spellin aside, it meks mor sens than sum ov the rashunarl that haz apeered on this fourum ova the passed 8 munfs
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Alick Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:00 PM To: "Sean Emmott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LU] Arbitration - Inside the pannel > abitration pannel?? > > You'd expect his colleague in Chambers to be able to spell "arbitration", > "panel" and "determine" - yeah not a made up story! > > ....breaking news on BBC....Leeds Pub Explosion in Beckett Street...hmmm > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Emmott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:54 PM > Subject: [LU] Arbitration - Inside the pannel > > >> From the Service Crew Website http://www.leedssc.org.uk/ & scroll down. >> >> This poster also gave good information about the original meeting when >> 15pt penalty was imposed, so he treated as a respected source in those >> fora. >> >> >> "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. >> >> Ken has NOT been offered any points back yet (i.e five points as >> settlement). >> >> That's it, in a nutshell." _______________________________________________ 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!!!!
