Informasjon: Lønnstak, rettssak, poengstraff

[kjelvi]

Leeds - Two Sides To Every Coin - FACT
James Dacey looks in depth at the issue throwing League One into turmoil


Over the course of the season, and in particular the last couple of weeks, there has been waged a war over the matter of a 15 point deduction for one team in League One. At times the debate over the legitimacy of this points deduction has become quite heated, and there has been much talk of ‘getting the facts right’. With this in mind, I’d like to present, what I think, is an impartial view that lists the ‘facts’. Whilst I have included some opinion, it is only my opinion and it is not in any way trying to be sensationalist. 

* Leeds Utd entered administration at a point when their relegation to League One was all but officially confirmed, rendering their automatic ten-point deduction meaningless.
* The club was sold back to a Ken Bates owned holding company by the administrators at the request of the principle club creditor, a holding company owned by the aforementioned Kenneth Bates. This allowed KB to ‘wipe off’ a large proportion of Leeds’ debt, without having to pay much back to those to whom it was owed. And, this was despite there being other bids on the table for Leeds Utd that may have been preferential to other, smaller, creditors.
* League rules state that all ‘footballing creditors’ must be paid first for a team in administration to be allowed their ‘golden share’ and a place in the League. With a CVA about to be announced, the tax man jumped in and demanded full payment of monies owed to HMIR, as would happen to any ‘regular’ company
* Leeds were allowed to take their place in League One, subject to a 15 point deduction and Ken Bates signing an agreement that he would not take the punishment to a tribunal. This was after all other clubs were polled as to whether Leeds should be allowed back into the League, a move that many have seen as holding a possible conflict of interest. This deduction is viewed by many as a ‘punishment’ for Leeds for taking the initial 10 point deduction at a time when it would not affect their League status. Whatever your view on this, it was perfectly within the rights of the club to do this, and there was nothing in the Football League rules that prevented them from doing so.
* Whilst Leeds were still without a CVA, they were allowed to sign new players (even paying transfer fees) â€" something that teams are not supposed to be able to do under Football League rules.
* Leeds have explored every avenue to gain back their 15 points, and are now awaiting the decision of an independent tribunal

The result of this tribunal is likely to go one of three ways (it could always be referred to another authority/tribunal)

* If Leeds were to receive 15 points back it would put them in second place, ahead of Carlisle and Doncaster. It would also still be possible for Leeds to finish as Champions. This would invariably lead to legal action from Carlisle, Doncaster, and probably Swansea.
* If Leeds were to receive enough points back to secure a play off place, Walsall, Brighton, Tranmere (and possibly Oldham) would be denied a place in the lucrative end-of-season finale, and would probably take legal action.
* If Leeds were told that the 15 point deduction must stay, Leeds would look to other alternatives as a way of having the points returned to them

Whoever you support and whether you believe the deduction was correct or not, what everyone should be able to agree on is that this whole debacle has been poorly handled by the FA and the Football League. It has been left until April for a tribunal to take place, when one club has already ‘secured’ promotion and potentially this issue could carry on indefinitely. Whatever the result, someone is going to be unhappy, and this case is not going to be dropped. 

In my own humble opinion this whole debacle would have been avoided if the laws surrounding the following two issues were much stricter:

Ken Bates’ ownership of Leeds Utd
Ken Bates took Leeds into administration and bought the club back, wiping off the majority of the clubs debts. Whichever way you look at it, this seems like a dodgy piece of business, but it’s all perfectly legal and above board. As the club was owned by a holding company, and now owned by another holding company, Ken Bates is able to stay in control. That a man who owned a club ran up debts that made him the majority creditor, and then forced the administrators to sell the club back to him is a farce. This is not a personal issue with Ken Bates. This happens all the time in business, and as long as someone is clever in the way that they control businesses, they can continue to run up massive debts without ever having to pay them off. There are now tests that determine who is ‘fit’ to run a football club, but it does not prevent the likes of Bates from legally playing the loopholes in the system. 

