Informasjon: Lønnstak, rettssak, poengstraff

[ToreLA]

Arrogant å ikke føye seg til sutringen fra Bates?

[h.b]

Jaja. Denne saken denne saken. La oss godta dette og være glad for at det ikke ble degradering til Conference. Synes faktisk denne reaksjonen fra FA er helt på sin plass



Ã... være Leeds supporter er verdens hardeste og dårligst betalte yrke. 0 kroner i lønn og en 24 timers arbeidsdag

[kjelvi]

Bates considers next move
 
Leeds chairman Ken Bates is taking legal advice after the FA refused to recommend an independent review of their 15-point deduction.
Bates had hoped the FA would recommend an independent review of the Football League's sanction but they have chosen not to, saying the Football League have acted within the rules.  
United's chief executive Shaun Harvey said: "We are amazed that the Football Association do not feel it is appropriate to intervene in a matter which we believe is fundamentally wrong, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.  
"We will fully reflect on this surprising decision and are taking the advice of our legal team."  

clubcall.com

[kjelvi]

Gillingham chairman: 'I voted in favour of Leeds United's points deduction'

Gillingham chairman Paul Scally today defended his decision to back Leeds United's 15-point penalty.
Scally, whose club will welcome United to Kent for a League One game tomorrow, insisted he stood by his vote in favour of their deduction after the Football Association refused to order an independent review of the sanction.
Leeds contacted Soho Square last month to demand an investigation into the Football League's decision to impose a points deduction on the Elland Road club as a result of United's exit from administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
But the FA announced yesterday that there were no grounds for the governing body to mount an enquiry, insisting the League had abided by its own rules in punishing Leeds.
United responded with a statement claiming they were "amazed" by the FA's stance, and the club were today seeking fresh advice from their legal representatives.
United have taken issue with both their 15-point punishment and the fact that their initial appeal was heard by a collection of Football League club executives rather than an independent tribunal.
Representatives present at the 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.
But Scally, who confirmed he had voted against Leeds' appeal, defended his decision to support the League, and rejected claims from United chairman Ken Bates that the stance of rival clubs had been driven by self-interest.
Scally said: "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. I actually know Dennis Wise well, and I'd be very upset if I was in the position he was in at the start of the season. 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."
Bates alluded to Scally's vote in his programme notes before last Saturday's game against Swansea, claiming he would ask Scally to explain comments made on live television immediately after last month's appeal hearing when Gillingham visit United on the final day of this season.
United's chairman will not be present at Priestfield tomorrow, but Scally said he would have been happy to invite Bates to Gillingham this weekend and insisted his vote in favour of the League had not been cast with the desire to see Leeds cut loose at the bottom of League One.
Scally said: "I've heard Ken say that the vote was about self-interest. I find that insulting, and I think he should look a bit closer to home for the reasons.
"That doesn't wash with me. 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. I don't know if Ken plans to speak to me or not, but I won't lose any sleep over it. All I'll say is that if I was as unhappy with him as he seems to be with me, I'd have been on the phone straight away. He's got my numbers but I haven't heard a thing."
United are now considering their next move after failing to win the support of the FA, who discussed the case at a board meeting in London on Monday.
Chief executive Shaun Harvey said: "We're amazed that the Football Association do not feel it is appropriate to intervene in a matter which we believe is fundamentally wrong, and sets a dangerous precedent. We will fully reflect on this surprising decision and are taking the advice of our legal team."
An FA spokesman said: "This was a Football League board decision, and there was the chance for the League to reduce, endorse or dismiss the deduction. As such, due process was seen to be done, and we feel that there is no need for any further enquiry."

