Informasjon: Lønnstak, rettssak, poengstraff

[janove]

BBC Breakfast (Frokost TV) melder naa i morgentimene at Barnsley stoetter Leeds i rettsaken, men de vil ikke vaere aktiv. Opplysningene stammer fra et brev, som er sendt til klubbene, fra FL.

[Svend Anders]

BBC Breakfast (Frokost TV) melder naa i morgentimene at Barnsley stoetter Leeds i rettsaken, men de vil ikke vaere aktiv. Opplysningene stammer fra et brev, som er sendt til klubbene, fra FL.

Det er så vidt jeg skjønner det samme brevet som saken oppsto fra i slutten av forrige uke, og er allerede dementert av Barnsley styreformann...

SA

[Asbjørn]

BBC Breakfast (Frokost TV) melder naa i morgentimene at Barnsley stoetter Leeds i rettsaken, men de vil ikke vaere aktiv. Opplysningene stammer fra et brev, som er sendt til klubbene, fra FL.

Det er så vidt jeg skjønner det samme brevet som saken oppsto fra i slutten av forrige uke, og er allerede dementert av Barnsley styreformann...

SA

...og som ble behørlig omtalt i denne selvsamme tråden, forrige side http://www.leedsunited.no/forum/index.php?topic=8922.15

...men det er kanskje for mye forlangt at BBC frokost-tv skal ha fått med seg hva aviser i England skriver *sukk*

[Sleivind]

Idag går fristen for FL for å svare på fremstøtet til Leeds.

http://www.leedsunited.com/page/NewsroomDetail/0,,10273~1250443,00.html

Noen som kan fortelle meg hva som skjer fremover? Blir det rettsak uansett? Kan FL plutselig snu og si at vi får poengene tilbake? Kan vi få enda fler minuspoeng på grunn av dette? Bøter?

[raggen]

tror vi er mange som lurer på dette så de som sitter på opplysninger om dette, gi gjerne lyd

[4ever arcticwhite]

Ser ut som om det det går mot en form for forhandlinger / høring, med en representant for Ligaen, en fra Leeds og en fra rettssystemet

http://www.leedsunited.com/page/NewsroomDetail/0,,10273~1251306,00.html

Ser plutselig litt mer optimistisk på mulighetene for å få noen poeng tilbake.

[Leeds04]

Ser ut som om det det går mot en form for forhandlinger / høring, med en representant for Ligaen, en fra Leeds og en fra rettssystemet

http://www.leedsunited.com/page/NewsroomDetail/0,,10273~1251306,00.html

Ser plutselig litt mer optimistisk på mulighetene for å få noen poeng tilbake.

Det er nesten flaut at vi må bruke energien på dette nå. Vi burde greid opprykk uansett!

[4ever arcticwhite]

Det er nesten flaut at vi må bruke energien på dette nå. Vi burde greid opprykk uansett!

Joda, men jeg tar heller imot 15 poeng og rykker opp, enn å si "nei takk", og bli hvor vi er....

[baste]

Det er nesten flaut at vi må bruke energien på dette nå. Vi burde greid opprykk uansett!

Joda, men jeg tar heller imot 15 poeng og rykker opp, enn å si "nei takk", og bli hvor vi er....

Det var ikke mange som trudde på direkte opprykk når vi ble fratatt 15 poeng....Men playoff var vel det vi snakkket mest om da...Og det klarer vi. Får vi 15 poeng tilbake, så er vi på direkte opprykk. Så sesongen sett under ett, er godkjent, men ikke de siste to mnd...formsvikt etc..begynte etter min mening når Poyet dro.

[kjelvi]

Leeds fight set for arbitration 


Bates is deciding whether to accept the offer of arbitration

Leeds United's battle to have their 15-point penalty overturned could rest with an arbitration panel.
The Football League made the offer to Leeds on Tuesday, the same day as their deadline to respond to United's High Court writ.
United chairman Ken Bates told BBC Radio Leeds: "We now need to consult with our QC.
"We want this in open tribunal. We want the public and press to be able to hear the evidence from both sides."
Leeds were docked points for breaching the Football League's rules on insolvency.
The club served a writ against the League in response and hope to have a decision before the end of the season on 3 May.

