Leeds United Thread

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

allow ****ing cheltenham to do the double over us
WTF eh?

I reckon!

Even we can beat them

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

just wait until we get our points back
probably take the same amount of time it took u guys to get a stadium the way the FL are going right now

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

just wait until we get our points back
probably take the same amount of time it took u guys to get a stadium the way the FL are going right now

You won't ever get them back.

It's time to move on from that and focus on the now.

And right now Leeds are Div 1 standard, a division that at present is a pretty even league with anyone from 4th to 14th still in with a show to make the play-offs.

Lots more twists and turns still to come in the season yet

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

You won't ever get them back.

It's time to move on from that and focus on the now.

And right now Leeds are Div 1 standard, a division that at present is a pretty even league with anyone from 4th to 14th still in with a show to make the play-offs.

Lots more twists and turns still to come in the season yet

i thought we;d never get them back either
but it seems the FL are shitting themselves
did everything possible to avoid going to the high court, extremely worried about a legal precedent being set
dont know where the word is coming from, but its all over leeds and other league 1 club boards that the FL offered us 8 points if we drop the arbiration
Bates allegedly rejected it, if true...what an absolute moron

 

[Mr P@H]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Isn't the rule that Leeds start EVERY season with points deducted?

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Isn't the rule that Leeds start EVERY season with points deducted?

a pessimistic leeds fan such as myself says that you are correct and the FL are corrupt *****

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

i thought we;d never get them back either
but it seems the FL are shitting themselves
did everything possible to avoid going to the high court, extremely worried about a legal precedent being set
dont know where the word is coming from, but its all over leeds and other league 1 club boards that the FL offered us 8 points if we drop the arbiration
Bates allegedly rejected it, if true...what an absolute moron

The FL aren't shitting themselves because they have nothing to really lose.

The only ones who come out stinking in the whole saga are Leeds.

Not one other club supports them in their bid, which to me suggests they are well and truly on their own in their thoughts on the matter.

Alot of outsiders views are that Leeds are demanding their points back and yet when creditors wanted their money back from Leeds they ****ed them over.

So really Leeds should have no complaint about anyone ****ing them over when they are guilty of that themselves.

They should cop the small punishment on the chin like other clubs have with points deductions and move on knowing they should be grateful to still have a club to support.

Maybe the rules don't specify that what the FL did was written in concrete, but what is set down is that a team can be expelled from the league for doing what they did.

So in some ways they FL did them a favour by stripping points and not expelling them then and there for the league.

 

[CURVE]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

just wait until we get our points back
probably take the same amount of time it took u guys to get a stadium the way the FL are going right now

Even if you get your points back (and I don't think you will), I don't think it would give you the automatic promotion spot your hoping for. Your current form isn't as solid and consistant as Doncaster and Carlisle, who are in a real dogfight for that second spot, and are the two best performed teams over the last month or so. Doncaster have only lost once since Australia Day, and that was a 1-0 loss at Carlisle, who themselves are on a 6 game winning streak, and have just won their 13th straight at home. They have even closed the gap on Swansea, who have had a pretty dissappointing week.

Good luck for the rest of season, but I think the playoffs are the best you can hope for.

And Go CARLISLE!!

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

The FL aren't shitting themselves because they have nothing to really lose.

The only ones who come out stinking in the whole saga are Leeds.

Not one other club supports them in their bid, which to me suggests they are well and truly on their own in their thoughts on the matter.

Alot of outsiders views are that Leeds are demanding their points back and yet when creditors wanted their money back from Leeds they ****ed them over.

So really Leeds should have no complaint about anyone ****ing them over when they are guilty of that themselves.

They should cop the small punishment on the chin like other clubs have with points deductions and move on knowing they should be grateful to still have a club to support.

Maybe the rules don't specify that what the FL did was written in concrete, but what is set down is that a team can be expelled from the league for doing what they did.