YEP 28/9

[kjelvi]

Leeds parking the self-pity
Leeds have reverted to the ethos of the legendary Revie era in their quest to repair damaged pride, writes Aidan O'Hara

HAD Peter Cook been alive today, he could easily have sued Leeds United for stealing his ideas.
It was Cook, in the guise of his fictional football manager character Alan Latchley who created the week-long seminar called 'Dare to Fail', targeting clubs with the emphasis on embracing failure as a noble characteristic.
"It's for people who have had some degree of success in their life to come along and see what it's like to be at the bottom of the pile," said the cliché-ridden Latchley in a television interview a couple of years before his death in 1995. "They come along and learn how to get to the bottom with their pride and dignity intact."
In the last few years though, Leeds might have struggled with the last bit.
Dignity is not something that has been plentiful at Elland Road recently as supporters continue to watch Match of the Day highlights with a grimace, while pointing at the television and telling anybody who will listen "he's ex-Leeds, so is he -- and him".
It might be a chore for who-ever is on the receiving end to find sympathy but if a Premier League 11 of Robinson, Duberry, Ferdinand, Woodgate, Bowyer, Smith, Milner, Lennon, Viduka, Keane and Kewell had played for their club in the last five years, they might understand. Short of Jim Bowen appearing, Bullseye-style, to rub their noses in it by announcing "here's what you could have won", the road of what-might-have-been could not handle much more Yorkshire traffic.
But after a season of being wary to check results on Saturday afternoon for fear of another embarrassment, there's finally some optimism around the club after seven successive victories -- their best start to a league campaign -- which yesterday's draw will hardly dent.
True, it is only League One, but, as Manchester City found during their brief stay at the same level, it feels better to win in a lower league and build a platform from there than being beaten every week and struggle to stay afloat.
When chairman Ken Bates appointed Dennis Wise -- a combination as pleasant as a stone in your shoe -- the manager spoke of going back to the 'old' Leeds of nastiness and togetherness that could save them from relegation after their poor start to last season. Instead they sank like a stone.
Latchley's football philosophy was based around the three Ms (Motivation, Motivation, Motivation) but while Wise couldn't go to Latchley's extremes of kidnapping the players' wives to spark a rage within them, his chance to build an us-against-the-world mentality, which has traditionally been part of the Leeds fabric, was handed to him when the club were forced to start this season with a 15-point deduction for breach of the League's insolvency rules.
"Not only have they taken my arms and legs off, now they've cut my balls off as well," was Wise's reaction to the deduction. Not quite "we will fight them on the beaches" in its eloquence but the manager's outlook appears to have permeated through to his players who have brought the club from odds of 5/2 to be relegated to 9/2 to win the division.
Having struggled to get the best out of what was still a talented team last season, Wise has reverted to the formula that earned him relative success at Millwall and Swindon by trusting in players with something to prove rather than those who believe they should be playing at a higher level but are not willing to put in the effort to get there.
This season's captain -- Alan Thompson -- saw his Celtic career nosedive with the arrival of Gordon Strachan while David Prutton's bad-boy image is cemented following his 10-game ban during his time at Southampton.
Striker Tresor Kandol, prior to being sent off yesterday along with Jermaine Beckford, seemed to have benefited from a summer of pre-season training, having spent the previous one in prison.
The six weeks Kandol spent in jail for a string of driving offences (he doesn't have much luck with transport having been charged with train-fare evasion during his time with Luton Town), saw him discover a hidden talent for art which he hopes to publish in the future. His sketches would be a fitting homage to a changing era at the club were they to hang in the boardroom one day rather than the exotic fish which came to symbolise the wastefulness of the Peter Ridsdale era.
Kandol's background, often comedic first touch and celebratory back-flips are turning him into a cult hero among those daring to return to Elland Road after such a fall from grace. Last week's home game against Swansea saw 29,476 show up, and increase of 5,000 on the first game of the season, while the banners screaming 'we don't deserve all this' that unfurled from the stands awash with self-pity appear to have been left at home.
With such high spirits, there might be a bit more interest in the 20-year season-ticket that was offered three years ago to supporters for £3,000 (â,¬4,300) with the club still in the Premiership in a desperate effort to raise cash. The idea was Geoffrey Richmond's (he of Bradford City insolvency fame) who hoped to make £8.5m (â,¬12.2m) by selling 1,750 of these tickets. In just one of many failed ventures, they managed to get rid of just 184.
It took three years to go from Champions League semi-finalists to relegation fodder but when a club borrows £60m (â,¬85m) at eight per cent interest (â,¬6.6m annually) to spend on the likes of Dominic Matteo, Danny Mills and Seth Johnson, it's hard to escape the feeling that they brought it on themselves.
The real losers in the Leeds saga have been the creditors who were initially offered 1p in the pound when a consortium fronted by Bates bought the club on the same day that he applied to put them into administration with £35m (â,¬50m) debts.
The offer eventually increased to 11p in the pound meaning St John's Ambulance service had to be thankful for the £18 they would receive while West Yorkshire Ambulance Service could settle for just under £1,000 (â,¬1,400) of the £8,997 (â,¬13,000) they were owed. And Wise thought he was hard done by with a 15-point deduction.
If any other club had wiped out a points deduction in such a manner, it would be seen as a fairytale but with Bates playing the Fairy Godmother and Wise Prince Charming, it is difficult to let the imagination run wild.
Next Saturday they play Yeovil, a team who were scrapping for promotion from the Conference six years ago when Leeds were playing Valencia for a place at Europe's top table.
And with a burning sense of injustice born in the Revie era, around 30,000 Leeds supporters will embrace the siege mentality and chant three sentences that could be the motto of the club, the manager and the chairman. "We are Leeds. No-one likes us. We don't care."