"The only outstanding issue is openness. We want this thing to be heard in public and there's no valid reason why it shouldn't be"
Leeds chairman Ken Bates

Should the matter go to arbitration, it would be heard by a three-man panel consisting of a neutral Court of Appeal judge and a representative each from United and the League.
Bates said: "The suggestion of a judge of the Appeal Court is encouraging.
"To quote their (the Football League's) lawyers, 'impartiality and independence will be guaranteed and the competence of the tribunal will be par excellence.' That's all we've ever asked for."
Bates also confirmed that if the club went to arbitration, then it would accept the final decision.
"We've always said that - there's no problem with it," he added.
"In fact they ought to change the League rules and adopt the ones of the Premier League so it (arbitration) automatically happens. Then this nonsense that's been running for the last six months would never have happened.
"The only outstanding issue is openness. We want this thing to be heard in public and there's no valid reason why it shouldn't be.
"I'm surprised it's taken so long. This is what we've been trying to get resolved since September.
"For the last six months it's been batted backwards and forwards between the Football League and the FA, both of whom said we didn't have a case to answer.
"Finally, when we've issued the writ against the Football League, their lawyers have now come up - at the last minute I may add - with an offer of arbitration."

BBC

* PA Sport: http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/02/27/SOCCER_Leeds.html
* YP: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds/Exclusive-League-make-deadlineday-offer.3818816.jp
* Sky Sports: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3203299,00.html
* YEP: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leedsunited/United-ponder-League-offer.3819285.jp
* Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=520490&in_page_id=1779

[McMidjo]

Svært interessant utvikling synes jeg…..

Om en ’legmann’ skal forsøke å trekke noen foreløpige konklusjoner og spekulere litt i den videre prosess:

Det ser ut til at Leeds klarer å presse FL fra skanse til skanse i denne saken. Samtidig synes det ganske tydelig at FL forsøker å trenere denne saken maksimalt. Dette kan jo indikere at FL innerst inne erkjenner at de sitter på en så dårlig sak, at de ikke er trygge på utfallet om saken skulle bli utsatt for en tradisjonell juridisk vurdering.

’Arbitration’-prosessen er like uforutsigbar for alle parter tror jeg, men etter hva jeg forstår er  formålet med prosessen at den skal munne ut i et slags forlik mellom Leeds og FL. Det nye i denne prosessen er jo at det kommer inn en uavhengig juridisk tredjepart i saken, og jeg er usikker på hva slags myndighet denne tredjeparten har overfor Leeds/FL for eksempel ift å tvinge gjennom en endelig ’dom’ i saken.

Det vil også være interessant å se hvilke tidsrammer som legges for denne prosessen. FL sin strategi er antakeligvis å forsøke å trenere denne saken så mye at den ikke er avsluttet før sesongen er over, noe som muligens kan endre premissene for hele saksutfallet â€" til FL sin fordel. Om det går så langt vil det jo være fåfengt å gi tilbake alle eller noen av minuspoengene, iom at det høyst sannsynlig vil kunne gi tabellrokeringer som påvirker opprykk/playoffplasseringer. Det vil ikke være praktisk mulig å gi dette tilbakevirkende kraft til et playoffsluttspill som allerede er spilt.

Jeg tror at enden på hele saken blir at Leeds må akseptere de minus 15, men at FL får kritikk for måten de har håndtert saken på, og blir bedt om å endre/tydeliggjøre sitt regelverk slik at Leedscaset er tydelig dekket inn i dette regelverket.  Jeg regner da også med at den uspiselige Lord Mawhinney (som har en lang politisk karriere bak seg for toryene â€" se Wikipedia-link under) forsvinner på hue og ræva ut av FL ved første og beste anledning, og at Bates og Leeds etter hvert får noe mer kreditt for å framtvunget en høyst tiltrengt revisjon av FL sitt vaklevorne regelverk.

For Leeds sin del tror jeg ikke det vil være noen reell mulighet å avslå tilbudet om arbitration, og ta denne saken direkte inn i rettsystemet. Regner med at  Retten bare vil returnere saken og instrurere Leeds om at saken først må søkes løst gjennom den arbitrationprosess som FL nå har åpnet for.

Saken er også omtalt på følgende måte under Lord Mawhinneys profil i Wikipedia:

In 2007, Mawhinney oversaw the Football leagues decision to imposing a harsh penalty of 15 points upon Leeds United (in addition to the 10 points deducted in the 06/07 season) which was a record points deduction in the english football. A so called "appeal" of this decision in which directly involved parties (the chairmen of Leeds United's competing clubs) voted on whether to keep the deduction.

Neither Mawhinney nor the Football League have never provided a clear explanation of the justification for Leeds United's 15 points punishment. It is also notable that prior to the 'appeal' Mawhinney stated (in a letter to Football League Chairmen) that the punishment would set a precedent but reversed this during the meeting (hence, making a vote in favour of the deduction more palatable to the chairmen). Due to the lack of both a clear rational for the decision and a fair appeal, Leeds United are set to challenge this decision in the high court.

