Home > Football > Why Leeds United and Ken Bates only have themselves to blame
Why Leeds United and Ken Bates only have themselves to blame
Whether the deduction of 15 points from Leeds is right or wrong, the authorities should never have waited until the end of the season before making a decision. Now, the outcome this unseemly mess is likely to involve other clubs as well.
by Graham Fisher on 23 April 2008
Email this Article (57) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
Big savings on football products from boots to balls!
I'm no financial wizard and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of what went on with the finances at Leeds United. I know that the club went into administration at the end of last season and were deducted the obligatory 10 points - it always seems a little unfair to me, but everyone knows it's there.
Because Leeds United Ltd 2007 didn’t set up what is called a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in accordance with Football League rules, the league have then made an arbitrary decision to deduct a further 15 points from the club at the beginning of this season. There was no precedent for the "offence" committed by Leeds so the punishment was decided on this one case.
The club appealed against the punishment and, for one reason or another - either the fault of Leeds or the Football League, depending on who you listen to - the appeal will not be decided until May 1, right at the end of the season.
Whichever way you look at this situation, it is an unseemly mess. It should never have come to this and, once again, the organisers of the beautiful game in this country have been found wanting.
Now, it would seem, the football world is up in arms about the fact that the Football League may well reduce the penalty. The rumour doing the rounds is that the penalty will be reduced from 15 to 10 points. As things stand, that would be an easy way out for the authorities because it would make no difference to the league situation other than changing play-off opponents.
Leeds fans are still up in arms about the points deduction in the first place and can’t understand why the rest of the football world seems to have turned against them.
The facts, such as they are, are that Leeds allegedly bent the rules in relation to the percentage of money paid back to one of their creditors. The other creditors were happy with the arrangement, but one of them wasn’t and they raised a complaint.
The Football League looked into it and found that they actually had the power to stop Leeds United from playing until the debt was cleared. They decided against enforcing that power and allowed Leeds to continue but with a 15-point penalty.
Whether you agree with the outcome or not, that is what these disciplinary committees do. They listen to cases and then make judgements about them. There is a right to appeal, quite properly, and Leeds understandably took up that right. Why on earth it has taken the Football League nine months to hear that appeal is beyond me.
We are now left with a situation in which the decision of the appeal could put Leeds into the automatic promotion places at the expense of a team who thought that, under the known rules, they had done enough to be there themselves. It is ridiculous.
I do not want Leeds to suffer unfairly and if the decision taken by the Football League was a bad one it should be reversed in the interests of justice. That is a matter for cleverer people than me.
However, as a layman looking on, I can’t help but feel that Ken Bates tried to pull a fast one by going into administration immediately after realising that relegation was inevitable in an attempt to suffer the points deduction last season, when it wouldn't matter, rather than this season, when it would.
It seems to me that, if he hadn’t tried to manipulate the system, Leeds would have been deducted 10 points at the beginning of this season and none of this needed to have happened. As hard as it may sound, I tend to think that the powers that be at Leeds only have themselves to blame.
The fans have suffered unfairly and I have huge sympathy for them, but I struggle to sympathise with the club.
Comments (57)
by Richard Coope on April 23, 2008
You don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the case but thought we'd want to read your opinions anyway! Thanks
by Richard Willgoose on April 23, 2008
***Factually incorrect as you will see for yourself if you could be bothered to carry out proper research** The facts, such as they are, are that Leeds allegedly bent the rules in relation to the percentage of money paid back to one of their creditors. The other creditors were happy with the arrangement, but one of them wasn’t and they raised a complaint.
by charlie sammut on April 23, 2008
Leeds should get all their 15 points back.They were already penalised 10 points for going into administration.If they went into administration before the end of the season,good luck to them.They found a loophole and they went trough it.Other clubs who went into administration whould have done the same if they noticed properly what the rules said.Since then they've been changed but at the time those were the rules so Leeds should only get penalised once and not twice.
by London White on April 23, 2008
I have read many pieces like yourselves and may I say yours is one of the very few that is close to the mark. Everyone forgets its Leeds fans that have suffered and it's the Football league who have cocked this one up. They had Leeds with a shotgun to their head when giving the so called golden shareback and Leeds didn't have a option at the time. They have asked way back for a independant hearing but the League have said no until the high court writ was threatened. Also if the Football league has nothing to hide why not agree to a public hearing. I agree it's a mess and it is terrible for the clubs around but we have had to play with the disadvantage all season. Also I thought the talking was done on the pitch, picked up the points, the league never lives. If we get our 15 points back, we will justify the position we end up in and the other teams around will just have to take it cos they just don't have enough points!!!!!