independent.ie

[kjelvi]

Leeds striker Jermain Beckford has been offered a new deal that will see his wages treble. (Sunday Star)

[Svend Anders]

quote:Originally posted by kjelvi

Leeds striker Jermain Beckford has been offered a new deal that will see his wages treble. (Sunday Star)

Det spørs om det holder med tredobling. Becks har £700 i uka, og det er klubber fra CCC/PL og ser ham hver eneste kamp nå...

Forhåpentligvis er han bitt av Leeds-basillen, og styret gir han et godt nok tilbud.

SA

http://www.svendanders.com/

[kjelvi]

NEW SPONSOR

LEEDS United will unveil their secondary shirt sponsors in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy second-round tie at Darlington tonight.
Bradford-based OHS has agreed a one-year sponsorship deal with the club and its logo will appear on the back of the shirts for all home and away fixtures.
It is believed to be the highest secondary shirt sponsorship deal for a League One club.
OHS are a health, safety and environmental consultancy. chairman Martin Penny saw his first United match in 1965 and has been an ardent supporter ever since.
He said "I am proud to support the club at a time when it needs help the most, but I am confident that with the enthusiasm and passion shown by all the players and staff that the club will soon return to its rightful place in the Premiership."

YEP

[kjelvi]

Leeds Let Off
Leeds United will not be charged by the FA for the pitch invasions at Elland Road last April during Town's game with Leeds which relegated the home side to League One.
There were several small invasions onto the Elland Road pitch during the game and one large invasion which caused the game to be halted and Town striker Billy Clarke was hit during one of the invasions but the FA have decided not to penalise Leeds.
Town chairman David Sheepshanks is far from impressed, saying: "I have had some pretty choice words to say to the FA about this. I personally feel it is a weak response.
"I was at Elland Road and was witness to the repeated intimidation and provocation.
"Although I did not see first hand the violence inflicted, I did see the after-effects and it was abhorrent.
"It is clear that the majority of Leeds fans thought so too and many expressed apologies for the actions of others."
He added: "Quite apart from the mass invasion there were other minor excursions on to the pitch and one of our players was manhandled.
"I'm quite surprised that the FA have concluded their investigations and that they believe that every reasonably was done to avoid what was known to be a volatile situation.
"I have complained to the FA about this decision although I don't see any chance of our case being reopened.
"I understand the rules but even so this conclusion does not sit comfortably. We have to now move on and hope the police are successful in their prosecutions."
Mark Hooper, spokesman for the FA, defended the FA's decision not to impose a further penalty on Leeds, saying: "From the meeting we had with the police and Leeds United it was clear they had taken action to identify and deal with the individuals involved.
"Therefore it was decided that no further action was required to be taken against Leeds United.
"We are satisfied that the individuals were responsible for the event that day and that every effort has been made to find them and punish them with bans from the stadium.
"That will send a message out their actions are not acceptable and we will work with Leeds United to ensure there will be no repeat."

Source: EADT

[HåvardK]

Sier som Håkon: Denne saken denne saken.