So in some ways they FL did them a favour by stripping points and not expelling them then and there for the league.

im not even going to bother with you on this issue
we've been here before..and your views with this compared to your own clubs carlton are laughable
just for the record
not ALL clubs are against us..10 voted for us..but you dont deal in fact..so forget i wrote it

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Even if you get your points back (and I don't think you will), I don't think it would give you the automatic promotion spot your hoping for. Your current form isn't as solid and consistant as Doncaster and Carlisle, who are in a real dogfight for that second spot, and are the two best performed teams over the last month or so. Doncaster have only lost once since Australia Day, and that was a 1-0 loss at Carlisle, who themselves are on a 6 game winning streak, and have just won their 13th straight at home. They have even closed the gap on Swansea, who have had a pretty dissappointing week.

Good luck for the rest of season, but I think the playoffs are the best you can hope for.

And Go CARLISLE!!

cheers fella
to be honest, i resigned myself to the fact that playoffs were our best bet since wise left
McAlister was a very uninspired choice as a replacement, was more about him being the cheap option.
Given our form, and confidence, id be amazed if we made even a playoff final. Would take a miracle...or us getting all 15 points back for us to go up automatically from here

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

im not even going to bother with you on this issue
we've been here before..and your views with this compared to your own clubs carlton are laughable
just for the record
not ALL clubs are against us..10 voted for us..but you dont deal in fact..so forget i wrote it

Laughable?

Carlton got fined over $1 million, penalised in several drafts and have never gone bankrupt or breached rules on insolvency.

You seem to think Leeds deserve no punishment at all so it seems.

And yes all clubs are against your new action, maybe you need to keep up with football happenings a bit better

You are talking about the few clubs who weren't part of the original 75% + who approved Leeds original points deduction.

But just to bring you up to speed.

Barnsley chairman Gordon Shepherd has insisted they are not supporting Leeds United's fight against their 15 point deduction by the Football League.
An FA letter leaked to the BBC named Barnsley as the only club backing Leeds in their appeal.

But Shepherd told the Yorkshire Post: "I want to disassociate ourselves from this action.

"I have nothing against Leeds United, but this is their fight, not ours," he added.

Leeds were docked points as punishment for going into administration.

Elland Road chairman Ken Bates has since launched a High Court action in a bid to overturn the League's ruling.

The Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney had sent a letter to member clubs in which he said: "Barnsley Football Club has joined Leeds in bringing these proceedings.

"This surprised us, as the first indication we received of any concern on the part of Barnsley in this matter was when we received the claim form."

But Shepherd has moved to distance his club from the High Court legal battle.

He told the Yorkshire Post: "I knew nothing about this until Tuesday night when I received an email from Brian Mawhinney. Immediately I contacted him to say I don't think this is right."

"I had been away from the club for health reasons and maybe this decision was taken during that time. I will do my best to extricate ourselves from this situation," he added.

Leeds claim the League do not have the power to impose a 15-point deduction and that a deduction is unfair and unreasonable.

Mawhinney added the League have instructed their lawyers to "defend the 15-point deduction robustly on behalf of the League and the clubs".

Leeds signed an agreement in August not to take legal proceedings against the League, but they are also arguing in court that this should be declared void and is unenforceable.

BBC Sport

I highlighted the bit you needed to read so that your facts are up to date.

I guess I deal more in facts than you do.

 

[Catman]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

I'm still looking for the 15pt penalty rule in the FL rulebook...

If we're dealing with facts chump, please state the exact rules Leeds have broken.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

I'm still looking for the 15pt penalty rule in the FL rulebook...

If we're dealing with facts chump, please state the exact rules Leeds have broken.

Insolvency rules.

If the FL had chosen to it could have booted Leeds from the competition.

All iv'e heard is what shouldn't have been done by Leeds fans, please tell us what punishment should they have been given?

Considering all along their adminstration has shown nothing but contempt for anyone dealing with them.

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

I'm still looking for the 15pt penalty rule in the FL rulebook...

Look for something like "the league may allow clubs to continue playing without a CVA in exceptional circumstances, at their discretion". Leeds to date (as far as I'm aware) are the only club that has tested the "exceptional circumstances" provision.

If we're dealing with facts chump, please state the exact rules Leeds have broken.

