Informasjon: Lønnstak, rettssak, poengstraff

[Lord-Meta]

Det hele skjer jo 14.april, og ettersom det er min bursdag så tror jeg nok vi får en 10 poeng tilbake...se på meg som en lykkefugl

[Webredaktøren]

Det hele skjer jo 14.april, og ettersom det er min bursdag så tror jeg nok vi får en 10 poeng tilbake...se på meg som en lykkefugl

Blir storfest om vi får igjen 15 poeng da!

[Lord-Meta]

Det hele skjer jo 14.april, og ettersom det er min bursdag så tror jeg nok vi får en 10 poeng tilbake...se på meg som en lykkefugl

Blir storfest om vi får igjen 15 poeng da!

Blir nok muligens en hard dag på byn ja..selvom det er en mandag

[Webredaktøren]

Det hele skjer jo 14.april, og ettersom det er min bursdag så tror jeg nok vi får en 10 poeng tilbake...se på meg som en lykkefugl

Blir storfest om vi får igjen 15 poeng da!

Blir nok muligens en hard dag på byn ja..selvom det er en mandag

Rett det!

[Sheridan]

Blir utrolig spennende å se hva vi får ut av dette.
9 dager frem...

[kjelvi]

Will Leeds owner Bates land sell-off bonus?

The Football Association tribunal to hear Leeds United's appeal against their 15-point deduction, expected to last a week, will start at a secret location next Monday.
And it is not just the club's long-suffering supporters who are on their knees hoping for a favourable outcome.
As far as owner Ken Bates is concerned, any reduction in the penalty would be worth millions when he comes to sell the League One club in the summer.
Leeds are on the fringe of the play-off places and Bates, in talks with a number of interested parties, could extract a much higher price if the club were promoted to the Championship. Ominously for him, the word is that the penalty, imposed last summer because Leeds went into administration, will be ratified.

Daily Mail

[Tom S]

Ser at saken er "expected to last a week", huff det vert laaaaange dager å vente på utfallet.

Will Leeds owner Bates land sell-off bonus?

The Football Association tribunal to hear Leeds United's appeal against their 15-point deduction, expected to last a week, will start at a secret location next Monday.
And it is not just the club's long-suffering supporters who are on their knees hoping for a favourable outcome.
As far as owner Ken Bates is concerned, any reduction in the penalty would be worth millions when he comes to sell the League One club in the summer.
Leeds are on the fringe of the play-off places and Bates, in talks with a number of interested parties, could extract a much higher price if the club were promoted to the Championship. Ominously for him, the word is that the penalty, imposed last summer because Leeds went into administration, will be ratified.

Daily Mail

[Webredaktøren]

Alt som har med rettssystem osv. blir jo alltid langdrykt!

[McMidjo]

Som ventet, går adminprosessen sin samme skjeve gang i Luton som den gjorde i Leeds.

Skattevesenet har blokkert CVA-en, og de nye eierne av Luton vil påberope seg 'Special Circumstances' for å få tilbake spilletillatelsen (den såkalte 'golden share') for klubben.

Regner med at Bournemouth, Rotherham - og kanskje etterhvert Southampton - får smake det samme, og med det antallet klubber i CCC/L1/L2 som rapporteres å slite med økonomien, kan det bli litt av en røre i engelsk fotball de neste årene - om Leedssaken skal danne presedens.

Med det oppstyr Leeds har lagd rundt denne saken - tror jeg ikke The Football League vil våge å gjøre noe som likner forskjellsbehandling mellom Leeds og andre klubber som havner i en lignende situasjon, og en skal ikke se bort fra at det er en del klubber som i disse dager utøver et visst trykk mot ledelsen i FL om å få omgjort/endret Leeds sin poengstraff - nå som det prinsipielle i denne saken antakeligvis begynner å gå opp for en del av disse klubbene.