[kjelvi]

Ipswich chairman blasts 'weak' FA over Leeds pitch invasion

Ipswich chairman David Sheepshanks has branded the FA 'weak' for deciding not to take action against Leeds for a pitch invasion during the clubs' game at Elland Road in April.
Leeds were effectively relegated by a 1-1 draw, but the final seconds were not played out for half an hour after both sides were taken off while mounted police restored order.


The scene of the crime: Elland Road

Several away fans were injured by thrown objects and Sheepshanks said: 'I feel it is a weak response. I'm surprised the FA believe that everything reasonable was done to avoid what was known to be a volatile situation.'

Daily Mail

[kjelvi]

FA defend Leeds punishment
The Football Association have defended their decision not to punish Leeds for the pitch invasion which marred the Championship match against Ipswich at the end of last season.
Ipswich chairman David Sheepshanks claimed the FA had come up with a "weak response" after the final moments of the match on April 29 were delayed by the invasion.
The FA were satisfied that the club and the police had dealt with a number of the trouble-makers involved and insisted punishing the club was "not beneficial".
An FA spokesman said: "Clubs and police have their own mechanisms for ensuring law and order is upheld and they have the capacity to use stadium banning orders.
"We recognised that it was important for the club and police to liaise together to identify those people who have done something wrong and take relevant action.
"The FA are satisfied that the club and local police have taken appropriate action before and after the incident and we feel that imposing a fine would not be beneficial for any party."
Tractor Boys chairman Sheepshanks insists further action should be taken by the FA.
"I have had some pretty choice words to say to the FA about this. I personally feel it is a weak response," Sheepshanks told the East Anglian Daily Times.
"I was at Elland Road and was witness to the repeated intimidation and provocation.
"I'm quite surprised the FA have concluded their investigations and that they believe that everything has been reasonably done to avoid what was known to be a volatile situation.
"I have complained to the FA about this decision although I don't see any chance of our case being reopened."

Daily Mail

[pale]

Jøss, har FA fått sansen for oss igjen;)
Gi oss våre 15 poeng tilbake, så kan vi heller få straff for dette.

[sveifors]

STATEMENT FRA LEEDS IDAG HJEMMESIDE


Leeds United have today written to the Football Association requesting the matter of the 15-point deduction be referred to the High Court rather than FA arbitration.

The club have taken the decision to pursue this matter further, following the Football Association's promise of a 'root and branch' examination of the recent England failure.

In September, the club invited the Football Association to set up an independent commission to investigate the legality of the 15-point sanction imposed by the Football League.

The FA rejected that request, so the following month we wrote to the chairman - Geoff Thompson - drawing his attention to what we perceived as inconsistencies in the FA's decision and asked them to look at it again.

The reply to the second request was rejected by the FA's Director of Corporate Affairs. This is the same person who rejected the original request. In effect, the same individual confirmed his own earlier decision. There was no independent review.

Given the approach of the FA to date, the club have severe reservations regarding its impartiality.

SITAT SLUTT

Se på denne setningen:
following the Football Association's promise of a 'root and branch' examination of the recent England failure.

Så nå er det Leeds sin feil at England dumma seg ut i kvalifiseringen også. Jøss her går man virkelig i dybden for å analysere hvorfor det gikk til helvete med  England.

McClaren og rådgiver Terry Venables burde enhver se at det går til F. Om Terry Venables hadde tatt over Barcelona eller Real Madrid hadde de rykket rett ned.


FA i England har ingen troverdighet i Leedssaken. Uansett så mye galt Bates har gjort, går det ikke an å "dikte" opp regler underveis, også være dommer sjøl, anken tar en også sjøl og til og med anke på anken behandler en på egen hånd. De kommer til å møte seg selv i døra når andre saker dukker opp feks LUTON.
Det er ikke bare McClaren som burde få fyken men hele ledelsen i det engelske FA. Det er de som også har ansvaret. Tenk de laget en bonusavtale (god) med spillerne som var like god enten man kvalifiserte seg eller ikke. Også blir en overaska at innsatsen på banen er for dårlig. Her må vi skylde på noen, Hvem kan det være, HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM.......