by Richard broomhead on April 23, 2008
You said you were no Financial Wizard well that is the only factual part of your tawdry missive. Before you make yourself look even more stupid get your facts right
by joe g on April 23, 2008
first off, if the football league acted within their powers, then they should have happily let this go to court. they must have somethin to hide if they dont want it to go to court. secondly, we are the first team in history to get a 15 point deduction. and if u add the points together it was 10 for goin into administation and 15 for coming out, we got 25 docked points overall. is that fair? id like to see what happens with the likes of luton bournemouth and rotherham. and with the thing about havin to sign something to not take legal action - if we hadnt have signed the so called document, then there would be no leeds united! we had to sign it to get this far, and continue as a football club! and other clubs like swansea and carlisle and donny, who say we shouldnt have anything back, they are abolsolutley shittin themsens because they no leeds are in the right! and if the deduction is overturned, and was illegal they cannot prevent us gettin them back because we have accumalated 85 points this season. so why cant we have 85 points? it jus shows how good they are if the only way they can get promoted is by handicapin another side...
by Bryan Higgins on April 23, 2008
it is a matter for cleverer people than you! How do you know for fact that Leeds were not forced to go into administration after they were relegated ? After all relegation has serious financial implications on any club, and with the amount of debt Leeds were in administration may have been the only option. But you without enough knowledge on the subject make an assumption that it was intentional. I on the other hand have made no assumtion either way. You may be right about Bates taking Leeds into adminstration after being relegated but by your own admission you do not know for fact, which renders your article a factless assumption.
by Leeds OnTour on April 23, 2008
Thank you for this report - I am a Leeds United Supporter and you have told the case to the best of your ability with a level head on the situation. But, you are saying the Ken Bates pulled a "fast one" implying that he done something wrong takeing the club into Administration last season, when in all fairness there was a loophole there which he jump through which has now been brought to light on to the FL and they have corrected this. I think all Chairman would hvae done the same thing if they had the chance, morally your could think it is wrong but it was well within the rules of the league. As for the creditor who was not happy about being paid back that was HMRC, the other 75% of the creditors were happy with teh 1p in the £1 offer, and it was HMRC who contested this on reasons that their fees should be made back first which was a FL rule until recent years, which is why Leeds United were not able to obtain the CVA. The only way for Leeds United to play football this year was to apply under extreme curimstances which the FL had never had to go through the process before and their ruling was because you dont have a CVA take a -15points at the start of the season or dont play this season. Hope that makes bit more sence on the subject also. But a great report and thank you for giving a just view on the whole situation.
by Heather Ruane on April 23, 2008
If you don't know all the facts you should not make comments blaming Leeds for the situation. You have ignored the fact that the creditor that stopped the CVA was HMRC. The reason they did this was because they object to football creditors being paid in full when they don't. This is a rule imposed by the Football League and Leeds United's ADMINISTRATORS (NOT the club) were only following their rules. HMRC blocked the CVA to make a point as they have done with other clubs in administration since. The Football League have introduced a rule that HMRC object to and that is why Leeds are in the situation they are. They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't! Although Ken Bates chose to put Leeds into administration at the end of last season, he was perfectly within his rights to do so under the rules at that time. He therefore broke no rules nor did he bend them, although granted he did make the Football League look rather slack, which is rather easy judging by the mess we are in now. As for the delay in hearing the arbitration - Leeds have been trying for months to get this sorted and were contstantly blocked by the Football League. We only have an arbitration at all because Leeds served a writ on the Football League, forcing them to act
by Tony Hirst on April 23, 2008
You mentioned the crux of the whole issue, but failed to identify this as the crux. "Why on earth it has taken the Football League nine months to hear that appeal is beyond me" Leeds have been asking for an independent arbitration for 9 months. The football league have been using delaying tactics hoping that the issue would go away! It did not go away, because Leeds have a very bullish chairman! Yes I am a Leeds fan, however if an INDEPENDENT committee would have told us in October that the penalty is fair and just, then I would have accepted it. Similarly if in the next week or so the committee says that the -15 points should stand, again I will accept it. I won't like it but I'll accept it as an independent decision. That is all we have been asking for all along! For some reason the football league only granted this request very recently. The situation is now beyond a joke, it has made a mockery of the football season, and I can funny understand why opposition fans are disgruntled. I can tell you that this whole debacle is doing the Leeds playing staff no good, BUT the blame for this should lie firmly at the feet of the football league. Thank You
by Why Bother?!? on April 23, 2008
The only factually accurate part of this article is where you state that you "don't pretend to know the ins and outs of what went on". When Leeds went into Admin (and therefore when they were imposed the 10pt deduction) is entirely irrelevant to the 15pt issue which are solely about the mechanism by which the administrators (i.e. KPMG) brought the club out of administration.
