Have been demoted from the Conference to teh Conference League North without kicking a ball. Now, I don't profess to know all the in's and out's of why but this 'little' snippet of news seems to have gone almost un-noticed. Comapre this to the fine that West Ham got for fielding an ineligible player rather than the standard 10 point deduction. Seems to me as though the football authorities know right from wrong when it's a non prem league minnow but absolutely cack themselves at the thought of deducting points from a big Premier League London club. ..............a further kick in the teeth for justice see's the loophole regarding clubs going into administration now been closed - sadly, too late to provide LUFC with the punishment they deserved. :'(
ye but leeds havent been able to buy or sell anyone so they are weeks behind in their planning, and is it true wise is going to play for them next season lol
Windass big thread yesterday re this, Boston have had it coming to them for a while, no-one from the conference has any sympathy for them
i think this is totally wrong, the FA is a disgrace they have been punished enough, they have had their 10 deduction but no not enough. the FA needs to make their mind up, what about the Leeds scenario, just beacuse there a "bigger club" they get just the 10 points, we need the smaller clubs more than the bigger ones, when will people realise that money needs to be put into the smaller clubs to help them stay running!
That Leeds have not been able to buy/sell yet - in my opinion - is neither here nor there. They will have spoken to a number of players and will have deals lined up once they can sign players again. They didn't do anything illegal when going into administration but morally I think they have plummetted to new depths - even for them. Apparently , some of the creditors of LUFC are charities - and they too will have to accept 1p in the pound re amount owed to them. Yet in yesterday's Yorkshire Sport, gobshite Bates was mouthing off how Wise will have transfer funds available once the transfer embargo is lifted. Stinks to high hell.
RE: Windass Soz - didnt see it - and I don't trawl through the hundreds of threads on here from previous days!.....but nevertheless it's hardly front page news within the footballing world in general...... And whilst Boston may well have had it coming to them the point is the lack of consistency when such decisions are being made.
couldnt agree more re Leeds Bates has pissed in the face of the creditors, esp those who needed the debt to be paid the most, it's probably all legal but very immoral, with Boston, they got a huge let off the year they gained promotion into the football league after dishonest deaalings, at the time the conferance said that as they were no ,onger in that league they couldnt do anything about it, it was a whitewash
Two of the creditors to whom Dirty Leeds owe money: 1) St Gemma's Hospice. 2) The St John's Ambulance service.
St. John's should refuse to attend and then see how Leeds get on having to for other medical staff. It would be interesting to see if the Stewards are owed money. How could they manage then? Would they be allowed a safety certificate?
i bet they would if they could but i suspect they have a moral duty to attend (pity leeds wernt run by people with the same high moral standards)
I know. They are like most medically trained people, they do the job because they care and so wouldn't be able to stay away.
RE: i bet they would if they could but They only expect a donation for costs, so it's not a debt as such.
of course its a debt it costs them money to attend - all they ask is to be reimbursed the costs of attending. I dont think its just a donation they request or they wouldnt have been listed as a creditor. The fact that they give their time free doesnt make the debt any less valid. Hopefully though with the publicity they have got some decent leeds fans (there might be one or two) will stick a hand in their pocket and see them reight
Bone fide creditors, etc. I was talking to a friend of mine a couple of weeks back who happens to be an insolvency practitioner and he was echoing my amazement that football clubs are allowed to treat organisations and individuals with football-related debts as preferential creditors. Surely this contradicts standard insolvency law, as it appears Boston have found. Why other clubs escape the same attention is a mystery to me.
Revenue and Customs Supported Leeds Killed Boston Boo. The rule about football creditors has always annoyed them ... but it's a goverment body, they have to treat everybody equally. It sounds like they aren't. Anyone know why?
Not strictly correct! HMRC voted AGAINST the proposed CVA at Leeds (i.e. 1p in the £) - but were outvoted by Bates's associate (ahem!) companies' creditors - who were allegedly owed the most, and consequently had the majority of the votes. As a result HMRC had to abide by the 75.2% vote in favour of the CVA. At Boston, HMRC were the largest creditors and therefore had the majority vote. As such they told the club that if they didn't treat the football creditors in the same fashion as all the other ones, they'd issue a winding up order. Shame they couldn't do the same at Leeds, but there you go. Boston had little choice but to accept and face the wrath of the football authorities for breaching their code of settling all football related debts in full first. Result, demotion down two divisions. What is completely wrong in all this is that the FA/FL rules totally contradict all standard Administration/CVA financial strictures i.e. all creditors receive the %age in the £ agreed by a majority vote at the CVA meeting. I'm still totally bewildered as to how BFC managed to get out of paying Steve Parkin when our CVA was agreed - surely he was a football-related creditor?
Leeds City Council seem to be refusing to say which way the voted. Democracy eh?</p> But reading between the lines they may have made a deal and voted in favour.</p> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sports-headlines?articleid=2939789</p>