Link til Luton-saken: http://www.luton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=105253

Bare noen dager etter at CVA-en til Luton brøt sammen, skjedde det samme idag med Bournemouth. Dette bekrefter bare at det engelske skattevesenet (HMRC) av prinsipp blokkerer alle CVA-er hvor fotballkreditorer får fortrinn foran HMRC.

Det interessante i Bournemouthsaken - som forøvrig er en røre uten like (med Gerald Krasner som administrator) er at FL (som kreditor) selv avstod fra å stemme over CVA-en.... Utfra dette kan en jo spekulere både i det ene og det andre, og det kan jo indikere at FL er særdeles usikre på utfallet av den forestående arbitrationsaken.

Det kan jo hende at det pågår en intens diskusjon innad i FL om engelsk fotball faktisk er tjent med at alle klubber som havner i admin blir straffet med 10 + 15 poeng før de kommer på rett kjøl igjen? Slik det ligger an nå - vil Luton, Bournemouth og sannsynligvis Rotherham alle starte på minus 15 i League 2 neste sesong. Hvilken farse dette kan bli.....

Link til B'mouthsaken: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/topsport/display.var.2176302.0.two_bids_for_cherries.php

[Tom S]

Kan virke som FL er på djupt vatn no....

[Webredaktøren]

Det er jo mer en nok straff at klubbene sliter slik som de gjør fra før. Blir mange konkurser etter hvert...

[lojosang]

At FL ikke stemmer er vel egentlig bare rett og rimelig. Reiser kraftige habilitetsspørsmål om de stemmer mot i hvert fall.

[Sleivind]

Bare noen dager etter at CVA-en til Luton brøt sammen, skjedde det samme idag med Bournemouth. Dette bekrefter bare at det engelske skattevesenet (HMRC) av prinsipp blokkerer alle CVA-er hvor fotballkreditorer får fortrinn foran HMRC.

Nå har jeg i disse dager et fag på skolen som heter rettslære 2. Og hvis jeg har forstått det riktig i dette faget, så finnes det en lovpålagt prioritering når det gjelder hvilke kreditorer som kommer først og sist i rekken, når det gjelder tilbakebetaling av gjeld i et konkursbo. I norsk lov så er det skattemyndighetene som er 1. prioritert når det gjelder konkursbo. Det vil da si at det er skattemyndighetene som har førsterett på å få ut penger av et bo. Hvis dette hadde vært i Norge, så kunne FL sagt hva de ville uten at det hadde ført frem, skattemyndighetene har førsterett, og det er faktisk lovpålagt. Nå har ikke jeg så veldig mye kunnskap rundt denne saken og i Leeds sin sak om hvilke regler som gjelder når. Men det er vel ganske sannsynlig at det er en slik lov som gjelder i Bournemouth og ikke minst Leeds sitt tilfelle.

Om det er slik i Engelsk lov er ikke godt å si, men det må vel finnes noe lignende i England også? Kanskje det er derfor Bates mener han har en god sak?

[lojosang]

Hvis jeg fikk det riktig med meg i sommer er grunnen til at skatefuten syter at de tidligere stod først i rekka sammen med fotballgjeld. Lovene er nå forandra der borte og skattefuten må stille seg i kø sammen med alle andre kreditorer. Det futen mener er urettferdig er at fotballgjeld skal betales med 100%. Dette har de tapt en rettsak på allerede, så vidt jeg husker, så da tyr de heller til skitne triks som trenering og blokkering av CVA.

For en legmann som har sin kunnskap fra bristiske nettaviser virker det logisk at man er nødt til å gjøre noe enten med skattefuten, eller med FL sine regler. Det siste er nok det letteste.

[Webredaktøren]

Hvis jeg fikk det riktig med meg i sommer er grunnen til at skatefuten syter at de tidligere stod først i rekka sammen med fotballgjeld. Lovene er nå forandra der borte og skattefuten må stille seg i kø sammen med alle andre kreditorer. Det futen mener er urettferdig er at fotballgjeld skal betales med 100%. Dette har de tapt en rettsak på allerede, så vidt jeg husker, så da tyr de heller til skitne triks som trenering og blokkering av CVA.