The automatic 10 point deduction
At the end of the day, Leeds should not have been allowed to take the deduction when they did, but it was perfectly legal and above board - so the finger of blame has to be pointed at the Football League for creating a rule that allowed this to take place. I believe that if Leeds’ 10 point deduction had been carried over to this season, as the laws now state, then no-one would have cause for complaint.  As it stands, the incompetence of the FA and the Football League in failing to resolve this issue at the start of the season has led us to a situation where we are embarking into the unknown. No-one can accurately predict the outcome of this proceeding and the end result of all this, because whatever happens I do not believe it will end at this tribunal. On a personal level, my only hope is that we win our remaining 3 games, meaning that whatever happens to Leeds our promotion to The Championship is not in any doubt. I can sympathize with those below us, but it’s every man for himself, and as long as we’re promoted, I’ve got to be honest and say I don’t care who comes up with us.

planetswans.co.uk

[TrJ]

Takk for informasjonen kjelvi, veldig bra.

Som det påpekes igjen og igjen har Leeds fått dobbelt straff med minuspoeng 2 sesonger på rad, men jeg har mine tvil ift om FL vil innrømme feilene sine i så måte. Uansett hva denne høringen ender med så blir det sirkus, spørsmålet er om det kommer fra Leeds eller andre pga den påvirkningen resultatet vil/vil ikke ha på tabellen og opprykk/play-off.
Jeg håper vi sikrer playoff i morgen slik at det i hvert fall er sikkert..


/Terje

[eggus]

I uttalelsen fra klubben står det om avgjørelsen for å bruke en ekstra dag:

The full reasons for the desicion may follow later.

Hva skal dette bety? En slags vag og grøtete hentydning med en undertone av "wink wink, nudge nudge, know what i mean"(for de som kan sin Monty Python)...

[MartinR]

Leeds United meldte i går på sin offisielle nettside at saken om de 15 minuspoengene blir avgjørt senest 1. mai.

Panelet bestående av tre mann, en representant fra Leeds United, en fra The Football League og en høyesterettsdommer har nå holdt på med denne saken i snart to uker.

Høringen vil imidlertid fortsette førstkommende mandag, men det forventes altså nå at dette blir avgjort for ligasesongen er ferdigspilt.

[kjelvi]

Rivals angered as Leeds verdict is delayed for a fortnight

Uncertainty turned to anger last night as Sir Philip Otton's panel arbitrating on the Football League's 15-point penalty against Leeds United confirmed it had reserved another fortnight to deliver its decision.

Dick Knight, the chairman of Brighton & Hove Albion, who are two places and four points behind sixth-placed Leeds in League One's final play-off place, criticised as "a farce" the announcement that a verdict should not be expected until May 1. That is 48 hours before League One's final round of fixtures and only eight days before the play-offs begin.
"Either Leeds have a case or not and I wouldn't have thought it was beyond the wit of an independent tribunal to make a decision after three days," Knight said. "It's fine to try to make a judgment but when it makes a nonsense of the competition itself then you need a review of how arbitrations are made.
"At the very beginning the tribunal should have resolved to make a decision before this round of fixtures. This means the administrative tail is wagging the dog."
There is particular upset that Leeds initially accepted the penalty since the alternative was for the club to have been denied the Football League share that gave them the right to play in the competition. Leeds consider this choice to have been "unfair and unreasonable", prompting the appeal through arbitration.
The club's case predictably centres on the strict interpretation of whether the league had the right within its rules to impose the penalty and it is this that Otton and his fellow panellists, the QCs Peter Cadman and Peter Leaver, a former Premier League chief executive, are considering.

Ron Martin, chairman of fifth-placed Southend United, believes his club to be "unaffected" by the verdict. But in the interests of the competition, he hopes the league's judgment prevails. "I am not sure the league rules account specifically for that sanction," said Martin. "But the league works under the auspices of the Football Association rules and they can fix those rules as they see fit as a regulator. Nobody will be delighted if Leeds get the points back, whether they are affected or not. So if those rules aren't allowed then they will be ratified in the summer."
Other clubs who will be directly affected by the situation are considering their options. "The clubs who might be affected have spoken to each other, obviously, about what we can and can't do," said Doncaster's chief executive David Morris, whose third-placed club's hopes of automatic promotion would be shattered if the panel finds in favour of Leeds.
"Us and Carlisle are in a dogfight and we can have it snatched away when we're putting the cup to our lips. If it's taken away in a court of law then the club has to consider its position. But if the points are returned and we take a class action or any legal recourse we don't know who that would be against. We can't do anything against Leeds because they'd have been proved to have done nothing wrong."
Morris and other club executives believe that Leeds, under their combative former manager Dennis Wise, were able to make a competitive virtue of the 15-point penalty, and that reinstatement would distort the integrity of the competition. If that is the case, it would compound what other clubs perceive to have been an unreasonable advantage garnered when Leeds went in to administration.
"The points were deducted for failure to comply with insolvency rules," Martin added. "If you write off £30m-plus of debt, then you start with an advantage over your competitors. So that's why they started with the points deficit."

