is that fair on the league, that other teams benifit by not having to play as good, but still survive the drop?

I'm confused, so what you're trying to tell me is that instead of punishing teams for spending more money than they have, getting themselves into severe financial difficulty in the process and ripping off the local companies they owe money to, we ought to either ignore it or maybe even reward them a bit?

It is not the fault of the FA or anyone else that Leeds spent millions on players and gave out ridiculous contracts on the prospect of future earnings. It's not the FA's fault that you got yourselves into massive financial debt. Who are you to have a go at them for not helping your team out? You got yourself into the situation and you have to face the consequences.

Carlisle are a perfect example of how it should be done. They went down to the Conference a good few years back and with no little financial difficulty. They sold off their talent WITHOUT going into administration and have build from the bottom up without going beyond their means.

So i come to my point. Tell me, would it be fair to them, or to Forest (also sold players to avoid admin) for teams like Leeds to be given a helping hand just because they didn't know when to stop?

Fairness in football doesnt come into this. But going what is right by Law does.

The ten point penalty is a punishment. You applied it when effectively relegated already, dodging the bullet. It was not a penalty to you whatsoever so should have been transferred to this season, THAT is the bottom line, none of this cry-baby 'they're picking on us' nonsense.

[LUFC]

I never said they was picking on us, read what i said, i mention LAWS. things you should abide by.

As for the admin part. Yes some teams can sell off, Yes some teams are able to restructure their finances. But there are 32 teams according to Delloti that are on the verge of going bankrupt. In serious financial trouble. Some in the near future are bound to go into administration. have 10 points deducted, sell of players, go down league after league.

Alot of this is nothing to do with leeds, it is pure and simple Football League actions. The league signed an innept contract with ITV Digital, it went belly up and still to this day clubs suffer. The league impose law breaking rules on CVA's where football debts have to be paid first. Thus resulting in breaking the law on that the IR should be paid first. This doesnt happen, IR threatens court action. No CVA, thus other clubs will be docked 15 points. All because the league have broken the law the club suffers.

Is that fair? No

All i ask is that the league supports these clubs, not nessesarily giving financial help. But they can guarantee debts from clubs, the league can become a guarantour meaning the club will have fully backed payment structure with all creditors. So that they never have to enter administration. So that they can get stable, and help keep the league strong. 32 Clubs, if those clubs all buckled under the debt the leagues would collapse.

You moan about leeds spending big. It is nothing new. Most Premiership clubs make million pound loses each year. The only way most survive is because the Premier League has to pay big to them to keep them going. Why shouldn't the football league try the same tact?

Here's the other side. Cap transfer fee's Bring them down to manageable levels. I hear Lampard is valued at 64million. How about we call him 14million and seriously re evaluate the cost of players. Then clubs would not have to spend "big" to get players, putting themsevles into debt. The football world is riding a bubble, some clubs like leeds that bubble burst. other clubs are trying so hard not to let that happen. But inevitably it will, why not try and prevent that by taking action NOW

[Dan]

neolad said:

I never said they was picking on us, read what i said, i mention LAWS. things you should abide by.

As for the admin part. Yes some teams can sell off, Yes some teams are able to restructure their finances. But there are 32 teams according to Delloti that are on the verge of going bankrupt. In serious financial trouble. Some in the near future are bound to go into administration. have 10 points deducted, sell of players, go down league after league.

They are only in admin due to over-spending and mistakes on their behalf. You make it sound like they had no say in the matter, which is ridiculous!

Alot of this is nothing to do with leeds, it is pure and simple Football League actions. The league signed an innept contract with ITV Digital, it went belly up and still to this day clubs suffer. The league impose law breaking rules on CVA's where football debts have to be paid first. Thus resulting in breaking the law on that the IR should be paid first. This doesnt happen, IR threatens court action. No CVA, thus other clubs will be docked 15 points. All because the league have broken the law the club suffers.

How dare the FA demand people pay their bills eh? Anyway, you're straying off my point here, tell me how it's fair on the likes of Rotherham, Bournemouth and Port Vale that you got the chance to duck into administration when already relegated.