The football league was under no obligation to return your share, and allow the club to continue playing without a CVA in place. None at all. Perhaps they could reverse the 15 point sanction, and revoke your share in the league as they are perfectly entitled to do.

Perhaps a case of it being better to accept that your club haven't been perfect in all of this (to be honest the way Leeds and Bates in particular have dealt with this stinks to high heaven), and maybe it's better to cop your penalty sweet.

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

And this is an interesting write up asking some pertinent questions about the whole situation, from http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2135865,00.html

Leeds United: the unanswered questions

David Conn and Matt Scott
Friday July 27, 2007
The Guardian

The Football League said yesterday it has received further details from the administrator, KPMG, about the sale of Leeds United to a new company, Leeds United 2007 Ltd, owned by the Cayman Islands-registered Forward Sports Fund and chaired by Ken Bates.

The League has so far refused to sign over its "golden share" of membership to this new company, which was not bought via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) agreement of creditors. In all, 41 other Football League clubs have collapsed into insolvency since the Premier League was formed in 1992, and in every previous case, the League has insisted on a CVA being agreed as a condition of transferring its golden share to the new owners.

Ken Bates is now asking the League to treat his company as an exception. Leeds United is at an impasse, with KPMG having sold the assets to the new company, but the League insisting that the players' registrations are still held by the old company until the golden share is transferred to a new owner. As doubts still hang over the club's future, David Conn and Matt Scott pose 20 significant questions about the ownership and running of Leeds, KPMG's handling of the administration, and what happens now.

1 Why did Leeds collapse into insolvency and administration in the first place, with debts of £35.5m, given that Ken Bates, and his solicitor and fellow Leeds United director Mark Taylor, had said during 2006-07 that the club would be in a dramatically better financial position once the season was over and the contracts of high-earning players would come to an end?

2 How did Leeds come to owe £17.7m to three offshore companies, Astor Investment Holdings (registered in the British Virgin Islands), Krato Trust (Nevis Island, the West Indies), and the owner of the club, Forward Sports Fund (the Cayman Islands), and how did the club spend that money?

3 Why was KPMG in such a hurry to sell Leeds United immediately back to the new company, which is also owned by the Forward Sports Fund and chaired by Bates, for 1p in the pound, when the administrators of other clubs have spent months running clubs and publicly seeking the best possible deal for creditors?

4 Who are the owners or beneficiaries of the Forward Sports Fund, Astor Investment Holdings and Krato Trust, and why have they chosen to register their companies in offshore tax havens where they are not legally required to declare their identity?

5 If Leeds United's owners are the anonymous people behind the Forward Sports Fund, how can the Football League be satisfied they pass its "fit and proper person test"?

6 Why have Astor and Krato agreed to waive any repayment of their huge debts so long as the club was re-sold to Forward and Bates, arguing, according to Taylor, that they had faith in the management of the club?

7 Leeds United's 2006 accounts stated that Astor did have "an interest" in the Forward Sports Fund, then at the creditors meeting on June 1, Taylor stated that the interest had been severed last December. How was this done, why, and what evidence was given of it to KPMG?

8 Why was the previous connection between Astor and Forward not mentioned in KPMG's first report to creditors, nor any explanation given of how the connection had been severed?

9 The 2006 accounts also stated that Patrick Murrin, the former Guernsey accountant, Chelsea director and representative of the large, anonymous offshore shareholding in Chelsea during Bates' time in charge, had "an interest" in the Forward Sports Fund. What is Murrin's interest in Forward?

10 The 2006 accounts stated that a company of which Murrin is a shareholder, Rivoli Limited, also registered in Nevis Island, had been paid £186,000 in "consultancy costs" during the year. What consultancy services did Murrin, and Rivoli Ltd, provide to Leeds United Football Club during 2005-06?

11 Why did KPMG allow Forward's and Bates' new company to receive the money for Leeds United season tickets - the company agreeing to refund the money if the club went bust - even though the company has not, still, been granted Football League membership, in apparent contravention of FA rules?

12 How has the money, around £4m, received from the 10,000 season tickets which the club say they have sold to their long-suffering fans, been used?