The Guardian

[kjelvi]

Lawn: Leeds verdict could open can of worms

Mark Lawn will demand to know why the Football League have "changed their rules" on administration if Leeds get their points back.
Leeds will find out by May 1 whether they will claw back any or all of the 15-point penalty imposed after the club broke league rules by coming out of administration without a Company Voluntary Arrange-ment (CVA).
Lawn believes the verdict from the four-day arbitration hearing, which finishes on Monday, could open a "can of worms" within football just as much as the Carlos Tevez affair.
The City joint-chairman said: "The ruling will be very interesting and it's something we may have to look at because we were one of the clubs forced to go through a CVA.
"That forced us to take on debts that we wouldn't have had to have done otherwise.
"In plain terms, a CVA means you pay out more money to your creditors than if you don't go through one. It's as simple as that.
"We wouldn't have had to take on buildings that have got large debts if we didn't go through a CVA. The league forced us, not just for now but for 25 years in the future.
"So if the verdict does go in Leeds' favour, I'd have to turn round and ask the League why they've suddenly decided to change the rules."
Lawn insists his beef is not against Leeds but the possibility that the League may "move the goalposts" to strike a compromise.
"I think 15 points was over the top but the League did that themselves," he added.
"I've no particular view one way or the other whether Leeds get any points back. I just want a straight line drawn so that clubs know exactly where they stand."

"I’ve no particular view one way or the other whether Leeds get any points back. I just want a straight line drawn so that clubs know exactly where they stand"
Mark Lawn

The Leeds ruling could impact on the League One promotion race. But there are likely to be wider implications as clubs currently in administration watch to see if they can follow suit and avoid a CVA deal.
Lawn said: "It's opened a real can of worms. I think the authorities make knee-jerk decisions when they should have thought about it first.
"But forcing teams to go through a CVA wasn't the right thing in the first place. I don't think that should have happened to Bradford.
"We should have been treated like any other business in their own right and turned round and allowed to trade and carry on.
"Businesses do this every year. They stop trading and then they start again - it's a tactic.
"But to then put other facilities in with a CVA just makes a rod for the league's back.
"I don't think going into administration on purpose - and there's a term called pre-pack that's known throughout the business world - is the right way to do things.
"I wouldn't advocate it and it's not something I would want to do because ethically it's wrong. But sometimes you have to do that in business to survive."

thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

[kjelvi]

Richard Cramer, a specialist sports lawyer with Leeds-based solicitors Cramer Richards,believes the extension of the arbitration hearing to Monday indicates that both Leeds and the Football League have presented strong submissions to the panel.
Cramer said: "It's not a surprise that the case has gone into a fourth day. It's probably a sign that the panel are hearing strong legal arguments from both sides.
"I'd expect that the panel will have been strongly urged by both Leeds and the Football League to come a decision as quickly as possible. A decision after the end of the season would cause carnage."

Fra YEP's Clockwatch

[McMidjo]

Hadde regnet med at det skulle hagle med rykter om utfallet av arbitration idag, i og med at høringen nå skal være ferdig. Det eneste jeg så langt har plukket opp er denne posten - fra Waccoe (som igjen skal være rappet fra sidene til supporterklubben):

Arbitration - Inside the pannel
April 21 2008 at 12:35 PM GreatHope (Login GreaterHope)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a collegue in chambers...

The abitration pannel are now looking at one question and one question only - was the punishment of a 15-point deduction fair and just at the time it was handed out. It is this question and this question only which will determin Leeds' fate.

