[LU] anyone know where this first appeared????????????

[John Boocock]

Minus 15

Firstly I'd like to say that what I am about to say is not linked in any 
way to tomorrow's result. The outcome is almost secondary to the need 
for a reasoned and detailed judgement one way or another.

What a number of the contributors to this thread cannot, or will not, 
realise is that they are letting their hearts rule their heads. They 
don't like Leeds, or Bates, or whatever.

The law has to be above such prejudices for it to be credible. The 
arbitration panel is, essentially, setting precedent. With other clubs 
in financial peril they will be as affected every bit as much as Leeds, 
especially as the proportion of debt owed to HMRC is so much higher in 
their cases than it was at Leeds. Quite simply the Revenue can block 
every CVA by voting against it. They seek statutory repayment of all 
debts to them - the preferred creditor principle. In the case of Leeds 
the required 75% had accepted the CVA. It was valid. Bates even 
increased the offer (probably part of his initail plans anyway). Had 
HMRC not challenged it with one HOUR to go of the statutory period 
allowed for challenge (28 days or a month, I can't remember which) then 
we wouldn't be having this debate.

However, challenge it they did, although their reasons were vague and 
spurious. Because of the complexities of the challenge the earliest 
court date available was September 2007. There were no funds available 
as season ticket money was ring-fenced by the administrators. It was 
close season so there was no matchday income. Gary Kelly needed to be 
paid a massive amount at the end of his contract or else he was entitled 
to sue. To avoid this site itself being sued I can't allude to how much 
was owed under Ridsdale's contract but it was eye watering.

We had very few saleable assets (who was going to pay massive sums for 
average Championship players when they knew our backs were against the 
wall, especially as we were asking for payment up front rather than the 
usual 'over the length of contract' terms?)

We had no income and we had millions in outgoings. This is where the 
mythology really gets going, even amongst Leeds fans. Bates said that he 
and his backers would not fund the club until the September hearing 
(it's estimated it would have needed £4m to simply tread water, with no 
guarantee that anything would have been actually sorted in September), 
especially with no guarantee that this money would allow them to retain 
control of the club. Take Ken Bates as a personality out of the 
equation. Do you know of any club owner who would do that? If so then 
they are so rich that they could have afforded to pay off all the debts 
in the first place, thus avoiding the need for administration. Bates 
didn't threaten to close Leeds United down. He simply said that the 
backers would not spend millions with no guarantee of any return at all. 
It would amount to the same thing, but the perception of the motivation 
is in the eye of the beholder.

Faced with that the administrators put the club up for sale. If anyone 
seriously thinks that a company like KPMG 'did a deal' with Bates then 
they haven't yet produced a shred of evidence. KPMG's world status is 
such that the administration of Leeds United barely registered on its 
internal Richter Scale. Small fry, and certainly not worth perjuring 
themselves over. The club was put up for sale.

Fast forward a few weeks and Bates was announced as the new owner. KPMG 
have issued documents confirming why this was, the offers on the table 
etc etc. There were better offers than Bates, but crucially they were 
solely dependant on getting the so called Golden Share back. In the 
event of the share not being awarded the offers were next to worthless, 
for obvious reasons. The FL had shown astonishing intransigence on that 
issue. If they had had their wits about them they could have discussed 
the issues with KPMG and after confirming the viability of each offer 
stated that the Golden Share would accompany the winning bid. They 
didn't. They held it like a sword over our heads, and quite simply Bates 
nipped in on the blind side and outflanked them.

Like it or not the League were NEVER going to let a team like Leeds go 
out of existence or even place it outwith the top four divisions. The 
Golden Share was always assured, and Bates and Co. took the gamble. The 
League snoozed and created its own worst nightmare (and the fans weren't 
exactly happy).

Knocked out of its stride the League sought to save face. With a week to 
go they stitched up a deal which seemed to paper over the cracks. Leeds 
would be allowed to play, but as a 'penalty' they would be deducted 
fifteen points. They were offered the right of appeal. What is not clear 
(and this is something I hope will be clarified) is whether they were 
advised of the appeals process. But as has been said above given the 
opportunity to kick Leeds & Bates the remainder of the clubs took their 
shot. I don't blame them, although one or two of them might now be 
regretting their hasty actions.

Mawhinney has acted the prize ass all the way along. The appeal meeting 
was told that the decision would not set a precedent (dealing with the 
point raised above in advance) but then said it was essentially a vote 
of confidence in the FL board. If that isn't loading the dice in your 
favour what is?

Leeds sought the intervention of the FA. It took two months for them to 
shrug their shoulders and say 'nothing to do with us gov!'. Bates asked 
for arbitration. The League rejected the approach. We issued High Court 
proceedings. Mawhinney said they'd be struck out on day one. Oh yeah? 
With one day TO GO before responses were provided the offer of 
arbitration was made.

And so, here we are, in the middle of an unholy mess at the business end 
of the season.

There seems to be a view amongst some that the tardiness of the decision 
somehow mitigates against points being handed back. How so? The 
deduction was either within the rules or it was not. Time cannot and 
must not warp the decision which is based on the rules and regulations 
at the time of the 'offence'.

It is amazing how certain some people are as to what Leeds United have 
done wrong, especially as they have never even visited the FL website 
let alone read their rulebook. But oh no...they give their opinions 
based on what exactly? If a Swansea, or Doncaster, or Carlisle, fan is 
able to shine a light on the rule breaking then they truly are blessed, 
because if it was that easy Mawhinney & Co could have called a press 
conference, put up a Powerpoint slide and said to the world - 
'there...that's why we've done what we've done and stuff you Ken Bates'. 
Apparently they couldn't, so forgive us Leeds fans for taking the views 
of opposing fans and chairmen with a pinch of salt.

At the very least the decision will clarify the issues. I won't cry at 
all if we don't get the points back so long as there is an explanation, 
and one that will apply to ALL clubs.

What is clear, however, is that the preferred creditors v HMRC issue 
will not go away. It needs to be clarified and set in stone.

What is also clear is that even if the decision is uphelp Mawhinney and 
his board are not fit for office. Their conduct has been such that a 
passing ostrich would have thought he was looking in the mirror. They 
have provided no leadership to the member clubs and have, because of 
their approach, made a nonsense of the most exciting time of the season.

This should, and could, have been resolved in Autumn 2007.

Whatever our sins (and there have been a fair few of them) don't blame 
Leeds for the mess everyone is in now.