For en legmann som har sin kunnskap fra bristiske nettaviser virker det logisk at man er nødt til å gjøre noe enten med skattefuten, eller med FL sine regler. Det siste er nok det letteste.

Eller det minst vanskelige?

[Asbjørn]

Hvis jeg fikk det riktig med meg i sommer er grunnen til at skatefuten syter at de tidligere stod først i rekka sammen med fotballgjeld. Lovene er nå forandra der borte og skattefuten må stille seg i kø sammen med alle andre kreditorer. Det futen mener er urettferdig er at fotballgjeld skal betales med 100%. Dette har de tapt en rettsak på allerede, så vidt jeg husker, så da tyr de heller til skitne triks som trenering og blokkering av CVA.

For en legmann som har sin kunnskap fra bristiske nettaviser virker det logisk at man er nødt til å gjøre noe enten med skattefuten, eller med FL sine regler. Det siste er nok det letteste.

...man kan sikkert si mye om deg, Leif Olav, men tjukk i hue er du ikke 

[Webredaktøren]

[lojosang]

Hvis jeg fikk det riktig med meg i sommer er grunnen til at skatefuten syter at de tidligere stod først i rekka sammen med fotballgjeld. Lovene er nå forandra der borte og skattefuten må stille seg i kø sammen med alle andre kreditorer. Det futen mener er urettferdig er at fotballgjeld skal betales med 100%. Dette har de tapt en rettsak på allerede, så vidt jeg husker, så da tyr de heller til skitne triks som trenering og blokkering av CVA.

For en legmann som har sin kunnskap fra bristiske nettaviser virker det logisk at man er nødt til å gjøre noe enten med skattefuten, eller med FL sine regler. Det siste er nok det letteste.

...man kan sikkert si mye om deg, Leif Olav, men tjukk i hue er du ikke 

Folk som er såpass grimme som deg bør ikke komme med utilslørte insinuasjoner om vekta hos andre, Asbjørn. Slankekurer er tross alt betydelig billigere enn plastisk kirurgi! 

[kjelvi]

Grei oppsummering foran de siste sju spennende dagene:

Seven Crucial Days for Leeds United

Leeds United enter a crucial seven day period that could make or break their season. Arbitration, coupled with 2 important games could see the Whites move to the top of the table, or drop back out of the play-off's. After years or bad news and disappointments, could this be the week the fans are finally rewarded for their loyalty? As we enter this period, Leeds United lie 6th in the 'Official' League table, 2 point clear of 7th and 15 points behind the Automatic promotion spots, with a game in hand;


 
P  GD    PTS
 
1  Swansea  42  36  83
2  Carlisle     42  23  79
3  Doncaster 42  21  73
4  Southend  42  15  71
5  Nottm Forest  42 27  70
6  Leeds       41  30  64
-
7  Tranmere  42  8   62
8  Walsall      41 10  60
9  Brighton    42  5  60

Leeds play two crucial games, firstly against Carlise at Elland Road on Saturday, and then away to Huddersfield Town on Tuesday.  Victory in both would lift Leeds Points tally to 70 although a failure to collect any points could of course, see Tranmere reclaiming sixth spot.