For en ’hedning’ som har sitt hjerte i en arbeiderklasseklubb som Leeds United er det ellers interessant å lese hvilken bakgrunn denne mektige lederen av FL har: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mawhinney

A man to trust?

[Sydhagen]

det hele ender vel med at leeds får en giganterstatning utpå sensommeren og at bates stikker pengene i egen lomme, og deretter selger han klubben

[Tom S]

....kanskje vi får starte neste sesong med +15?

Spennende sak dette!

Det er vanskelig å seie kven som har rett, men sånn eg forstår det har ikkje denne saka blitt behandla rettferdig. Mulig Leeds skal ha sin straff, men det var heilt feil at våre konkurrenter behandlet anken vår tilbake i september.

Håper no på ein rettferdig behandling, så tar vi det som kommer med eit smil.

[kjelvi]

Leeds seek Downing Street help

Ken Bates is seeking the intervention of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his campaign to get Leeds' 15-point deduction overturned.
The Leeds chairman has called on all football fans to join the club's "fight for justice" by adding their names to an online Downing Street petition.
Nearly 20,000 fans have so far signed the petition, which is requesting the removal of the Football League's sanction imposed for breaking rules on insolvency last summer.
Bates said: "The support is very encouraging. People are beginning to realise that this isn't about Leeds United and that 'it could be us next'.
"We already have Luton and Bournemouth in administration, who could have similar problems in placating the (Inland) Revenue, Rotherham are suggesting they're going to go into administration and others are in very similar situations. Who could be next?
"This isn't about Leeds United - it's about justice and fair play. We're hoping all fair-minded fans of whichever club they support will sign up. Every one helps because this is a matter of principle."

TeamTalk

[kjelvi]

Blue silent on Leeds points bid


Vociferous: Paul Scally

CARLISLE UNITED were today maintaining a diplomatic silence over the possibility that Leeds United may have the 15-point penalty that has haunted their season revoked.
That would impact massively on the look of the Coca-Cola League One table, but few clubs are willing to put their heads above the parapet ahead of an arbitration hearing with a Court of Appeal judge.
The most vociferous has been Gillingham chairman Paul Scally, who recently went to some lengths to defend his decision to back the penalty, imposed by the Football League as a result of Leeds’ exit from administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
Scally, whose club currently lies in 20th position and perilously close to the relegation places, said after representatives present at an appeal hearing in London on August 9 voted overwhelmingly in favour of upholding the League's penalty by an initial majority of 64 to five: “I don't need to hide behind anonymity or a secret ballot.
“I voted with the League's board and I think I was right to do so. I wasn't responsible for deciding whether Leeds should be punished, or what their punishment should be.
“Neither were any of the clubs. The board took that decision, and we were simply asked to back one party or the other using the evidence in front of us.
“The League's explanation seemed very convincing to me and, to be honest, I thought Leeds United's case was really poor. I asked a couple of questions and got answers from Leeds which I felt were completely unsatisfactory.
“There wasn't any real doubt about which way I should vote.
“It's a shame that the fans at Leeds have had to suffer, and I feel sorry for the players and staff as well. But at the end of the day this was the Football League board's decision, and I don't think Leeds' argument against it was good enough.
“I know most of the chairmen in the Football League and I think they voted in good faith. A few might have had the wrong reasons, but not the majority. ”
Presently Carlisle are in second place - an automatic promotion spot - with 11 points in hand of ninth-placed Leeds.
But a restoration of their points would see Leeds take second spot, four points ahead of Carlisle but having played one game more.
Leeds claim the decision to deduct 15 points was "purely one born of self-interest on behalf of the other clubs."

newsandstar.co.uk

[kjelvi]