Ja Leeds har skylda, den har vi kommet oss unna med før.

fy flate førr et gjeng, Ken Bates blir jo et lam i sammenligning, og det sier ikke så lite.

[Roy]

Kanskje de nå rydder en stol i FA-styret slik at det blir plass til Ken bates 

[Asbjørn]

...kanskje det er dette Wise'ern trenger, at vi holder denne saken i live også etter at "de 15" er innhentet? 

Men jeg ler mer for hver gang FA skal forsvare sine actions...

[kjelvi]

Leeds demand High Court hearing   


Chairman Bates believes Leeds did not break any rules

Leeds United want their 15-point deduction to be adjudicated by the High Court rather than the Football Association, reports BBC Radio Leeds.
In August, Leeds lost an appeal over the points deduction for the start of the season after the club went into administration.
Since then Leeds have made two requests to the FA to set up an independent commission to review that decision.
But Leeds expressed reservations over the FA's impartiality over the matter.
The League One club are unhappy that the FA's director of Corporate Affairs rejected both the first and the second request.
"In effect, the same individual confirmed his own earlier decision," said a statement on the Leeds website.
"There was no independent review."
Back in the summer the chairmen of the other 71 Football League clubs voted "overwhelmingly" to sanction Leeds and then again to uphold the original punishment.
In both cases, the outcome was higher than a 75% majority vote.
Leeds chairman Ken Bates had insisted the League One outfit had not broken any rules.

BBC

[kjelvi]

WISE BEMOANS DEDUCTION

Leeds boss Dennis Wise admits he is still struggling to come to terms with the 15-point deduction imposed by the Football League last summer.
Leeds have made their best start to a season for 30 years, but manager Wise says he will "never forget" the punishment meted out after the club had breached regulations on administration.
Wise said: "You'll never forget what's happened because we would be 10 points clear at the top and not be so down about losing to Cheltenham.
"But unfortunately we're not. We're five points adrift of top position and that's the difference."
Wise added: "It wouldn't have such an effect when we lose a game. And when we lose it has a different kind of meaning to it."
Leeds wrote to the Football Association on Friday requesting the 15-point deduction be referred to the High Court rather than an FA arbitration.

Sporting Life

[kjelvi]

See you in Court!

Ken Bates still hasn’t given up on getting the 15 points back, but the FA are refusing to instigate a legal review.
Last week the club asked the FA to refer the case to the High Court and issued this statement "If they refuse this request, we will commence independent arbitration proceedings, in accordance with FA regulations. We shall continue to pursue this matter step by step."
But the FA have already considered this matter twice and have backed the Football League on both occasions, and they are refusing to instigate further legal proceedings. Leeds' first application was rejected by Jonathan Hall, the FA's director of governance, and second approach was turned down after being considered by the Football Regulatory Authority (FRA). The FRA is a semi-autonomous body which includes four independent members alongside members of the professional and national game. The club's request for a Commission of Inquiry was subsequently rejected by the FRA's chairman, who the FA said sought independent legal advice before taking his decision.
The FA’s statement read "The decision on whether to refer the matter to the High Court is a matter for Leeds and not the FA. The FA has previously pointed out to Leeds that if it wishes to challenge the decision of the chairman of the FRA then Leeds would have to commence arbitration proceedings against the FA, under FA Rules. In September, the club asked the FA to inquire into the Football League's decision to deduct them 15 points. The FA's director of governance did so and informed Leeds that nothing that Leeds had raised with the FA indicated that the Football League had acted improperly. The chairman of The FRA, replied to Leeds stating that there was no reason to review the Football League's handling of the case; his reply also explained in depth why he had reached that decision."
But Pappa Smurf is still undeterred, and the club have now announced they will themselves begin arbitration proceedings against the FA.

clubfanzine.com/leeds

[kjelvi]

Leeds to launch independent probe



Leeds intend to "commence with independent arbitration proceedings" if they fail in their request for a High Court Judicial Review.
The Elland Road club want their hearing to be held by a mixed panel as they do not believe they have received an independent hearing from the Football Association regarding the the 15-point deduction they were handed for going into administration.
A statement on the club's official website read: "Leeds United can confirm that we have written to the Football Association inviting them to waive their right that the dispute should be determined through their arbitration procedures and allow the matter to be referred directly to the High Court for a Judicial Review.
"If they refuse this request we will commence independent arbitration proceedings in accordance with FA regulations.
"An arbitration panel would consist of three members, one nominated by Leeds United, one by the Football Association, and an independent chairman from a legal background who would be approved by both parties.
"We shall continue to pursue this matter step by step."

