The debate: were Leeds unfairly punished?
With each passing week, the Football League�s decision to dock Leeds United 15 points appears less impressive. The club, now bottom of the table with minus six points, have achieved results in their first three matches that would have placed them top on goal difference. If Leeds broke league rules, punishment should have been administered by an independent body. The idea that 71 vested interests, the chairmen of the other clubs, sat around the table giving the thumbs up or thumbs down to such a draconian penalty is entirely flawed.
Lord Mawhinney, the chairman, has political ambitions within football, but cannot expect to be taken seriously after this. No voter in his room was free from motive, even aside from any personal animosity towards Ken Bates, the Leeds chairman. What the club�s 23 rivals in Coca-Cola League One would gain is obvious, but those in League Two may have fancied the additional revenue of Leeds�s travelling support if their team dropped again, while Championship chairmen can do without another potentially big player jostling for Barclays Premier League status. The few that felt moved to back Leeds may have feared one day being caught by the same net.
Say what you like about the Premier League, but the controversial Carlos T�vez hearing was conducted by independent parties, with no potential for gain from the final decision. We may not agree with the outcome or the reasoning behind it, but we must acknowledge the basic integrity of the process. Leeds, meanwhile, have been stitched up by an alliance of self-interest and, out of an attempt to uphold standards, the Football League has contrived to lose credibility by tainting its competition before the start.




!
, I
can see you guys in the play offs at least, to replace my team:(

Good call,see you next year,though
I can see us making the play offs. So who knows?