13 KPMG says it did "extensive work" to verify the claims of money owed to Leeds United creditors, while HM Revenue and Customs challenged the CVA, which narrowly approved the first sale, on the grounds of "material irregularities", arguing partly with the levels of debt claimed. So how much investigation did KPMG carry out into the club's debts?

14 Why did the club owe their own company Yorkshire Radio, of which Bates and Taylor are also directors, £480,000, and why was this debt first revealed only in the final voting at the creditors meeting, not in the initial statement of debts issued by KPMG?

15 When KPMG responded to HMRC's legal challenge to the CVA by announcing it was selling the club again, this time without going through a CVA, why did it give bidders less than three working days to make their offers, and no access to detailed financial information?

16 On what basis did Bates and Forward win the bid for the club the second time, and how did their offer beat those of other bidders, and why did KPMG agree to sell the club without being satisfied that the League would grant this company the "golden share" membership of the League?

17 Why has Forward's and Bates' new company not paid the players for the month of June?

18 What did KPMG actually sell to Forward's and Bates' new company if, as the League insists, players' registrations remain with the old company until any new company is awarded the "golden share"?

19 Why have Bates and Taylor apparently not yet obtained the permission of a court to act as directors of the new Leeds United Football Club Ltd, as required by s216 of the Insolvency Act, because both were directors of a company with the same name, which went into liquidation last year?

20 Why should the Football League make an exception for Leeds and grant Forward's and Bates' new company its "golden share" of membership despite the purchase not having been done via a CVA, given that the League has insisted on the CVA process for all 41 of its other clubs which have fallen into insolvency since 1992?

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Laughable?

Carlton got fined over $1 million, penalised in several drafts and have never gone bankrupt or breached rules on insolvency.

You seem to think Leeds deserve no punishment at all so it seems.

And yes all clubs are against your new action, maybe you need to keep up with football happenings a bit better

You are talking about the few clubs who weren't part of the original 75% + who approved Leeds original points deduction.

But just to bring you up to speed.



I highlighted the bit you needed to read so that your facts are up to date.

I guess I deal more in facts than you do.

i refuse to go through this with you again
if u want too..go back and read the earlier pages in the thread
we had you on toast...with your laughable argument, until Kompany finally put you in your place, and your regular thread to talk shit in was washed away and you packed up and left
got bored with other things and decided to come back though so it seems...
cheers

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

just to add..if u do go back and decide to read..i never said we didnt deserve any punishment..
but in reference to moombas article...not much to argue with
we know bates is a crook..but the process by which the whole thing took place stinks..and the FL are knee deep in it
Who in their right mind would ask the other 72 clubs in the FL what the outcome should be for a Football club
Example..The AFL asks every club at the end of last year, Should Carlton get the priority Draft pick?
Hmm i wonder how the other 15 clubs will react

Anyway..rambling off topic

Youre dead right Moomba, the golden share is the critical point
The problem is this
The FL and HMRC are at logger heads about the who should be paid first argument in terms of creditors being paid.
HMRC were taking us to court..they would never have won, as FL rules state footballing debts are to be paid in full first
This court case was to start in September, a month after the season started, and we couldnt bring it forward at all
Without their approval, we couldnt go through with the CVA and thus obtain the golden share the proper way
i.e we couldnt start the season.
The FL refused to step in, as their r'ship witht he HMRC is already at breaking point.
So we had a choice, dont take part in season 07/08 and eventually see the HMRC no doubt drop the court case..they were doing it out of angst
OR
We could not go through the CVA, take part in the 07/08 season and presume the FL, full well knowing how much the HMRC were screwing us, would employ the exceptional circumstances rule and allow us to take part..
No doubt we should of penalised (note-bolded for those who support brighton)
But to pull out a 15 point sanction, out of nowhere, with the backing of clubs (laughable process), is just plain wrong.
The punishment should have been 5 points maximum, and the club to keep a wage bill of less than 1 million pounds and no transfer money.
The FL would be able to put their own man in there and ensure all profits were going to football creditors.
5 points shouldve been a maximum, with expulsion there as a suspended sentance sort of thing if we break any of the rules put in place over the handing over of the golden share
The FL couldve done this, they didnt, Mahwinney is the most corrupt man in England, his smugness following the whole affair was disgraceful