by William Rose on April 23, 2008
Leeds "BENT" the rules, not Broke them and were penalised accordingly. League One should not have decided amongst themselves to deduct further points. GIVE THEM BACK
by Bob Dobaleena on April 23, 2008
More uninformed Tosh written about Leeds Vs The Football League. The Facts which you seem to know very little about speak for themselves in this case.
by Gary Gash on April 23, 2008
Nonsense. As a publically avaliable letter from the administrators (KMPG) shows Leeds United did not gain financially by not exiting administration via a CVA. You should check your facts before publishing such allegations, don't be suprised when Ken Bates issues you with a writ....
by sdfsf sdfasdf on April 23, 2008
STOP COMMENTING ON THINGS YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOU IDIOT! Why give your opinion on something you have actually researched!.
by dean irwin on April 23, 2008
it would make a difference if we get 10 points back cos that would put us up automatically , as things stand we are 9 points behind carlisle so 10 points and were up to championship
by El Tel on April 23, 2008
Bryan (Higgins) for being one of the first people who have raised the fact that relegation brings with it a heavy financial loss and that loss can mean the difference between staying afloat or going into administration. Why people insist in saying that Leeds 'bent the rules' etc is beyond me. Other clubs have done it during that last game of the season but no-one seems to mind about them!
by nick turner on April 23, 2008
Ill-informed article. Bates did not have a choice whether to go into administration at the end of last season. HRMC had issued a winding up order for the amount of approximately £8 million. He was well within the rules to go into administration at this stage of the season. "The facts, such as they are, are that Leeds allegedly bent the rules in relation to the percentage of money paid back to one of their creditors. The other creditors were happy with the arrangement, but one of them wasn’t and they raised a complaint." The creditor you are referring to HRMC. FL rules state that any club coming out of administration via a CVA must pay football creditors in full. Leeds did this yet the HRMC challenged it and threatened legal action unless they get paid in full. This is the reason why Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham and any future club will fail to exit administration via a CVA - THE HRMC WILL ALWAYS CHALLENGE IT UNLESS THEY ARE PAID IN FULL, THUS MAKING ANY CVA DEFUNCT (clashes with FL rules for CVA). Unfortunately for them, these clubs should have read the facts before voting in favour for a 15 point deduction for this 'rule' break. If Leeds get 0 points back then they will be hit with a 15 point deduction. As the decision is on 1st of May the FL will likely allow them to have their deduction this season which won't matter to Luton or Bournemouth as they are already relegated anyway. If Leeds get 15 points back then they get off scott free (albeit the 10 point deduction for going into administration - at least you grasped the fact that we had this deduction last season, many don't, and think we're appealing against that - much to the dismay of us leeds fans). People must realise we haven't done anything wrong and neither have Luton, Bournemouth or Rotherham, yet no-one seems to hate those clubs as much as Leeds United!
by The Truth on April 23, 2008
Leeds had an agreed CVA (which was subsequently challenged - as is now the policy of HMRC - to challenge all football related CVAs). The Football League Prefer a CVA when coming out of admin (as they see it incorrectly as giving the best return to creditors). It is the Administrators legal responsibility to ensure the best return for creditors (not the Football League). As HMRC now challenge every football related CVA in effect a CVA is unattainable when coming out of admin. For the Football League to insist on an unattainable mechanism is not in the spirit of the sport (and consequently against FA rules). The timing of going into admin has no bearing and isn't relevant. Leeds United broke no rules - unlike the chairmen of the other 90 clubs - who voted at the first appeal in direct contravention to FA rules.
by Graham Fisher on April 23, 2008
I am surprised by the reaction to my article as I thought I had been quite balanced! I have clearly said that if the point deduction was wrong they should give the points back. I have expressed sympathy for the fans and I have expressed concern by how long the league have taken to hear the appeal. I have pointed out that I don't know the facts of the case because that is not relevant to the article. I am not saying whether the points should be given back or not. I certainly don't hate Leeds and I just hope that the right decision is made. I have not said that Ken Bates definitely did anything wrong I have just said that is how it appears to a layman. Good luck for the rest of the season, whatever happens at the appeal.
I think if you changed the title people might be less peeved!
or a wriggle... Read the title of your article again... and then your response to our comments... I have not said Ken Bates definitely did anything wrong..... What on earth is your point ?