[kjelvi]

Leeds United's FA snub over points penalty



Leeds United's request for a High Court hearing into their 15-point deduction has been met with a stinging refusal from the Football Association.
Officials at Soho Square have categorically dismissed United's demand for a legal review of their pre-season penalty after being asked by Leeds to refer the case to the High Court last week.
The FA received communication from Elland Road on Friday, but the governing body responded quickly today by confirming that they would not initiate an independent investigation into the unprecedented punishment.
United have in turn announced that the FA's unyielding stance will now force them to begin arbitration proceedings against the governing body.
A statement from Leeds read: "If they refuse this request, we will commence independent arbitration proceedings, in accordance with FA regulations. We shall continue to pursue this matter step by step."
The validity of United's deduction â€" imposed by the Football League following the club's exit from administration in August â€" has already been considered twice by the FA, who supported the League's decision on both occasions.
Leeds' first application was rejected by Jonathan Hall, the FA's director of governance, and the governing body have confirmed that the club's second approach â€" including a appeal for an official inquiry â€" was turned down after being considered by the Football Regulatory Authority (FRA).
The FRA is a semi-autonomous body which includes four independent members alongside members of the professional and national game.
United's request for a Commission of Inquiry was subsequently rejected by the FRA's chairman, who the FA said sought independent legal advice before taking his decision.
The failed attempts to secure the support of Soho Square led United chairman Ken Bates to ask for a referral to the High Court, 24 hours after the FA promised a "root and branch" examination of their operations in the wake of the sacking of ex-England coach Steve McClaren.
But in a statement released to the Yorkshire Evening Post, the FA insisted United's case would not be affected by the "root and branch" review, and the governing body warned Bates that the responsibility for launching legal proceedings against the FA or the Football League lay solely with Leeds.
The statement read: "The decision on whether to refer the matter to the High Court is a matter for Leeds and not the FA.
"The FA has previously pointed out to Leeds that if it wishes to challenge the decision of the chairman of the FRA then Leeds would have to commence arbitration proceedings against the FA, under FA Rules. This matter has nothing to do with the "root and branch" examination of the England team set-up. In fact, the role of the FRA and its chairman arises as a result of the structural changes made to the FA following the recommendations of Lord Burns.
"In September, the club asked the FA to inquire into the Football League's decision to deduct them 15 points. The FA's director of governance did so and informed Leedsthat nothing that Leeds had raised with the FA indicated that the Football League had acted improperly.
"The club then asked for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up to look at the matter. The matter was referred to the chairman of the FRA, as under FA Rules the decision whether or not to open a Commission of Inquiry rests with that person.
"The chairman of The FRA, having considered the matter carefully and taken external legal advice, replied to Leeds stating that there was no reason to review the Football League's handling of the case; his reply also explained in depth why he had reached that decision."
The FA's response also denied United's claim that director of corporate affairs Simon Johnson had been responsible for dismissing both of the club's previous appeals, a claim which appeared to raise concerns over the impartiality of the governing body's decision-making process.

YEP

[McMidjo]

Finner denne saken ganske så fascinerende â€" og tror Leeds United kan være i gang med å skape historie her.

Den siste utviklingen i denne saken innebærer â€" slik jeg tolker det â€" at en uavhengig meglingsmann (med juridisk bakgrunn) kalles inn for å forsøke å megle fram en slags enighet mellom FA og Leeds United i saken om de 15 minuspoengene.

At en fotballklubb tar initiativ til en slik uavhengig megling er ikke i konflikt med FA sitt regelverk.