Arbitration
On Monday, Leeds begin their formal attempt to overturn the -15 point penalty imposed by the football League at the start of the season at an independant Arbitration hearing.  The hearing is taking place at an unknown location and the exact time of the start and the duration is not fully known, although it is understood the matter will be dealt with over a number of days rather than a few hours.
The Football League rules were clear in that any team entering adminstration should be deducted 10 points.  Leeds went into adminstration last season and were duly docked the points.  The Football League rules also state that no club can exit adminstration and re-join the Football League without a '75% approved CVA (Creditors Voluntary Agreement) in place UNLESS by exception circumstances. In all previous cases of football clubs going into administration, all have been able to secure the required 75% approved CVA.
This is where the dispute lies.  Leeds United did not have 75% approved CVA in place and applied to the Football League (FL) to be allowed to re-enter as they felt they had 'exceptional circumstances'.  The FL agreed and allowed Leeds to re-enter, but then imposed a new penalty of a 15 point deduction.  The appeal by Leeds will be asking the Arbitration Panle to consider such items as;-
Leeds United DID have a 75% approved CVA in place but it was blocked by 'HMRC' (Taxman).  The Taxman was (and still is) not happy that under Football League rules, ALL Footballing debts must be cleared in full, yet the Taxman is not given any preferrential status.  The move from HMRC saw a delay to proceedings and without being able to provided running costs for the club, the Adminstrator had no option but to sell the club outright in a closed bidding process.
The Football League rules stated that clubs could re-enter the League with exceptional circumstances. There was no mention of further penalty so either Leeds had exceptional cisrcumstance or they didn't. 
The Football League validated their decision with a members vote, which allowd many clubs with a personal interest to vote against Leeds United.
One of the first hurdles to overcome will be the letter signed by Leeds united just days before the start of the season agreeing not to appeal agaisnt the decision.  Leds United have already stated that this was signed under duress and should be dismissed.

Outcome
The possible outcomes of Arbitration are not clear.  The three man panel should not, in theory, have the authority to decide on new sanctions for Football League clubs which normally have to vote through rule changes, so reducing the penalty down to 5 or 10 points in unlikely, but is possible if they feel from the evidence presented to them, that another existing rule should be applied.  They could of course uphold the original decision and rule that the Football League has complied within it's own rules and has not broken any laws of the land  - or the penalty could be overturned and Leeds given the 15 points back.
Whilst Arbitration is likely to be the end of proceedings, and both the FL and Leeds United have confirmed to abise by their findings, there could be further action.  There is nothing (legally) to stop  either Leeds Utd or the FL taking further actions and already a number of clubs in League 1 are threatening to take their own action if Leeds Utd receive their points back.
If Leeds are given the 15 points back, and take maximum points from their next two games, plus Swansea fail to get maximum points from thier away trip to Gillingham, they could see themselves perched at the top of League 1 next week - but they could also be down in tenth!

thefootballnetwork.net

[Webredaktøren]

Spennende uten å være spennende dette her tror jeg

Leeds må nok klage dette inn for FIFA for å få noe medhold...

[kjelvi]

DANNY HAY: No stone is left unturned in the battle for points


CONFIDENT: United chiefKen Bates

The confidentiality clause by which Leeds United promised to solemnly abide has not prevented an air of confidence from flowing through Elland Road in anticipation of next week's arbitration tribunal.
The club agreed reluctantly to allow the hearing to proceed in private, but it does not take a talent for reading between the lines to gauge their mood.
Leeds are optimistic; optimistic to the point of expectant, and convinced that their dissection of an alleged injustice has produced a compelling argument against their 15-point penalty.
Ken Bates was not exaggerating when he said United were burrowing into every area of the Football League's rules and policy, and the 27-page claim form submitted to the High Court in February is evidence of how deeply Leeds have delved to undermine the legitimacy of their deduction.
United's appeal did not reach the judiciary but the claim submitted on February 12, and signed by their director Mark Taylor, is likely to be employed in its entirety when a panel of three convene to rule on the 15-point punishment next week.
The legal establishment's understanding of a complex case is better than ours, but it is clear that Leeds will enter the arbitrational proceedings pre-armed.
Their case against the Football League is thoughtful and detailed, the result of six months of investigating the whys and wherefores of their penalty. While not a guarantee of outright victory, it gives Leeds a credible chance.
Details of the League's defence are not on public record, but the organisation will be asked to answer some pertinent questions.
Why, for example, did the League vote against the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposed by Leeds when agreeing a CVA was a fundamental part of their insolvency policy?
The body stood to be paid in full for the £188,000 they were owed, and the absence of a CVA was largely responsible for United's points deduction. The League's rejection of the arrangement put to them was "arbitrary and unfair", Leeds claim, and evidence of prejudice.
United's legal team will ask the tribunal to consider whether it is appropriate for an organisation to reject a CVA and then sanction the club in question for failing to implement it.
The motivation for the legal challenge made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) against United's CVA is another area of fierce contention.
HMRC sought a judicial review after the voluntary arrangement was initially passed by a majority of 75.2 per cent, and their contest was the catalyst for the CVA's collapse in July. KPMG, who had drawn up the proposal, withdrew it with the insistence that Leeds lacked the funds to continue operating while the case was settled in court.
In what appears to be an attempt to distance themselves from the process of administration, Leeds will claim that the decision to complete an administrators' sale â€" a direct sale made without a CVA â€" was the responsibility of KPMG, and not the club.
Moreover, they will tell the tribunal that their bid for the club was the highest available, and the most rewarding for their unsecured creditors.