Leeds, clearly, are saying no. The Football League are saying yes.

The arguments have been (and I'm generalising here to avoid penning an novel) as follows:

Leeds United are saying that the didn't break any Football League rules and, hence, the punishment is unfair. They are arguing that AT THE TIME of their emergence from administration there was no statute on the FL books for coming out of administration. Leeds say that the Football League legislated specifically to deal with their situation in retrospect. Essentially, Leeds argue that you can not flout a law prior to said law being introduced and at the time of their "crime" the law was not in place.

The Football League's argument revolves around the vote of league clubs. They say that the vote wasn't on whether Leeds United should be docked points, but whether a 15 point deduction was fair for ANY club who failed to emerge from administration according to new FL rules. Leeds, they say, would simply be the first to be handed such a punishment.

So: In summary, they are considering a question similar this: If you punched somebody in the face, could you be convicted of assault if assault was yet to be made illegal. Could you make rules to fit a crime in retrospect.

In simple legal-ese (i.e, was the deduction a fair and just punishment at the time of it being handed out) the consensus seems to be no. Early indications suggest that Leeds WILL get their 15 points back, and win promotion to the Championship, with a recommendation that clubs affected (Carlisle, Doncaster, Southend, Nottingham Forest) be awarded "significant" financial compensation from the Football League.

-----

Resonnementet høres ikke så usannsynlig ut, men synes den biten som går på økonomisk kompensasjon til Carlisle & co høres helt tullete ut. Bullshit!? 

[Budda]

Er pesimist når det gjelder denne saken. Trur ikke vi får noe poeng tilbake. Må nok fikse biffen selv  via playoff

[Pheriox]

The Football League's argument revolves around the vote of league clubs. They say that the vote wasn't on whether Leeds United should be docked points, but whether a 15 point deduction was fair for ANY club who failed to emerge from administration according to new FL rules. Leeds, they say, would simply be the first to be handed such a punishment.

Jeg liker å tro at FL har en dårlig sak, men så dårlig er den nok ikke. Avstemningen fant sted etter at Leeds var trukket 15 poeng. At nye lover og regler ikke skal ha tilbakevirkende kraft er vel opplest og vedtatt i juridiske kretser. Men kanskje bærer innlegget fra Waccoe bud om at Leeds har fått gjennomslag for at de i praksis var tvunget til å skrive under på poengstraffen. Det er i hvert fall første steg på veien.

[raggen]

har også lite tro i denne saken. Kanskje 5 poeng tilbake men tror på 0.

[Dennis]

Football League har utvilsomt et stort press på seg. Leeds har krav på sine poeng så langt jeg kan forstå (prøver å se på det upartisk også) men så kommer alle de klubbene som vil bli berørt av eventuelle poeng tilbake i tillegg.

De rasles i sablene i mange leire og hva FL skal gjøre med disse, er vanskelig å skjønne. Jeg forstår at andre lag vil bli forbannet dersom opprykk\playoff-plass ryker om vi får igjen poengene våre, men den urettferdigheten faller likevel ikke på oss. Vi burde få igjen våre rettmessige poeng og vi skal ikke fremstå som drittsekkene, om vi gjør det.

[pedro]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds/Harvey-Leeds-players-have-earned.4005405.jp

Dette viser hvilken bragd vårt lag har gjennomført denne sesong, det er rørende lesning og burde vært rammet inn i gullramme dette.

[fmtj]

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leedsunited/Dorigo-United-had-to-fight.4005736.jp

Dorigo den oppegående mannen og vår store eks. stjerne; alle andre lag ville gjort det samme som Leeds- kjempet om disse poengene til "the biter end!"

[fmtj]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds/Harvey-Leeds-players-have-earned.4005405.jp

Dette viser hvilken bragd vårt lag har gjennomført denne sesong, det er rørende lesning og burde vært rammet inn i gullramme dette.

"No club has ever faced what Leeds United had to face last summer in the build-up to the season. The circumstances were unique and I hope no one ever has to go through what we did.


...helt enig, og spesielt denne uttalelsen rører ekstra! Og så er det så forbasket sant når det gjelder Leeds United, faktisk ikke bare nå, men gjennom historien har vi hatt mye utur!

