http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17232625 Why should Birmingham be allowed to wait until after the playoffs before posting their accounts? If they don't get promoted and go the way of Portsmouth into administration, why should they have been allowed to occupy a play-off berth. They have made a mockery of the rules by signing 3 players in advance of this action. What sanction would Leeds have received in the same circumstances?
I think wait and see what the results are and then hit them if they have done something wrong. If they miss out on the playoffs and stay in the division and have done something which warrants a points deduction give it to them for the start of next season. Can't complain too much about them signing three players in anticipation when we have that crook Bates in charge.
Its called playing the rules to your benefit, the same way we did when we went into admin once we were definately relegated.
We did not affect other clubs and supporters doing what we did. Yet look what they did to us. Birmingham are going to take a place in the playoff's they do not deserve.
Only because we were relegated anyway, if we had stayed up we would not have gone into admin until the following season and thus bending the rules to stay in the same division and another team who were working within their financial limits to be relagated.
one rule for the rest of football and one for us, we never have been an estblishment club and never will
For which you should be grateful, the rules said you should have joined the bottom of the league pyramid, instead you got a very charitable few points.
I'm amazed you feel the need to ask. It was a matter of much concern to informed Leeds fans at the time. Background: Bates scrapped oldco Leeds; Golden share
Ken Bates is a crook, I can't stand the guy, the sooner he is out of Leeds the better... However you cannot provide a link that states Leeds Utd should not have been given back 'the golden share'. No matter what crook Bates did the FA were satisfied enough to allow Leeds to continue with a points deduction. There is not a rule written down that states the punishment for what we did as a club warranted starting on the bottom tier of football. If there is please link to it.
Well if you want to believe that and can't use google that's your prerogative. As a simple summary of the situation that was well documented at the time, Bates gambled when he shifted all the assets to newco, leaving nothing but the right to play football with the old co. It left what you would recognise as a football club with all the bits needed, but no more authority to play in the league than you and a dozen mates. The golden share was left with the old co that bates and the 'club' no longer had any association to. The FA were far from happy with the situation, but as an act of charity agreed to transfer the share subject to caveats, some of which Bates later tried to ignore. As I put, you should be eternally grateful for the charity the FA bestowed on you by bending the rules and allowing leeds to become a franchise ala MKDons.
Total crap,they used a technicality to punish us twice,the start at the bottom is only for clubs going into liquidation not Administration like Chester.
As a moderator I would expect you to get your facts right, very disappointing drivel and assumption on your part. PS. Back on subject, Birmingham's actions are far more likely to effect your club than Leeds, but I take it you won't mind seeing Birmingham take a / the last play off position at Hull's expense?
I suppose scrapping a club and then turning up with a dozen blokes and a patch of grass and expecting to play in the league is a technicality, yes. I reckon these 'technicalities' help make the rickety system run that bit smoother though. i sort of understand why you'd prefer the blame to lay elsewhere, but it doesn't. Instead of trying to make TWS the victims, you should look to see where funding delusions and testing the system meant any special treatment received was favourable in the extreme.
Bates gambled and for a period of time the leeds that had been playing ceased to have any players, ground or infrastructure, they'd been transferred to a new regime and all links to the old one cut. That regime had no right to play in the league. It's a ****ty situation and I can see why you'd prefer to hide it, but there it is. Well discussed and documented at the time to. As for the brum situation,I would expect the FA to be as weak and ineffectual as ever. IF we go up, i'd rather feel we did it on merit than because someone else was so sad and desperate they need to cheat or lie in the hope of vicarious glory.
Repeating the same assumption over and over does not make it a fact, if its so well documented then prove it... PS. Are you happy with Birmingham waiting till after the playoff's to decide to post their accounts, if it costs Hull 6th place or if they beat you in the playoffs?