The offer made by Bates is listed in the High Court claim as being worth 52.9p in the £, compared to 32.2p proposed by the second-highest bid.
The figure of 52.9p clearly includes the sum that will be paid to creditors in the event that United are promoted to the Premiership and the true pay-out is presently closer to 11p in the £. But the Football League themselves appear to have conceded that the best offer on the table was the one accepted by KPMG.
On the question of HMRC's uncooperative stance, the debate over the reimbursement of 'football creditors' will also be raised again.
Leeds claim that the Revenue's challenge against the CVA was driven by what Bates calls "intransigence", and its dissatisfaction with Football League rules requiring players, managers and relevant footballing institutions to be paid in full by insolvent clubs. It is a key demand placed on every club in administration that wishes to regain its membership of the League.
HMRC â€" an unsecured creditor â€" has, by its own admission, adopted a militant stance towards CVAs proposed by professional clubs and its opposition has hindered Bournemouth's move out of administration. An administrators' sale is on the cards at Dean Court, which means, in theory, that another 15-point deduction may by in the offing.
Leeds' assessment of HMRC's stance is, in truth, only part of the story. According to the club's claim form, the legal challenge against the CVA was partially driven by the Revenue's doubt over the validity of the voting rights given to three different creditors â€" Astor Investment Holdings Limited, Mark Taylor & Company and Yorkshire Radio Limited.
All three debts helped to approve the CVA and all were sanctioned with legal advice, but it does dampen the argument that HMRC's challenge was driven solely by frustration or spite. The Revenue felt it had a legitimate complaint, though the validity of its claim was never proved. The administrators' sale by KPMG killed the challenge instantly.
But it was the direct sale to Bates which made a CVA impossible to implement.
United believe that in meeting their football debts in full enough names were removed from the club's list of creditors to leave HMRC with a voting share in excess of 25 per cent â€" big enough to oppose any offer put to them. No deal which promised less than the Revenue's entire debt of over £7m would have been considered acceptable.
The difficulty with which Bournemouth are shaking off insolvency is apparent evidence that the Revenue's opposition is being applied consistently, rather than specifically.
The crux of next week's argument, however, may be whether the Football League have the power or the jurisdiction to punish a club in United's position with a sanction of any sort.
Leeds contend that, in the eyes of the League, they broke no rules.