[Sleivind]

Nå er vel disse forhandlingene unnagjort, og da må de vel ha kommet frem til en konklusjon? Eller skal denne Sir Philip Otton sitte for seg selv og komme frem til den endelige beslutningen? Og er det slik at de andre klubbene i league 1 kommer til å få beskjed før almenneheten? Og hvordan får vi tildelt svaret? Kommer det en pressemelding? Pressekonferanse? Og 1.mai, er det datoen da svaret kommer? Eller kan resultatet komme når som helst?

[Svend Anders]

The arguments have been (and I'm generalising here to avoid penning an novel) as follows:

Leeds United are saying that the didn't break any Football League rules and, hence, the punishment is unfair. They are arguing that AT THE TIME of their emergence from administration there was no statute on the FL books for coming out of administration. Leeds say that the Football League legislated specifically to deal with their situation in retrospect. Essentially, Leeds argue that you can not flout a law prior to said law being introduced and at the time of their "crime" the law was not in place.

The Football League's argument revolves around the vote of league clubs. They say that the vote wasn't on whether Leeds United should be docked points, but whether a 15 point deduction was fair for ANY club who failed to emerge from administration according to new FL rules. Leeds, they say, would simply be the first to be handed such a punishment.

So: In summary, they are considering a question similar this: If you punched somebody in the face, could you be convicted of assault if assault was yet to be made illegal. Could you make rules to fit a crime in retrospect.

In simple legal-ese (i.e, was the deduction a fair and just punishment at the time of it being handed out) the consensus seems to be no. Early indications suggest that Leeds WILL get their 15 points back, and win promotion to the Championship, with a recommendation that clubs affected (Carlisle, Doncaster, Southend, Nottingham Forest) be awarded "significant" financial compensation from the Football League.[/i]

Dersom dette stemmer er det jo bortimot midt på spikerhodet ut i fra hva jeg anslo i mitt innlegg i en annen tråd (les: http://www.leedsunited.no/forum/index.php?topic=10256.msg125463#msg125463).

Football League hadde ingen regler for hva som skulle skje dersom det skulle gå utenom CVA, og Leeds sitt tilfelle må så langt jeg kan se kvalifiser til "extraordinary circumstances".

Det denne andre karen sier om at det er "billigere å gå utenom CVA" er ren sprøyt: det avhenger selvsagt av hva som ligger i hver enkelt klub. Hvis du må ta over et selskap som eier andre selskaper/eiendeler med gjeld, er jo det et enkelttilfelle.

I Leeds sitt tilfelle endte de vanlige kreditorene (alle unntat Astor) med å få langt mer tilbake utenfor CVA (11,6 pence per pund, over 52 pence om vi rykker opp til PL innen ti år) enn hva de ville fått gjennom CVA (ca 1 pence i pundet).

Jeg er drittlei at folk utbasunerer i media om ting de ikke har peil på.

SA,
tør ikke håpe ennå...

[baste]

Bra innleg Svend Anders...Jeg tør håpe...på direkte opprykk..og 2 seirer til....

Spennende og aldri kjedelig å være Leeds supporter..det er nå helt sikkert..

Men nok er nok..vil opp i CCC nå...og så til Pl

CL- fotball i 2012 

[Boxman]

Football League hadde ingen regler for hva som skulle skje dersom det skulle gå utenom CVA, og Leeds sitt tilfelle må så langt jeg kan se kvalifiser til "extraordinary circumstances".

Jeg er ganske sikker på at jeg har lest at The Football League har innrømmet at dette var "extraordinary circumstances". Så spørs det om de kan dele ut straff på tross av dette.

[Tom S]

Eg trur konklusjonen er gjort, men at de venter med å offentliggjere den til etter den 45. runde er ferdigspilt. Tipper på at det vert pressekonferanse mandag 28/4-08.

Er veldig spent på utfallet, men tviler på de "tør" å gi tilbake 15 poeng då det sannsynlegvis vil endre topp 2. Vi blir nok sett tilgode med eit betydelig pengebeløp istadenfor.

Ventingen vert eit helvete!