Utfallene av en slik megling kan vi jo bare spekulere i, men det som foregår her er jo at Leeds presser FA ganske hardt på å få belyst en del av FA sitt regelverk som ikke er særlig tydelig, og som heller ikke har vært så grundig utprøvd tidligere. Blir jo svært interessant å se hva som skjer om denne saken ender opp med at det blir gjort juridiske vurderinger som finner kritikkverdige forhold både ved FA sitt regelverk, og ikke minst ved FA sin praktisering av eget regelverk.

FA har jo allerede et svært kritisk søkelys på seg â€" både pga fiaskoen i EM-kvaliken, men også gjennom korrupsjonshistoriene som har kommet den siste tiden. Her er det riktignok klubbledere, managere, spillere, agenter som sitter på tiltalebenken, men disse historiene slår jo på sett og vis også tilbake på FA….

Om det befester seg et generelt inntrykk av at FA er en tungrodd og dårlig drevet organisasjon, som har for mye fokus på politikk etc og for lite fokus på å skape sunne forhold og gode vekstvilkår for fotballen i England, kan Leeds få mye drahjelp i denne saken framover. Ser ut som optimal timing fra Bates & co dette…. 

[Sleivind]

Som den naturlige pessimist jeg er så tror jeg Leeds sin oppfølgelse av denne saken kommer til å slå tilbake, i negativ forstand. Sjøl om jeg overhodet ikke har noen saklig grunn for å tro dette. Og om det kommer noe positivt ut av dette, så tror jeg ikke det kommer Leeds til gode.

[Jon R]

Jeg er ingen jurist, men common sense tilsier at Leeds har en god sak her. Ikke minst grunnet den famøse avstemningen blant de øvrige ( konkurrerende) ligaklubbene, som naturligvis falt i Leeds disfavør. 

[Dennis]

Det er FA vi står ovenfor, saken ender vel med at Leeds trekkes 15 poeng. 

[Svend Anders]

For det første kommer jeg neppe til å håpe på 15 poeng tilbake før de faktisk står på Football League's offisielle tabell.

MEN det er mer eller mindre oppsiktsvekkende at Leeds FORTSATT kjører denne saken knallhardt. Selv om Bates er en tøffing vet han vanligvis også når sine saker er tapt. Advokatutgiftene er neppe små heller, så Leeds har opplagt tro på at de fortsatt kan vinne frem.

Hvor lang tid tar det før man kobler inn UEFA og FIFA?

SA

[Jon R]

For det første kommer jeg neppe til å håpe på 15 poeng tilbake før de faktisk står på Football League's offisielle tabell.

MEN det er mer eller mindre oppsiktsvekkende at Leeds FORTSATT kjører denne saken knallhardt. Selv om Bates er en tøffing vet han vanligvis også når sine saker er tapt. Advokatutgiftene er neppe små heller, så Leeds har opplagt tro på at de fortsatt kan vinne frem.

Hvor lang tid tar det før man kobler inn UEFA og FIFA?

SA

Verdien av å opprettholde "fiendebildet" skal man kanskje ikke kimse av. Uansett virker det som om Bates har fått "los" på et eller annet her. 

[jarle]

Avstemningen var er farse... hvordan i helvete kunne disse representantene fra klubbene sette seg inn i de juridiske sidene, samt forstå hva som hadde skjedd i forbindelse med kjøpet.

...pluss at dommerne i en "rettsak" ikke er uavhengige er jo noe man må 100 vis av år tilbake for å finne...

Snakk om bukken og havresekken!!!

At noen i år 2007 kan forsvare en slik prosses er helt uforståelig

Men opp skal vi... opprethold fiendebildet... det er utrolig effektivt.. se på USA... de er jo redd for KILLER BIES ; ) stakkars!!! African Killer bies off course!!! (black ... ohhh dangerous!!!)

