The Leeds Thread

[Guest Rinky Sidebottom]

Absolutely dire performance, Doncaster deserved to win by more, according to the commentary on Radio Leeds.

I understand Radio Leeds have taken a large amount of calls from Leeds fans over the last few months demanding Bassett be removed from the club and that unless Wise agrees, he also must be removed. This is because since Bassett has come to the club, the style of football and the confidence of the players has nose dived. I fully understand where this logic is coming from and I can't see Mr Bates allowing this run of inconsistency to run without someone being removed.

[Guest Tatty Boabie]

I understand Radio Leeds have taken a large amount of calls from Leeds fans over the last few months demanding Bassett be removed from the club and that unless Wise agrees, he also must be removed. This is because since Bassett has come to the club, the style of football and the confidence of the players has nose dived. I fully understand where this logic is coming from and I can't see Mr Bates allowing this run of inconsistency to run without someone being removed.

Something's gone wrong certainly. We did all the hard work overturning the 15 points, getting up towards the top of the league, and now we seem to be struggling, and have no answer to teams like Doncaster Rovers (can't believe I've just said that), who play passing football, as oppose to our pump it forward looking for Beckford / Flo / Kandol / Constantine.

The new midfielders, Sweeney, Johnson and Kilkenny all had bad games today, according to the commentary I was listening to, and Prutton didn't get a run out despite been on the bench.

Come on Wisey, you need to work out the problems, before we get to the stage where we can't be promoted automatically.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Tatty Boabie

[Guest Rinky Sidebottom]

Memories for the Scottish Leeds United fans:

http://www.geocities.com/leeds_united_scot...ranch/Home.html

[drs]

The problem is Wise is shite and Gus was the brains.

Enjoy another season down amongst the dead men.

[Weekender]

The problem is Wise is shite and Gus was the brains.

Enjoy another season down amongst the dead men.

I can imagine it.

[Guest Tatty Boabie]

Still time and enough games to turn it around, but we'll have to start soon, otherwise Swansea will be out of sight, and Doncaster will probably be following them.

[Weekender]

Still time and enough games to turn it around, but we'll have to start soon, otherwise Swansea will be out of sight, and Doncaster will probably be following them.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

More diddy teams coming into the Championship.Blackpool fuxake !

Edited January 20, 2008 by BluebirdTon

[Guest Tatty Boabie]

It doesn't bare thinking about.

More diddy teams coming into the Championship.Blackpool fuxake !

I know, it's wrong.

I can't believe I'm typing such things, and having to admit we were outplayed by Doncaster Rovers yesterday.

Life is hard, harsh even, cruel, unfair, depressing, difficult and hard to take.

Oh my god, I'm turning into Pacman 83 from the General Nonsense forum.

[Weekender]

I know, it's wrong.

I can't believe I'm typing such things, and having to admit we were outplayed by Doncaster Rovers yesterday.

Life is hard, harsh even, cruel, unfair, depressing, difficult and hard to take.

Oh my god, I'm turning into Pacman 83 from the General Nonsense forum.

Comparisons to Dundonians ? The futures bleak for Leeds.

Edited January 20, 2008 by BluebirdTon

[DJP]

Read in the Mail on Sunday (yes I read that paper) that Wise has emerged as a shock candidate to be No.2 at Newcastle

[Glasgow Loon]

Uncle ken and HMRC are going to be on the same side when we go to the high court.

The FL are quaking and will have to give us the 15pts back.

[Glasgow Loon]

Leeds United will argue that a conflict of interests between the Football League and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs left the club powerless to stave off a 15-point penalty when their bid to revoke the punishment reaches the High Court.

United chairman Ken Bates announced on Saturday that he was issuing a writ against the Football League over what Leeds claim was a "wrongful decision" to deduct them 15 points before the start of this season.

And the club's argument is expected to rest heavily on the dispute over football creditors which contributed to the collapse of Bates' proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

Leeds United 2007 Ltd – the company fronted by Bates – were handed ownership of Leeds by KPMG through an administrator's sale on July 11 of last year after HMRC launched a legal challenge against the CVA put forward by United's chairman.

Bates' CVA had been agreed in principle at the start of June with the support of the required majority of 75 per cent of United's creditors.

The deal initially promised to pay 1p in the £ to unsecured creditors – among them HMRC, who alone were owed more than £7million by Leeds – but government tax officials lodged a legal challenge against the deal an hour before the end of the 28-day cooling-off period provided by law for creditors to consider and contest a CVA.

United are likely to claim in court that the HMRC's prime motivation for fighting the deal was their dissatisfaction with Football League rules, which state that all football creditors – including players, managers and other clubs – must be paid in full before a club in administration is allowed to regain their 'golden share' in the League.

HMRC were until recently preferential creditors but their unsecured status left them in line to receive around £77,000 of the seven figure tax bill they were owed, while United's football creditors received full repayment.