Nå er vel disse forhandlingene unnagjort, og da må de vel ha kommet frem til en konklusjon? Eller skal denne Sir Philip Otton sitte for seg selv og komme frem til den endelige beslutningen? Og er det slik at de andre klubbene i league 1 kommer til å få beskjed før almenneheten? Og hvordan får vi tildelt svaret? Kommer det en pressemelding? Pressekonferanse? Og 1.mai, er det datoen da svaret kommer? Eller kan resultatet komme når som helst?

[Wannabe]

Jeg har sagt det i en sammenheng her tidligere: Hvis "idrettens selvdømme" står like sterkt i UK (England) som i Norge, får vi ikke tilbake poeng, og i alle fall ikke veldig mange.

"Galt eller riktig" - det er arrangøren av konkurransen som bestemmer reglene for hvilke reaksjoner vi (Bates) skal møtes med. I tillegg har Bates (selv om situasjonen var mildt sagt pressende) erklært ikke å ville ta avgjørelsen til (for eksempel) en slik instans som den nå ligger hos.

Ut fra argumentet om at vi kan glemme å vise til 10 p. trekket forrige sesong, og at spørsmålet var om vi fikk innta vår plass i ligasystemet overhodet, er det nok slik at prinsippet "ingen lov må gis tilbakevirkende kraft" ville ha måttet vike i et tilsvarende tilfelle i Norge, forutsatt altså at det var et tilsvarende vanskelig eksempel som hadde kommet opp her.

Jeg ønsker fortsatt god og lang sesong (fem kamper igjen, forhåpentligvis ikke alle like avgjørende) - men er SELVSAGT med på festen hvis noe bedre skulle skje!!

MOT

[Promotion 2010]

The arguments have been (and I'm generalising here to avoid penning an novel) as follows:

In simple legal-ese (i.e, was the deduction a fair and just punishment at the time of it being handed out) the consensus seems to be no. Early indications suggest that Leeds WILL get their 15 points back, and win promotion to the Championship, with a recommendation that clubs affected (Carlisle, Doncaster, Southend, Nottingham Forest) be awarded "significant" financial compensation from the Football League.[/i]

Dersom dette stemmer er det jo bortimot midt på spikerhodet ut i fra hva jeg anslo i mitt innlegg i en annen tråd (les: http://www.leedsunited.no/forum/index.php?topic=10256.msg125463#msg125463).

Football League hadde ingen regler for hva som skulle skje dersom det skulle gå utenom CVA, og Leeds sitt tilfelle må så langt jeg kan se kvalifiser til "extraordinary circumstances".

Det denne andre karen sier om at det er "billigere å gå utenom CVA" er ren sprøyt: det avhenger selvsagt av hva som ligger i hver enkelt klub. Hvis du må ta over et selskap som eier andre selskaper/eiendeler med gjeld, er jo det et enkelttilfelle.

I Leeds sitt tilfelle endte de vanlige kreditorene (alle unntat Astor) med å få langt mer tilbake utenfor CVA (11,6 pence per pund, over 52 pence om vi rykker opp til PL innen ti år) enn hva de ville fått gjennom CVA (ca 1 pence i pundet).

Jeg er drittlei at folk utbasunerer i media om ting de ikke har peil på.

SA,
tør ikke håpe ennå...

Jeg er meget enig i ditt ressonement og i denne runden har du mange velressonerte og faktabegrunnede innlegg.........BRA!

For mange innlegg i denne debatten over Nordsjøen er bygget på følelser og synsing.

Leeds eventuelle lovbrudd er ikke begått mot de andre opprykkskandidatene. Det er et lovbrudd som er definert av ligaen og staffet av ligaen, på feil grunnlag:
Leeds kunne ikke startet serien med 6 kontraktsfestede spillere og tre juniorer. Ligaen dømte klubben før den fikk anket. Presset klubben til å velge enkleste utvei: Leeds måtte underskrive på en kontrakt for å få igjen sin lisens som gikk ut på at saken ikke kunne ankes. Da Leeds igjen tok opp saken sent på fjoråret og ba om en uavhengig høring eller at saken skulle opp i høyesterett, trenerte ligaen saken til siste dato for svar. De har mest skyld for at denne farsen nå kommer til doms den siste uken av serien. Hadde dette vært klart i januar, så ville klubbene involvert ha spilt med en visshet i ligainnnspurten. Nå er alt kaos, takket være ligaen.....ikke Leeds United. Som selv i eget program har operert med "the real table".