Still dont think we'll get anything back, and for the record, the FL are shitting themselves.
They have plenty to lose out of this, if the arbitration found that their processes in all this were a complete and utter farce, they lose a bit of face..
Anyway, just to re-iterate, cannot dispute anything in the article Moomba posted
Finally- Get the Chelsea out of leeds

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Leading sports lawyer Richard Kramer believes Leeds United have a "25-30% chance" of having their 15-point penalty overturned.
An arbitration panel will decide on the Football League's sanction to dock Leeds points in mid-April.

Kramer told BBC Radio Leeds: "A few weeks ago I thought it was bleak.

"But having seen the legal documents I think the prospects have improved. I think there's probably a 25-30% chance of winning."

Leeds are appealing against the Football League's decision to dock them points on the eve of the season for breaching their rules on insolvency.

They issued a High Court writ against the Football League, which has been frozen while the matter is heard by an arbitration panel.

Probably the biggest hurdle is that Leeds actually signed a document to say they would take the Golden Share but they would accept the 15-point deduction


Sports lawyer Richard Kramer

The hearing will be held in private in front of a neutral Court of Appeal judge, and one representative each from Leeds and the Football League.

United are arguing that the penalty imposed by the League was unlawful, that the decision by the other clubs to dismiss Leeds' subsequent appeal against the sanction was also unlawful, that the 15-point penalty was a disproportionate sanction and that the League have punished the club for the conduct of its administrators, KPMG.

Neither Leeds nor the Football League have commented, but Kramer has seen the original High Court writ, which is a public document.

"Although the actual arbitration proceedings are the subject of confidentiality, as night follows day what's in that legal document at the High Court will form the basis for the legal argument at the arbitration," said Kramer.

606: DEBATE
Leeds United: Have your say

"It's a very well presented case, and Leeds United have clearly worked very hard, which is not surprising as there's a huge amount at stake.

"There are significant hurdles to overcome. Probably the biggest hurdle is that Leeds actually signed a document to say they would take the Golden Share [a membership of the Football League which every club must have in order to compete] but they would accept the 15-point deduction.

"It's a tough one for the arbitration panel. I think where Leeds have got some comfort is that it's my understanding that the three-man panel is chaired by a very senior High Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge, so there's going to be some sanity to the arbitration proceedings and I think they will apply a legalistic approach to them."

Even if Leeds do not get all 15 points returned, Kramer believes that they could get some of them back.

He added: "They may carve it up - they might say 'Well hold on, 15 points is too much, we've got to give them something' and bring it down to eight,seven or six."

Interesting

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

but the process by which the whole thing took place stinks..and the FL are knee deep in it
Who in their right mind would ask the other 72 clubs in the FL what the outcome should be for a Football club

League rules. You got the penalty, you appealed and the avenue to appeal is to the other league clubs. Might not be ideal, but that is how is happens.

The FL and HMRC are at logger heads about the who should be paid first argument in terms of creditors being paid.
HMRC were taking us to court..they would never have won, as FL rules state footballing debts are to be paid in full first
This court case was to start in September, a month after the season started, and we couldnt bring it forward at all
Without their approval, we couldnt go through with the CVA and thus obtain the golden share the proper way
i.e we couldnt start the season.
The FL refused to step in, as their r'ship witht he HMRC is already at breaking point.
So we had a choice, dont take part in season 07/08 and eventually see the HMRC no doubt drop the court case..they were doing it out of angst
OR

We could not go through the CVA, take part in the 07/08 season and presume the FL, full well knowing how much the HMRC were screwing us, would employ the exceptional circumstances rule and allow us to take part..

So why announce then that you were not going to enter into a CVA after the court case sorts itself out. Why have you not entered into a CVA now? I'd reckon that you could have negotiated a reduced (or suspended) penalty if you said that you were prepared to pay your debts pending a court case.