Dispute needs a quick solution

Phil Hay
Inside Elland Road

Independent arbitration it may be then, just when it seemed the relationship between Leeds United and the Football League had passed the point of compromise.
United's acceptance of arbitration, should it arrive, will not be the cue for Ken Bates and Brian Mawhinney to jump back into bed â€" if indeed they were beneath the same duvet in the first place â€" but it would display an abrupt willingness at both ends of the room to settle their argument, and settle it quickly.
After six months in which United's protestations have brought about minimal investigation into their 15-point penalty by either the Football League or the Football Association, independent arbitration is a more encouraging prospect. But it would be hasty to describe it as an endgame.
The dispute has been destined for a judicial review since Bates' legal staff began examining the workings of the Football League last year, and United's threat of High Court action was not made idly.
Until Tuesday brought news of the Football League's offer of arbitration, the High Court was where Bates expected the matter to be resolved.
It still may be.
United's case is ready, and although it is unclear whether accepting arbitration would preclude Leeds from subsequent legal action, the club have already shredded one similar agreement with the Football League, supported Bates says by European Union law.
If Leeds sense an injustice then they are entitled to fight it for as long as their money and willpower allows.
But in the background, the noise of a ticking clock is disrupting sleep in more places than Elland Road and the Football League's headquarters.
The case is one that 50 per cent of clubs in League One must now concern themselves with.
Those clubs are already central to the matter having supplied a third of the vote which upheld United's 15-point punishment at a Football League appeal hearing in August.
Their present league positions are distorted by the fact that Leeds have run with a massive handicap, but while Bates protests the power of self-interest, his fellow chairman would claim that their clubs are positioned on merit.
As uneven a playing field as League One may be, it is the surface on which all 24 teams were instructed to compete.
The faintest hint that United's deduction might be reversed is a grave concern at this stage of the year.

The season finishes in 64 days, with fewer business days available, and any decision in favour of Leeds would arrive at a delicate time.
The clubs with most to lose are those with an eye on automatic promotion.
The mood is pensive, so much so that club executives are generally unwilling to discuss the case publicly.
But one voice of support for Leeds has come from Bradford City, whose chairman Julian Rhodes is thought to have voted against the deduction and knows the process of administration inside out.
Rhodes said: "I do feel Leeds were hard done to.
"Their creditors received 11p in the pound while creditors at other clubs have got only 1p in the pound."
The defence is valid, but lacking context.
United's initial plan was in fact to pay their creditors a penny in the pound, right up until 24 hours before the deadline set for unhappy parties to challenge the club's Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
It was only when the threat of a legal contest from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) became apparent that Leeds moved to placate the Revenue by increasing their settlement offer to eight pence in the pound.
The final sum of 11p was ultimately brought about by the open sale declared by KPMG in July, which forced Bates to outbid other interested parties.
It represented a vastly improved deal for those owed money, but to suggest that Leeds were always intent on putting up 11p in the pound is wrong.
Had it not been for HMRC's dissatisfaction, the final payment to creditors would have been smaller.
The argument between Leeds and the Football League, however, is not about the ethics of administration, and nor should it be.
The key detail is the CVA. League rules require clubs in administration to agree one, and United did not.
Regardless of clauses allowing for exceptional circumstances, that is the matter which requires discussion.
The dispute must surely come down to this: if United or KPMG were responsible for the CVA's collapse â€" through recklessness, poor administration or honest mistakes which provoked HMRC's legal challenge â€" then it is reasonable to argue that a penalty was justified.
But if the CVA failed as a result of an attack from HMRC which Leeds were powerless to avoid, as the club claim, then they cannot be held in contempt.
Be it through arbitration or the High Court, it is high time an answer was provided by someone without a vested interest.

YEP

[4ever arcticwhite]

Da er det klart at det blir privat (lukket) høring, eller voldgift.

Jeg er ikke sikker på om det løsning betinger at partene blir enige, eller om de bare framfører sine argumenter, og så avgjør dommeren utfallet.

Mitt tips: Vi får tilbake 5 av poengene, slik at straffen blir den samme som om vi hadde gått inn i administrasjon tidligere. Bates blir "furios", kommer med voldsom kritikk mot at det ikke var en åpen høring, men lar ballen (endelig) ligge død.

[kjelvi]

Da er det klart at det blir privat (lukket) høring, eller voldgift.

United agree private arbitration

Leeds United have agreed to independent arbitration against the Football League over their 15-point deduction - with the hearing to be staged in private.
United have accepted a confidential tribunal "under protest" after 48 hours of negotiations with the Football League's solicitors aimed at securing a public hearing.
Leeds were offered independent arbitration by the Football League on Tuesday after serving a writ on the organisation, and the offer was seen as an attempt by the League to avert High Court proceedings.
United chairman Ken Bates initially suggested that he would turn down an arbitrational review if the League insisted on complete privacy, but the club agreed to the offer earlier this afternoon.
Bates said: "We have agreed under duress to arbitration in private. But what have they got to hide?
"We believe this should be conducted in the open because people have a right to know. This is supposed to be about transparency.
"We won't be dragging our heels. The League have delayed things for over six months, and we want the matter resolved as quickly as possible."
The tribunal is expected to be heard by a three-man panel, consisting of one legal representative selected by each of United and the Football League with a Court of Appeal judge to chair proceedings.