Confirmation of HMRC's legal challenge saw administrators KPMG collapse the CVA and complete a private sale to Bates' company.

The move brought Leeds out of administration, but it conflicted with another area of Football League rules which requires insolvent clubs to implement an agreed CVA before their membership of the League is returned.

United's failure to move forward with a CVA in place began the sequence of events which saw their golden share returned through an "exceptional circumstances" clause within the League's regulations – but at the cost of a 15-point deduction.

Leeds are expected to present the timeline as evidence that the HMRC's policy towards the issue of football creditors left little or no prospect of the club adhering to Football League rules by agreeing a CVA.

At the time of the administrator's sale in July, KPMG expressed concern that the weeks and months spent deciding HMRC's legal challenge would threaten United's survival due to uncertainty over how the club would be funded in the interim.

HMRC's challenge was originally made on July 3 but their case against Leeds was not scheduled to begin until September 3 – a month after the start of the League One season. KPMG's decision to carry out an administrator's sale rendered the CVA redundant, and ultimately led to HMRC dropping their legal challenge.

Bates told the YEP: "We were in an impossible position.

"We'd agreed a CVA with a 75 per cent majority, as Football League rules said we had to, and then the taxman decided to challenge the agreement in court. They weren't happy with the fact that football creditors were being paid in full.

"If we hadn't paid our football creditors in full then we wouldn't have received our golden share in the Football League, because their rules also state that every club in administration must pay every penny they owe to football creditors.

"By meeting that requirement, we brought on a legal challenge from the taxman which meant we couldn't follow through with the CVA. We were damned if we did and damned if we didn't."

HMRC's attitude towards the issue of football creditors was confirmed in a letter sent by Richard Fleming, the joint administrator of KPMG, to Colin Burgon MP on July 10 – 24 hours before Bates bought back United.

In his letter, Fleming stated that "the policy of HMRC, as detailed in the Voluntary Arrangements Service Worksheet, makes it clear they would decline any proposals made by any member of any organisation that requires debt owed to its members to be paid in full, when all other unsecured creditors become bound on approval of the arrangement."

United's writ against the Football League was due to be issued this week, and League officials have so far declined to comment.

But the Football Association has rejected claims made by Bates in his match-day programme notes on Saturday that it advised United to sue the League rather than pursue independent arbitration against the FA itself.

Leeds requested arbitration under FA rules after failing to persuade the governing body to support their challenge to the 15-point penalty, but the club have now abandoned that route and proceeded directly to the High Court.

The FA has consistently maintained that the League followed their own rules appropriately by punishing United. A spokesman for Soho Square also refuted Bates' suggestion that the governing body had used "evasive behaviour and delaying tactics" during the dispute.

The full article contains 898 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 24 January 2008 8:53 AM

[DJP]

The Showman rejects a move to Leeds. Would rather stay in Bristol Shitty reserves

[Guest Tatty Boabie]

Leeds United will argue that a conflict of interests between the Football League and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs left the club powerless to stave off a 15-point penalty when their bid to revoke the punishment reaches the High Court.

United chairman Ken Bates announced on Saturday that he was issuing a writ against the Football League over what Leeds claim was a "wrongful decision" to deduct them 15 points before the start of this season.

And the club's argument is expected to rest heavily on the dispute over football creditors which contributed to the collapse of Bates' proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

Leeds United 2007 Ltd – the company fronted by Bates – were handed ownership of Leeds by KPMG through an administrator's sale on July 11 of last year after HMRC launched a legal challenge against the CVA put forward by United's chairman.

Bates' CVA had been agreed in principle at the start of June with the support of the required majority of 75 per cent of United's creditors.

The deal initially promised to pay 1p in the £ to unsecured creditors – among them HMRC, who alone were owed more than £7million by Leeds – but government tax officials lodged a legal challenge against the deal an hour before the end of the 28-day cooling-off period provided by law for creditors to consider and contest a CVA.

United are likely to claim in court that the HMRC's prime motivation for fighting the deal was their dissatisfaction with Football League rules, which state that all football creditors – including players, managers and other clubs – must be paid in full before a club in administration is allowed to regain their 'golden share' in the League.

HMRC were until recently preferential creditors but their unsecured status left them in line to receive around £77,000 of the seven figure tax bill they were owed, while United's football creditors received full repayment.

Confirmation of HMRC's legal challenge saw administrators KPMG collapse the CVA and complete a private sale to Bates' company.

The move brought Leeds out of administration, but it conflicted with another area of Football League rules which requires insolvent clubs to implement an agreed CVA before their membership of the League is returned.

United's failure to move forward with a CVA in place began the sequence of events which saw their golden share returned through an "exceptional circumstances" clause within the League's regulations – but at the cost of a 15-point deduction.

Leeds are expected to present the timeline as evidence that the HMRC's policy towards the issue of football creditors left little or no prospect of the club adhering to Football League rules by agreeing a CVA.