They are also adamant that no area of the organisation's regulations relating to either membership of the League or the matter of insolvency offers provision to penalise a club with a 15-point deduction.
The rules are open to interpretation, and the League are likely to argue differently, but United's claim form reads: "There is no general jurisdiction for the League to impose penalties in the way it has done in relation to Leeds."
It is a point they will press on the tribunal with force. So closely have the rules been scrutinised that United's claim cannot be said to have been made on a whim.
Complications exist, inevitably, and Leeds are expected to be asked to explain why they are challenging the Football League when an agreement was signed in August confirming that they would not do so.
The club will state that they assumed the League had the power to impose their penalty, an assumption which they now believe was "wrong in law". They will also insist that their takeover met the three priorities stated by the Football League in a press release relating to Bates' takeover, which were "the continuation of the football club...secondly, payment in full to football creditors and, finally, the best possible return for all other creditors."
The tribunal might agree.
It is, inherently, a complex case about which no pre-conceptions can be made. According to those with knowledge of arbitration proceedings, talk of a pre-arranged deal returning a reduced number of points is nonsense. The men named on the tribunal panel â€" Sir Philip Otton, Peter Cadman and Peter Leaver â€" seem too legally-minded for that.
But while the Football League have seemed the most likely winners from the word go, it may not now be prudent to make assumptions about their success either.

YEP

[Webredaktøren]

Men er det noen som skal klare det, så må det vel kanskje være Bates?

[Erik M]

Jeg var ikke klar over at FL faktisk stemte mot CVA på tross av at FL ville fått fullt betalt for sine krav - for senere å sanksjonere mot Leeds fordi de ikke lykkes i en CVA. Ser ut til at Leeds har langt bedre kort enn jeg trodde.  Dette blir spennende.

[Webredaktøren]

Har visst det hele tiden at vi har de beste korta. Blir uansett spennende!

[Ferre]

The independent tribunal to consider Leeds' 15-point penalty imposed by the Football League at the start of the season will begin next Wednesday.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_3414206,00.html

[Barba]

Litt tallek. Dette er 14. siden på denne tråden. Leeds vant i dag årets 14. kamp hjemme, de har 4 uavgjort og 4 tap. Altså 14 og 4. På mandag er det 14.4. ( 14. april) og alle vet hva som skal skje da. På toppen av dette har jeg bursdag ( blir 44, samme som antall uavgjort og tap). Gjett hva jeg ønsker meg mest av alt? Ikke harde gaver, ikke penger, men poeng. Kjerringa skjønte mindre av dette, og forklaringen gjorde det bare verre. Bablet noe om galskap osv. I så fall positiv gal!

Barba - en glad mann i dag.

[Jon R]

Litt tallek. Dette er 14. siden på denne tråden. Leeds vant i dag årets 14. kamp hjemme, de har 4 uavgjort og 4 tap. Altså 14 og 4. På mandag er det 14.4. ( 14. april) og alle vet hva som skal skje da. På toppen av dette har jeg bursdag ( blir 44, samme som antall uavgjort og tap). Gjett hva jeg ønsker meg mest av alt? Ikke harde gaver, ikke penger, men poeng. Kjerringa skjønte mindre av dette, og forklaringen gjorde det bare verre. Bablet noe om galskap osv. I så fall positiv gal!

Barba - en glad mann i dag.

Vi benyttet 14 mann idag. 

[HåvardK]

Da satser vi på å få igjen 14 poeng.

[Volda69]

Litt tallek. Dette er 14. siden på denne tråden. Leeds vant i dag årets 14. kamp hjemme, de har 4 uavgjort og 4 tap. Altså 14 og 4. På mandag er det 14.4. ( 14. april) og alle vet hva som skal skje da. På toppen av dette har jeg bursdag ( blir 44, samme som antall uavgjort og tap). Gjett hva jeg ønsker meg mest av alt? Ikke harde gaver, ikke penger, men poeng. Kjerringa skjønte mindre av dette, og forklaringen gjorde det bare verre. Bablet noe om galskap osv. I så fall positiv gal!

Barba - en glad mann i dag.

Tror du på 14 eller 4 poeng tilbake?

[eggus]

"The hearing could last for up to three days and the tribunal's ruling is expected to be made public before United's League One fixture at Millwall on April 19, the club's third last game of the season."

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leedsunited/United-points-panel-start-date.3975777.jp
Enda godt det ikke tar ei uke som det tidligere har vært spekulert i. Det hadde blitt alt for slitsomt for psyken min..