Is that fair? No

All i ask is that the league supports these clubs, not nessesarily giving financial help. But they can guarantee debts from clubs, the league can become a guarantour meaning the club will have fully backed payment structure with all creditors. So that they never have to enter administration. So that they can get stable, and help keep the league strong. 32 Clubs, if those clubs all buckled under the debt the leagues would collapse.

The league isn't going to risk it's own future by being guarantors to clubs who are overspending by millions. It's a decent notion, but it's highly unrealistic.

You moan about leeds spending big. It is nothing new. Most Premiership clubs make million pound loses each year. The only way most survive is because the Premier League has to pay big to them to keep them going. Why shouldn't the football league try the same tact?

Premier league sides make a calculated loss, there is a massive difference. According to your chairman himself, you were spending money you were presuming you were going to get in future years. That's stupidity.

The Premier League doesn't pay them as such. The TV deal pays for most, which is simply a case of supply and demand than them having to pay big for clubs to survive. If it weren't for the TV deal, clubs wouldn't spend any way near as much.

Here's the other side. Cap transfer fee's Bring them down to manageable levels. I hear Lampard is valued at 64million. How about we call him 14million and seriously re evaluate the cost of players. Then clubs would not have to spend "big" to get players, putting themsevles into debt. The football world is riding a bubble, some clubs like leeds that bubble burst. other clubs are trying so hard not to let that happen. But inevitably it will, why not try and prevent that by taking action NOW

Again, i can't see it working. If anything, the heightened transfer fees are actually bringing more money into football rather than reducing it. For example, there's around 300m of Abramovich's money in football nowadays that wasn't there before. It may go to the big clubs, but it trickles down gradually.

[LUFC]

Why are you saying FA? this is a FOOTBALL LEAGUE rule, not an FA rule. And i never said that football debts shouldnt get paid. It's just against the law that they get paid before the tax man. Because of that rule clubs get taken to court by the tax man. And rightly so. but this then means no CVA and no way to get golden share back.

Simple answer is apply the law of the land, but have rules that ensure football debts are paid after the tax man has his money. That way CVA's could be made without court cases.

How can you not see that?!?!

And why shouldnt the league become a guarantor? it's would just mean the league would be able to keep club spending in check until such a time the club has paid off it's debts. If they fail to pay up, drop them out the league. But would save all the bother of administration and keep the league from becoming a laughing stock with so many clubs going in and out of administration.

Look at the league, Rotherham sold all their players and was in relegation trouble from the start before they lost the points. Port Vale down and out before they lost 10 points. The history of clubs going down, most would of gone down without any deductions. Only afew would of survived. So we are no worse than any other team that has entered admin.

[Dan]

neolad said:

Why are you saying FA? this is a FOOTBALL LEAGUE rule, not an FA rule. And i never said that football debts shouldnt get paid. It's just against the law that they get paid before the tax man. Because of that rule clubs get taken to court by the tax man. And rightly so. but this then means no CVA and no way to get golden share back.

Meh, you're the expert. Back onto my point however:

And why shouldnt the league become a guarantor? it's would just mean the league would be able to keep club spending in check until such a time the club has paid off it's debts. If they fail to pay up, drop them out the league. But would save all the bother of administration and keep the league from becoming a laughing stock with so many clubs going in and out of administration.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't 'guarantor' mean that they'd cover the payments if the club cannot? The football league has no interest in doing this. The FL is no way near becoming a laughing stock because of Admin, just so you know.

Look at the league, Rotherham sold all their players and was in relegation trouble from the start before they lost the points. Port Vale down and out before they lost 10 points. The history of clubs going down, most would of gone down without any deductions. Only afew would of survived. So we are no worse than any other team that has entered admin.

Port Vale were three points from safety before the 10 point administration deduction. That then makes it 13 points, which is a massive difference and a proper punishment.

Rotherham were out of the relegation zone before administration and admin put them into it. Again, a big punishment.

Leeds however were 5 points from safety with 2 games to play or something silly like that. You were going down anyway, so the 10 point penalty meant nothing. Tell me how that's fair, please.