At the time of the administrator's sale in July, KPMG expressed concern that the weeks and months spent deciding HMRC's legal challenge would threaten United's survival due to uncertainty over how the club would be funded in the interim.

HMRC's challenge was originally made on July 3 but their case against Leeds was not scheduled to begin until September 3 – a month after the start of the League One season. KPMG's decision to carry out an administrator's sale rendered the CVA redundant, and ultimately led to HMRC dropping their legal challenge.

Bates told the YEP: "We were in an impossible position.

"We'd agreed a CVA with a 75 per cent majority, as Football League rules said we had to, and then the taxman decided to challenge the agreement in court. They weren't happy with the fact that football creditors were being paid in full.

"If we hadn't paid our football creditors in full then we wouldn't have received our golden share in the Football League, because their rules also state that every club in administration must pay every penny they owe to football creditors.

"By meeting that requirement, we brought on a legal challenge from the taxman which meant we couldn't follow through with the CVA. We were damned if we did and damned if we didn't."

HMRC's attitude towards the issue of football creditors was confirmed in a letter sent by Richard Fleming, the joint administrator of KPMG, to Colin Burgon MP on July 10 – 24 hours before Bates bought back United.

In his letter, Fleming stated that "the policy of HMRC, as detailed in the Voluntary Arrangements Service Worksheet, makes it clear they would decline any proposals made by any member of any organisation that requires debt owed to its members to be paid in full, when all other unsecured creditors become bound on approval of the arrangement."

United's writ against the Football League was due to be issued this week, and League officials have so far declined to comment.

But the Football Association has rejected claims made by Bates in his match-day programme notes on Saturday that it advised United to sue the League rather than pursue independent arbitration against the FA itself.

Leeds requested arbitration under FA rules after failing to persuade the governing body to support their challenge to the 15-point penalty, but the club have now abandoned that route and proceeded directly to the High Court.

The FA has consistently maintained that the League followed their own rules appropriately by punishing United. A spokesman for Soho Square also refuted Bates' suggestion that the governing body had used "evasive behaviour and delaying tactics" during the dispute.

The full article contains 898 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 24 January 2008 8:53 AM

Does anyone have any idea as to our chances of getting the 15 points back, because, well because, I think we fucking need them.

[DJP]

Does anyone have any idea as to our chances of getting the 15 points back, because, well because, I think we fucking need them.

You may wish to change your sig of

15 Points

Who gives a f**k

We're super Leeds

And we're going up.

You're not going, You're not going, You're not going anywhere

[Guest Tatty Boabie]

You may wish to change your sig of

15 Points

Who gives a f**k

We're super Leeds

And we're going up.

You're not going, You're not going, You're not going anywhere

I would have to change the sig to:

15 Points

We got them back

We're not that super Leeds, and sadly not as good as Doncaster Rovers

But we have a fighting chance of going up, if we start playing better, now we've got 15 points back.

Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it.

And, it doesn't rhyme.

Ach well, I'm kind of enjoying life in League One.

[Guest Rinky Sidebottom]

YES, What a great day, Wise has gone (well tomorrow) and now Bassett will be shown the respect he deserves...f**k ALL.

Hopefully the Chelsea scum lot will now move out and real Leeds people come in.

[thisal]

YES, What a great day, Wise has gone (well tomorrow) and now Bassett will be shown the respect he deserves...f**k ALL.

Do you really think Wise deserves that. I'm seriously worried that Bassett will get the job.

Hopefully the Chelsea scum lot will now move out and real Leeds people come in.

Oh no here we go again. Can you remind me how many trophy's REAL Leeds men have actually won for us?

[Guest Rinky Sidebottom]

Do you really think Wise deserves that. I'm seriously worried that Bassett will get the job.

Oh no here we go again. Can you remind me how many trophy's REAL Leeds men have actually won for us?

Plonker. Try the whole Revie era. Any true Leeds fan will tell you that under Bremner and Gray, Leeds played some of their best ever football. Sadly that period was when we were last out of the big league and therefore we didn't win anything.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Rinky Sidebottom

[thisal]

Plonker. Try the whole Revie era. Any true Leeds fan will tell you that under Bremner and Gray, Leeds played some of their best ever football. Sadly that period was when we were last out of the big league and therefore we didn't win anything.

Don Revie was great manager who as a good player wound his career down with Leeds. He was successfull because of his managerial abilities not because he played for the club in the twilight of his career. Bremner and Gray might have played some pretty football in the lower leagues, but to say this "some of the best ever football" is stretching it. Jimmy Armfield got Leeds to the European cup final, Howard Wilkinson won the league. But they weren't leeds men so they couldn't compete with the 2nd division glory years of Bremner and Gray. You're right I'm a plonker.

We should be looking for the best manager available to us, not the manager that played most games for Leeds.