But to pull out a 15 point sanction, out of nowhere, with the backing of clubs (laughable process), is just plain wrong.
The punishment should have been 5 points maximum, and the club to keep a wage bill of less than 1 million pounds and no transfer money.
The FL would be able to put their own man in there and ensure all profits were going to football creditors.
5 points shouldve been a maximum, with expulsion there as a suspended sentance sort of thing if we break any of the rules put in place over the handing over of the golden share

Why 5 points maximum, IMO what you did is worse than the act of going into administration. And while while you are arguing that the penalty should have been 5 points maximum I can't see how you are also arguing that their is no provision in the rules for a points penalty.

The FL couldve done this, they didnt, Mahwinney is the most corrupt man in England, his smugness following the whole affair was disgraceful

I don't know too much him, but I thought he acted quite appropriately at the time. I'm sure Leeds supporters will all think differently, but from a neutral standpoint I thought that he did what he had to do.

Still dont think we'll get anything back, and for the record, the FL are shitting themselves.

They have plenty to lose out of this, if the arbitration found that their processes in all this were a complete and utter farce, they lose a bit of face.

From what I've seen I don't think they're shitting themselves. Sure a loss would be an embarrassment, and they would probably need to re-write their rules. It would also mean that Leeds have effectively got through administration and refusal to enter into a CVA without any meaningful penalty at all, which would be a disgrace.

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Interesting

I believe Leeds also signed a document saying that they wouldn't take the decision through the legal system. I reckon 15 points penalty at the start of next season would be in order if that is the case and they do continue with their case.

Interestingly an old Leeds person Gerald Krasner is the current administrator of Bournemouth. He is talking about the fact that their CVA must be agreed in order to accept a further points penalty according to the league rules.

Seems he's still fairly sure that the rules are in place to do that.

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

becuase without the CVA we were not able to start the season
and in accordance with running a company, for us to start the season the share had to be sold to the new company for us to play
we cannot then enter a CVA on the new company, would be a farce..

 

[drewie_rama]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

I believe Leeds also signed a document saying that they wouldn't take the decision through the legal system. I reckon 15 points penalty at the start of next season would be in order if that is the case and they do continue with their case.

Interestingly an old Leeds person Gerald Krasner is the current administrator of Bournemouth. He is talking about the fact that their CVA must be agreed in order to accept a further points penalty according to the league rules.

Seems he's still fairly sure that the rules are in place to do that.

Dont believe anything Krasner says, ive read documents from friends of mine in Leeds who use to be acquatinces of his..
he is nothing but a crook, in it for the dollar and nothing else
The cost/payout he took from Leeds after he ran us into the ground even further was a disgrace

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

becuase without the CVA we were not able to start the season
and in accordance with running a company, for us to start the season the share had to be sold to the new company for us to play
we cannot then enter a CVA on the new company, would be a farce..

But you indicated that you were no longer prepared to enter into a CVA.

If you had said to the league that you were still committed to paying your debts, and entering into an arrangement once the HMR&C case was settled I'm sure you could have negotiated a reduced or suspended penalty.

But you didn't, you picked up your bat and ball and said that you weren't going to play any more. What do you expect the league to do in circumstances where one of it's member clubs just flat out refuses to try and meet a condition that has been a requirement of the return of the golden share on each occasion previously.

 

[moomba]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

Dont believe anything Krasner says, ive read documents from friends of mine in Leeds who use to be acquatinces of his..
he is nothing but a crook, in it for the dollar and nothing else
The cost/payout he took from Leeds after he ran us into the ground even further was a disgrace

That I agree with (and think I might have posted that at the time).

Has anyone ever seen him and Avram Grant in the same room?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Re: Leeds United Thread 07/08

i refuse to go through this with you again
if u want too..go back and read the earlier pages in the thread
we had you on toast...with your laughable argument, until Kompany finally put you in your place, and your regular thread to talk shit in was washed away and you packed up and left
got bored with other things and decided to come back though so it seems...
cheers

Try and keep up.

Nobody is supporting your appeal, fact.

Even when you are presented with up to date links you still avoid them.

The only ones on toast are Leeds because for some reasons they seem intent on always being run by crooks.