Utbruddene fra styreformennene i de andre klubbene i League One er styrt av følelser med lite juridisk innsikt. Dette blir som en dømt forbryter som ved en anke eventuelt blir frikjent. Er personen dømt på feil grunnlag, må dommen oppheves. Den kan ikke gjøres om til halv straff.
Det kan hende at ligaen bør betale en viss kompensasjon for sin egen udugelighet til Carlisle som evt mister opprykksplassen, men dette blir noe ligaen må ta på sin kappe. Det er altså IKKE Leeds United som har begått lovbrudd.


Promo, som tror at FL allerede vet utfallet av høringen og kjemper for livet for å komme ut fra saken med troverdigheten sånn nogenlunde i behold.

[Webredaktøren]

En annen ting er jo at Football League på død og liv ville ha denne høringen privat.

Og som Bates da sa: Mon tro hva de har å skjule i denne saken?

[Promotion 2010]

League One: Leeds row scuppers trophy day

View GalleryLeeds United's ongoing row over their 15 point points deduction means Swansea City will not be handed the League One title trophy after their final home game of the season.
The Football League have decided that, due to the on-going inquiry into Leeds' appeal against the punishment, they will not engage in actions which could be viewed as pre-empting the verdict.

A statement released from the Football League said: "Following legal advice, the Football League can confirm that it will not present the League One trophy to Swansea City at their match with Leyton Orient on Saturday due to the ongoing arbitration hearing involving Leeds United.
"The panel in the hearing have committed to provide a verdict on or before May 1 and the League has been advised not to engage in any actions which might be misconstrued or viewed as pre-empting the arbitration process in any way."

The arbitration hearing got under way in London last week, with Leeds' lawyers attempting to show the League acted outside their jurisdiction when docking the club 15 points at the start of this season.

Leeds are currently in sixth place in the table with 70 points, with Roberto Martinez's side on 86 points.


The full article contains 211 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 22 April 2008 7:34 PM

[75 SOLLI]

League One: Leeds row scuppers trophy day

View GalleryLeeds United's ongoing row over their 15 point points deduction means Swansea City will not be handed the League One title trophy after their final home game of the season.
The Football League have decided that, due to the on-going inquiry into Leeds' appeal against the punishment, they will not engage in actions which could be viewed as pre-empting the verdict.

A statement released from the Football League said: "Following legal advice, the Football League can confirm that it will not present the League One trophy to Swansea City at their match with Leyton Orient on Saturday due to the ongoing arbitration hearing involving Leeds United.
"The panel in the hearing have committed to provide a verdict on or before May 1 and the League has been advised not to engage in any actions which might be misconstrued or viewed as pre-empting the arbitration process in any way."

The arbitration hearing got under way in London last week, with Leeds' lawyers attempting to show the League acted outside their jurisdiction when docking the club 15 points at the start of this season.

Leeds are currently in sixth place in the table with 70 points, with Roberto Martinez's side on 86 points.


The full article contains 211 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 22 April 2008 7:34 PM

FL har driti på draget nok nå, om de ikke skulle gå hen å gi Svanesjøen ligatrofeet, for så å måtte ta det tilbake igjen.......

[leeds-4-eva]

Det blir 0 poeng tilbake, sann mine ord!

Har lest meg opp på alt snikk-snakk om saken, og det er akkurat det det er: SNIKK SNAKK.

Ingen, utenom dette panelet, vet noe som helst VIKTIG, som gjør at saksutfallet kan predikeres.

