Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Leeds in bother again









Psychobilly freakout

Psychobilly freakout

HellBilly
Feb 23, 2009
22,976
Brighton factually.....
Leeds United served with winding-up petition

Leeds United have been served with a winding-up petition by law firm Ford & Warren Solicitors over unpaid fees.
The fees, which date back to when former Chelsea chairman Ken Bates, 82, owned the Championship club, amount to about £150,000.
The petition is set to be heard at Leeds Combined Court on 13 January.
Bates sold Leeds to GFH Capital in December 2012 before Italian businessman Massimo Cellino bought a majority share in April 2014.
Nick Collins, senior partner at Ford & Warren, told BBC Radio Leeds: "This is not a dispute with Mr Cellino. This is something he has inherited from the previous ownership of the club.
"We bear no ill-will towards Mr Cellino and we wish him well. I genuinely hope we can resolve this amicably but we must do what is necessary to protect our clients' position."
The Elland Road side are currently 17th in the Championship, with no wins in their last eight matches.
 








perseus

perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,456
Sūþseaxna
Can't Pay, Won't Pay!

Send in the High Court Sheriff.
 


Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,638
West west west Sussex
Cellino has a lot more than a petty winding up order to worry about.

They are 17th in the division.
Tomorrow will be their 17th league game.
They are current on 17 points.
They have scored 17 goals.

Cellino is going bat-pooh crazy.
 


Barry Izbak

Barry Izbak

U.T.A.
Dec 7, 2005
7,320
Lancing By Sea
Poll:
  • Huge Club?
  • Pride of Yarksher ?
  • Fans Deluded ?
 




carlzeiss

carlzeiss

Well-known member
May 19, 2009
5,843
Amazonia
“On Thursday I am going to the bank and I will buy our stadium. I have the funds to buy Leeds and to run Leeds.” Massimo Cellino 5 Feb 2014

"We will buy the stadium before November 100%" Massimo Cellino 2 Aug 2014
 


Everest

Everest

Me
Jul 5, 2003
20,741
Southwick
carlzeiss said:
“On Thursday I am going to the bank and I will buy our stadium. I have the funds to buy Leeds and to run Leeds.” Massimo Cellino 5 Feb 2014

"We will buy the stadium before November 100%" Massimo Cellino 2 Aug 2014
Click to expand...

"Don't worry. This is just a temporary glitch. It will all be sorted next week." Massimo Cellino 7 Nov 2014 This may not be true

When will the "Oh ****" come?
 






G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,336
Uffern
Brovion said:
Yeah, he did didn't he? Then he appealed and, surprise surprise, won. Like FFP that "owners and directors" test is utterly useless.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he won because the grounds for his being not fit to own no longer applied ie his conviction was quashed.

I don't want to stick up for the FL but I imagine that wording a clause that precludes the very dodgy is extremely difficult. At the moment, it applies to convicted criminals which you may think is too restrictive but if you make it too general, you'd catch all the chancers but then find it could be applied to those people whose assets are outside the UK or whose source of wealth is unclear, for example, Tony Bloom
 


Brighton TID

Brighton TID

New member
Jul 24, 2005
1,741
Horsham
carlzeiss said:
“On Thursday I am going to the bank and I will buy our stadium. I have the funds to buy Leeds and to run Leeds.” Massimo Cellino 5 Feb 2014

"We will buy the stadium before November 100%" Massimo Cellino 2 Aug 2014
Click to expand...

Sounds like enough hot air to lift a hot air balloon full of gullability.
 






B

Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,356
Gwylan said:
To be fair, he won because the grounds for his being not fit to own no longer applied ie his conviction was quashed.

I don't want to stick up for the FL but I imagine that wording a clause that precludes the very dodgy is extremely difficult. At the moment, it applies to convicted criminals which you may think is too restrictive but if you make it too general, you'd catch all the chancers but then find it could be applied to those people whose assets are outside the UK or whose source of wealth is unclear, for example, Tony Bloom
Click to expand...
Wasn't it not so much his conviction was 'quashed' as he argued that he actually hadn't been convicted of anything 'bad'? (Wasn't it something to do with avoiding import duty on a yacht? Doing this from memory so I could be wrong). And with regard to wording I disagree, I don't think it's too difficult, for the League to say "it's our competition and we don't like you'. It would take balls though, after all, there would be nothing to stop him from actually owning the club, but the league could stop Leeds from competing in their competitions. And yes, I'm well aware of the can of worms that could open up, that's why it would take balls.
 


AZ Gull

AZ Gull

@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Oct 14, 2003
11,695
Chandler, AZ
Brovion said:
Wasn't it not so much his conviction was 'quashed' as he argued that he actually hadn't been convicted of anything 'bad'? (Wasn't it something to do with avoiding import duty on a yacht? Doing this from memory so I could be wrong). And with regard to wording I disagree, I don't think it's too difficult, for the League to say "it's our competition and we don't like you'. It would take balls though, after all, there would be nothing to stop him from actually owning the club, but the league could stop Leeds from competing in their competitions. And yes, I'm well aware of the can of worms that could open up, that's why it would take balls.
Click to expand...

In the NBA, if three-quarters of the other owners vote accordingly, they can actually force an owner of a club to revoke ownership under certain circumstances:-

Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, NBA owners also have the right, by three-fourths vote, to revoke ownership if an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."
Click to expand...
 


G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,336
Uffern
Brovion said:
Wasn't it not so much his conviction was 'quashed' as he argued that he actually hadn't been convicted of anything 'bad'? (Wasn't it something to do with avoiding import duty on a yacht? Doing this from memory so I could be wrong). And with regard to wording I disagree, I don't think it's too difficult, for the League to say "it's our competition and we don't like you'. It would take balls though, after all, there would be nothing to stop him from actually owning the club, but the league could stop Leeds from competing in their competitions. And yes, I'm well aware of the can of worms that could open up, that's why it would take balls.
Click to expand...

He was convicted of not paying import duty on a yacht, which meant he failed the 'fit and proper' test, the conviction was over-turned on appeal, which meant he passed the test.

Yes, the league could "We don't like you" but if it's not based on any hard and fast rules what's to stop them saying to us "We don't like Tony Bloom, get rid of him or you're out of all competitions"? It's not a question of balls, it's a question of framing the wording exactly. Convicted criminals (whose convictions aren't spent) are already banned but it would be really, really hard to word it so only dodgy geezers are stopped
 






B

Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,356
Gwylan said:
He was convicted of not paying import duty on a yacht, which meant he failed the 'fit and proper' test, the conviction was over-turned on appeal, which meant he passed the test.

Yes, the league could "We don't like you" but if it's not based on any hard and fast rules what's to stop them saying to us "We don't like Tony Bloom, get rid of him or you're out of all competitions"? It's not a question of balls, it's a question of framing the wording exactly. Convicted criminals (whose convictions aren't spent) are already banned but it would be really, really hard to word it so only dodgy geezers are stopped
Click to expand...
Well nothing except common sense. I still have sufficient faith in human nature that members of an Ethics committee would look at TB and his legal history, look at Cellino, and decide that one was 'fit and proper' and one wasn't. If the rules were hard and fast then there will always be loopholes to be exploited.

Currently I don't know why they even bother having the test, except to provide an excuse so that they can say they are doing 'something' to keep rogues out of football.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here