[kjelvi]

A waiting game

The Football Association today admitted it is in the dark over Leeds United's plan to fight their 15-point penalty through independent arbitration.
The governing body has received notice from Elland Road that Leeds intend to force an independent review of the Football League penalty.
But officials at Soho Square are still waiting to learn the exact details of United's complaint â€" and for confirmation of who the complaint will be lodged against.
Leeds have fought the 15-point penalty ever since their first appeal to the Football League was rejected in August, and the FA have twice turned down direct requests from United for the punishment to be overturned.
The club are entitled to request independent arbitration under FA rules, but a spokesman for SohoSquare said: "We haven't been told who their case is specifically against or been given a clear explanation of what their complaint is. This can't move forward until that happens." Confirmation of the details of United's complaint would see a three-man panel set up to rule on the matter, including one member selected by Leeds, one by the FA and an independent chairman agreed by both sides.
The FA would normally take responsibility for selecting the chairman if the opposing parties fail to reach an agreement, but if the governing body is itself the subject of United's complaint â€" as it is likely to be â€" the final member of the panel would be elected by the Sports Dispute Resolution Panel, a London-based body which operates independently of the FA.

YEP

[kjelvi]

Clubs look set to pay penalty

http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/LEED//TH1_1412200746philhay.jpg
Phil Hay

Phil Hay
Inside Elland Road

By this time tomorrow, there is a strong possibility that Coventry City will have taken the only option available to them and entered administration.
Coventry have struggled gamely against what many believed was inevitable but, like a debtor hiding indoors from the bailiffs, their time is almost up.
When a man with billions of pounds to his name is frightened off by a club's finances, someone somewhere must sound the alarm. The oddly-titled mogul Alki David, who is apparently in possession of more money than Coventry need, was a prospective buyer for a short time, right until a copy of their accounts prompted him to bow out with the claim that City were "falling apart".
A takeover package drawn up by Ray Ranson â€" the former player who seems to have re-invented himself as a serial bidder for available football clubs â€" then struck the rocks yesterday, bracing the Football League for another episode of administration.
This at a time when clubs were supposed to have learned the importance of financial propriety.
Coventry's plight does not directly concern Elland Road, expect for the fact that supporters and board members of Leeds United can appreciate like no others the frantic efforts being made behind the scenes and in front of them at the Ricoh Arena.
There is no longer a good reason for a club to enter administration, at least in the short term.
There was a time when insolvency offered a convenient solution to pressing debts but, however much criticism the Football League have taken over the issue of points deductions, their implementation of a 10-point penalty for clubs who enter administration has forced chairmen and directors to pursue other options before admitting defeat.
Coventry, for example, would almost certainly incur a transfer embargo, a fortnight before the January window opens. They know that insolvency could, and probably would, pull them into League One at the end of this season, their first foray into England's third division since 1964. It is not an especially satisfying place for a club like that to be, as Leeds have discovered.
Supporters of City may consider relegation a small price when weighed against survival, but the death of professional clubs is too easily and prematurely predicted these days.
In spite of ITV Digital's demise, there has been no example of a Football League side going out of business during the 21st century, and a solution which avoids the repercussions of insolvency has to be seen as preferable. United's removal of £35million-worth of debts did not come free of charge.
There are other problems beyond the 10-point deduction and the threat of an embargo. An increasingly rebellious taxman will scrutinise closely any attempts to exit administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). United's complicated return to a solvent position in the summer proved that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are losing patience with the sport's insistence on protecting 'football debts' above all others.
Coventry can also expect to have their reputation as a club sullied, especially among the local creditors who would stand to lose money. A summer of extraordinary uncertainty did not, it must be said, reflect well on Leeds United.
There is nothing savoury about administration.
But as troubled as circumstances at Elland Road were last summer, the portrayal of United as the rotten portion of a ripe industry was unbelievably fanciful. A clearer picture is now emerging. Luton Town are crippled, and Coventry City are hovering on the brink. Cardiff City have problems which seem almost insurmountable, and rumours of difficulties surround Bournemouth and Southampton. Is that a picture of rude health, or a growing epidemic?
There is a tendency in professional football to leave struggling clubs to fend for themselves. United became badly isolated in the summer, though in part because of the personalities involved and the complicated nature of Ken Bates' takeover. If English football takes the time to step back, it will see financial worries all over the country, several of which are critical.
The sport, it seems, never learned the lesson drawn up by ITV Digital. Or if it did, the continuing difficulties are further evidence that the country is struggling to support in excess of 100 professional clubs. Someone with the necessary power and authority should be charged with taking a grip of the situation, and re-affirming the importance of prudence. Let it also be a warning to anyone imploring Leeds United to spend for Britain next month.

YEP