[kjelvi]

Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisal

Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, sent a letter to Football League clubs last month setting out the grounds for the club's challenge to the 15-point penalty imposed, in apparent breach of rules governing football arbitrations.
The club and the League undertook to adhere to the Football Association's regulations in the arbitration that concluded on Monday, meaning they were bound by the confidentiality clauses underlined under FA rule K6: "The parties shall preserve and respect the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings, including the issues in the dispute and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties."
Yet by the end of Harvey's five-page letter, sent out on March 20, Leeds had put everybody on notice about the eight points they would argue. He asserted a belief the club would prove a lack of independence in the League's attempts to legitimise its 15-point penalty through a club vote, adding that in voting on the issue all of Leeds's League One competitors would have "a vested interest". Sir Philip Otton, who chaired the FA's independent arbitration panel, is believed to be considering the letter's implications. He is known to hold the confidentiality of his proceedings paramount, giving all parties what one source referred to as "a big talking to" and threatening reprisals for breaches.
The League took this so seriously that they were even refusing to confirm the existence of the arbitration the night before it began.

The Guardian

[McMidjo]

Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisal

Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, sent a letter to Football League clubs last month setting out the grounds for the club's challenge to the 15-point penalty imposed, in apparent breach of rules governing football arbitrations.
The club and the League undertook to adhere to the Football Association's regulations in the arbitration that concluded on Monday, meaning they were bound by the confidentiality clauses underlined under FA rule K6: "The parties shall preserve and respect the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings, including the issues in the dispute and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties."
Yet by the end of Harvey's five-page letter, sent out on March 20, Leeds had put everybody on notice about the eight points they would argue. He asserted a belief the club would prove a lack of independence in the League's attempts to legitimise its 15-point penalty through a club vote, adding that in voting on the issue all of Leeds's League One competitors would have "a vested interest". Sir Philip Otton, who chaired the FA's independent arbitration panel, is believed to be considering the letter's implications. He is known to hold the confidentiality of his proceedings paramount, giving all parties what one source referred to as "a big talking to" and threatening reprisals for breaches.
The League took this so seriously that they were even refusing to confirm the existence of the arbitration the night before it began.

The Guardian

Regner med at noen vil slite med engelsken her, men dette ser ut som et skikkelig 'cockup' fra Harvey. Det betyr at Leeds har brutt konfidensialiteten omkring arbitrationprosessen, og det vil ihvertfall ikke være til Leeds fordel når det skal konkluderes i denne saken (men forhåpentligvis har det ingen betydning....)

[Boxman]

Leeds letter may incur judge's reprisal

Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, sent a letter to Football League clubs last month setting out the grounds for the club's challenge to the 15-point penalty imposed, in apparent breach of rules governing football arbitrations.
The club and the League undertook to adhere to the Football Association's regulations in the arbitration that concluded on Monday, meaning they were bound by the confidentiality clauses underlined under FA rule K6: "The parties shall preserve and respect the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings, including the issues in the dispute and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties."
Yet by the end of Harvey's five-page letter, sent out on March 20, Leeds had put everybody on notice about the eight points they would argue. He asserted a belief the club would prove a lack of independence in the League's attempts to legitimise its 15-point penalty through a club vote, adding that in voting on the issue all of Leeds's League One competitors would have "a vested interest". Sir Philip Otton, who chaired the FA's independent arbitration panel, is believed to be considering the letter's implications. He is known to hold the confidentiality of his proceedings paramount, giving all parties what one source referred to as "a big talking to" and threatening reprisals for breaches.
The League took this so seriously that they were even refusing to confirm the existence of the arbitration the night before it began.

The Guardian

Regner med at noen vil slite med engelsken her, men dette ser ut som et skikkelig 'cockup' fra Harvey. Det betyr at Leeds har brutt konfidensialiteten omkring arbitrationprosessen, og det vil ihvertfall ikke være til Leeds fordel når det skal konkluderes i denne saken (men forhåpentligvis har det ingen betydning....)

Leeds har uttalt seg om sitt syn på saken. De har kun taushetsplikt ang. opplysning som The Football League fremlegger, som jeg har forstått det.
Blir jo litt som at ingen har lov å gi fra seg personnummeret ditt til andre, mens du selv kan jo formidle det til hvem du vil.

[Joe Jordan]

Er rimelig sikker på at det blir status quo angående poeng, det blir en himla røre i hele ligaen dersom det blir omrokkeringer pga dette. Det er heller ingen tradisjon for at slikt går vår vei, så her er det bare å gi finger'n til hele denne drittligaen og gjøre jobben sjøl....