> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duniec > Sent: 07 April 2008 19:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] No Points Back > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Im sorry Rick but dragging in the Yorkshire radio stuff it totally > > irrelevant here and I wonder why you did? > > Because it is one of the most contentious issues in the voting rights > arrangements. > If you can explain to me why YR were given voting rights and RL were > not > then I'd be very interested to heard it.
As I said, it is irrelevant to both the exit of administration and also irrelevant to the 15 point penalty. The football league did not dock 15 points because of YR or any other creditor, they docked the points because we did not exit administration via the CVA. They clearly didn't care or take into account why! > Perhaps you do in fact know more about the scope of this arbitration > than I > do in which case I bow to your knowledge. The FL docked us 15 points as a penalty for not completing a CVA. LUFC argument is that they have been punished but they weren't the people who decided whether to scrap the CVA or not, they did everything they could to exit via the CVA (increasing offers, attempting to appease HMRC) but ultimately KPMG (the insolvency experts with prior football administrative experience) decided to scrap it. Why were the football club punished? As an aside, do you not agree with most of the rest of us who think the FL were making it up as they were going along and trying to use a back door method to punish the club because it (legally) circumvented the point of the 10point penalty? The FL were being vexatious and using any excuse to punish the club. > I do not think that the rival clubs upholding the 15 points is relevant > (however "feverish" or unfair it may or may not have been). I am afraid it is relevant. LUFC are, I believe, seeking to establish they have not been treated fairly in the whole process, or am I wrong? The fact that the FL's idea of a fair appeal is to ask our direct rivals, most of whom had a vested interest in us being docked points, to decide is laughable as a fair appeal process. The question is, why didn't the FL want to give the club AND US FANS the benefit of a fair/independant appeal? > They did not increase the actions that had already been taken so they > did > not alter anything. > If they had changed anything then you would have a good point, I admit. How ridiculous is that statement?!! Because they didn't increase the punishment they weren't all acting in self interest? > > Please explain why you think exiting administration with a CVA should > be on > the same standing as exiting without one. Please explain, from the FL's perspective, why it SHOULDNT be? What are the FL trying to protect here? Why should the club be punished for giving the creditors more? Why couldn't the FL take a view on how football and non football debts would have been settled inside or outside a CVA, and if all the creditors were no worse off in either case why should the FL give a shit? > You appear to wish to sometimes take into account WHY certain things > happened and in other cases to ignore the WHY altogether. We are talking about the 15 point penalty. This was made up by the FL because we didn't exit administration via a CVA. Not why we didn't. Unless you know different? Of course, if you or anyone else believes Bates et al were the people who decided then you also clearly believe that KPMG are as bent as arseholes and/or grossly negligent of their professional duty. I therefore believe, fool that I clearly am, that KPMG made the decision on how to sell LUFC, with the best interests of the ongoing football concern and ALL the creditors at heart. It was their decision, the buck legally stops with them. If therefore the 15 point penalty is purely and simply for not exiting via a CVA then that is KPMGs fault and the club should not have been punished. If it is for other reasons they imposed the 15 point penalty then 1) they need to say so and 2) that opens up a whole new can of worms. > > The new contract appears to be that the price of a golden share is, in > this > case, 15 points. That does not sound like an excessive price if you > don't > have a Golden Share, you are not entitled to a golden share, and you > desperately need to obtain one. Similarly, obtaining a golden share > free of > charge would also seem excessively cheap. No doubt this lead to > extensive > negotiation but at the end of the day the new LU accepted those terms. This is of course the net effect of the penalty, however it is not simply the cost of the GS or else they should have just said that. This would make any new applications for the winners of the conference to join the FL rather interesting, making them start on -15 points. > I am > not aware that any damages punitive or otherwise have been applied > under the > contract with the new Leeds United. If you prefer to see this in terms > of a > penalty (which is fair enough but not necessarily more correct) then a > 10 > point penalty would not be considered excessive IMHO. Pretty much par > for > the course in this sort of thing. An extra 5 - well maybe. OK Rick, let me ask you this simple question. What exactly *IS* the point of deducting 15 points? Is it carrot or stick? Is it the threat to ensure clubs exit admin 'properly' or is it a fair attempt to remove the footballing advantage a club who wantonly mismanages its finances would have gained (by spending money they shouldn't have)? Or something else? If it is a punishment then it doesn't work because a club do not decide how they exit administration. If it is a fair attempt then I would suggest that is open to legal challenge - why should Leeds be punished because of what Leicester got away with? I really am at a loss to come to any scenario where this arbitrary second points deduction is in any way fair or for that matter legal. I am afraid the football cannot act outside the law, as Bosman will testify to. > I am also biased in favour of LU. Isn't everyone on this list ? Ok, but I personally think that the time for all these debates and even playing devils advocate (Im being particularly generous here) is long gone. We, the supporters need to provide a united front in demanding the points back. Think if it like supporting the team at a game. Cheer if you want, even if you don't want, as it's positive. If you feel like being negative then keep it to yourself until after the game. Does that make sense? Not saying you should do this (keep quiet), but just trying to explain how I feel about this saga. Mark _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!!