YEP

[Stewart Harvey]

Rettspraksis vedrørende voldgift i Norge er at dersom man er blitt enige om voldgift, skal det svært mye til for at en slik voldgiftsdom skal kunne ankes videre.

Voldgiftsavgjørelsen vil derfor med høy grad av sannsynlighet bli den som gjelder.

[75 SOLLI]

Jeg har personlig tro på at vi kommmer til å få tilbake noen poeng!
For slik som avgjørelsen ble fattet, henger jo ikke på greip........

Endelig blir vi ett topplag igjen, nå må vi bare begynne å vinne kamper igjen!

[sportcarl1]

tror vi har chans att få tillbaka alla 15 poängen eller inga alls, avgörandet är ju om de kommer till att ligaföreningen har gjort rätt eller fel

[Wannabe]

Husk det er meget stor forskjell på å få tilbake 15 eller ikke å få noen tilbake. Jeg vet ikke, men Bates' selskapskonstruksjon var vel ikke akkurat "etter boka". Samtidig spekulerte han, i og for seg med suksess, på at det dog ville være et for uforholdsmessig tiltak rett og slett å sette en stor strek over klubbens plass i ligasystemet. Jeg tror en eller annen reaksjon blir stående, men så spørs det om en voldgiftsdommer alt i alt mener hele 15 p. står i forhold til det som har skjedd.

Jeg regner vel med at dette betyr at vi ikke blir (ytterligere) straffet for igjen å ta opp spørsmålet, i alle fall!!

MOT

[berlin]

Det står respekt av Bates sin innsats, det kan være en viktig sak som skaper presedens!

Men, personlig, må jeg innrømme at Leeds-saken er ytterst spesiell, og jeg anser straffen på totalt -25 poeng som rimelig. Vi kunne blitt kastet ut av hele ligasystemet, og slik jeg vurderer det har ikke Leeds-suppoertere generelt vært totalt i harnisk over det som har skjedd.

Det kan selvfølgelig skyldes at saken er så intrikat at menigmann har problemer med å henge med.

For meg er det en sak, som berører meg lite. Jeg er glad vi fortsatt eksisterer i ligasystemet,
og synes egentlig ikke vi er blitt urettferdig behandlet.

Jeg sier ikke nei takk til flere poenger, men stiller meg ganske likegyldig til utfallet av voldgiftsdomstolen.

[4ever arcticwhite]

Da er det bestemt at 'høringen' blir midt i april. Hadde håpet at det skulle skje noe tidligere, men det kan jo gjøre seg med noen ekstra poeng når det er bare 3-4 ligakamper igjen.

[KeyserSoze]

Hmm, det var lenge til... Jo lenger ut i sesongen det går jo mindre sjanse regner jeg det som at vi får igjen noen poeng. Og hvis vi skulle få igjen noen poeng og dette medfører at et annet lag blir satt ned fra direkte opprykk eller playoff er det vel lite trolig at de ikke vil prøve å lage en sak av det..

Er det mulig FL håper på at vi vil ligge på playoff med mer enn 15p opp slik at de kan gi oss tilbake poengene uten at det får noen betydning(utover hvem man møter i playoff)?

[fmtj]

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leedsunited/Leeds-United-tribunal-date-is.3843191.jp

[Erik M]

Eneste håp er en klekkelig økonomisk kompensasjon hvis vi ikke rykker opp.  De kan da virkelig ikke stokke om på tabellen når det er 2-3 kamper igjen.  Det kommer IKKE til å skje. Hvorfor ble ikke arbitration holdt i september...?

[Papi]

Då er det bare og innstille seg med at vi ikkje får igjen eit einaste poeng.
Det blir i tilfelle eit lurveleven uten like om andre lag mister playoff grunna at Leeds får igjen nokre "pinner"


Sier som Metallica - Sad But True!

[Roy]

Har lenge vært innstilt på at play-off må vi klare alene - uten hjelp fra jussen. Og det er vi gode nok til. MOT.

[berlin]

Har lenge vært innstilt på at play-off må vi klare alene - uten hjelp fra jussen. Og det er vi gode nok til. MOT.

samme her. Hverken forventer eller tror det blir noen endring i minus 15 saken.

Som noen er inne på, det blir litt av et leven hvsi det medfører at noen mister play-off eller 2.plassen pga Leeds, rett før serieslutt. He-he, ser for meg kruttsalvene som ville florert i media da.