krissyboy31 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Brian Mawhinney is to stand down as Football League Chairman in March. Good riddance, arrogant tos5er!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 why is it good riddance...did we not deserve a 10 point penalty..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Be lovely if its after the JPT Final at Wenbley....and we got there....and won it ! Be the second year running he would have to present the trophy to a club he **** on Here's hoping ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 why is it good riddance...did we not deserve a 10 point penalty..? Maybe, maybe not......I think its the fact he announced it with a smirk on his face rather than the penalty which upset so many people. Oh and then this no right to appeal business........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Maybe, maybe not......I think its the fact he announced it with a smirk on his face rather than the penalty which upset so many people. Oh and then this no right to appeal business........ was that for deffo..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickfinks Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 was that for deffo..? pure speculation and old news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 was that for deffo..? dont know, hence the "......" But the first bit about him smirking is 100% true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 12 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 12 November, 2009 was that for deffo..? He actually said it (even though Pinnacle used it as an excuse). If we had been allowed to appeal I'm pretty sure ML and NC would have. They may not have won but it would have been worth a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Brilliant! Don't usually slag people off online, but the guy's a totally unprincipled fork-tongued ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I miss you Puggy. And good riddance Mawhin-ninney sissy girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker268 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 why is it good riddance...did we not deserve a 10 point penalty..? I think we did deserve it under the rules, but it is the rules that need changing. The people affected by the penalty are the fans and the players, not those that actually cause any club to go into admin. It is the same across the board, its the fans who are hurt not those responsible, the penalty should apply to the directors It should also just be a straight 10point deduction, (if at all) not a if you stay up we deduct you 10 now if you go down it will start next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oxfordshire_saint Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 It should also just be a straight 10point deduction, (if at all) not a if you stay up we deduct you 10 now if you go down it will start next year. That was the bit that stuck in the throat, there was no way of us avoiding the penalty, but the way he went about it seemed like he was trying to put us out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I miss you Puggy. Well you're the one who moved in with Ponty. Gaarr!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Maybe, maybe not......I think its the fact he announced it with a smirk on his face rather than the penalty which upset so many people. Oh and then this no right to appeal business........ This is just a figment of people's imagination. Much like the countless weeks of people saying we were definitely definitely definitely going to get more than ten points deducted. Definitely. And we didn't. The ten point penalty was correct and deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 This is just a figment of people's imagination. Much like the countless weeks of people saying we were definitely definitely definitely going to get more than ten points deducted. Definitely. And we didn't. The ten point penalty was correct and deserved. Don't disagree with that! But Mawhinney did come across as a supercilious toad while he was announcing it. You might say it had all the endearing charm of a Rupert press conference when he was at his arrogant best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 All peers should be rounded up and boiled in oil......Mawhinney first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I think the Luton fans gave him what he deserved at last years JPT final. This years final is 28 Marchand according to the BBC website he steps down on 15 March so no fun there, then should our Wembley dream come true ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macthesaint Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Good riddance to the non footballing leech. Fantastic when Luton won that and booed him. Summed up the prat when he blanked Nick Owen at the JPT final and sat with the Scunnie chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Saints Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 He is a **** of the highest order. The way he smirked all the way through that interview on Sky when we went into administration will live with me for a long time. Tos5er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 That was the bit that stuck in the throat, there was no way of us avoiding the penalty, but the way he went about it seemed like he was trying to put us out of business. i presume the "he" you are referring to is the to$$er who put us into admin a few days after the deadline for the carry-over penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 This is just a figment of people's imagination. Much like the countless weeks of people saying we were definitely definitely definitely going to get more than ten points deducted. Definitely. And we didn't. The ten point penalty was correct and deserved. Agreed but denying us the right to appeal (allegedly) is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 why is it good riddance...did we not deserve a 10 point penalty..? Yes, thanks to tosser Lowe's stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippysaint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 the man is a c**t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 i presume the "he" you are referring to is the to$$er who put us into admin a few days after the deadline for the carry-over penalty? Yes, thanks to tosser Lowe's stupidity. I thought Lowe put our sister company into administration not the football club? Did he (Lowe) not try to use the same loophole that Derby used to success some years ago? Being denied a right of appeal shows what a tw*t that Lord Mal Whingebag was even if we deserved the points deduction. Good riddance I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 In what other industry does the chairman of the industry body not do everything in his power to protect his members, and instead takes pleasure in making them suffer? I was at Wembley with the Luton fans last season. The stadium guys even tried to drown out the 30,000 boos by turning up the music. Pathetic for a pathetic man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 He's a **** for what he did to Luton, so that Sky interview just topped it all off. Definitely good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareham saint phil Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 People can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the 10 points, It was the smug way he delivered the news and the pleasure he took in it that means hes a **** of the highest order, kick someone when they were down and not give them any help and assistance only a lead weight when drowning, if we get there and he's there then i will enjoy boo-ing the **** loudly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Mr Smirker from Smirksville smirking at the smirkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 People can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the 10 points, It was the smug way he delivered the news and the pleasure he took in it that means hes a **** of the highest order, kick someone when they were down and not give them any help and assistance only a lead weight when drowning, if we get there and he's there then i will enjoy boo-ing the **** loudly It was like the bank manager charging when you are overdrawn, he had the same look of satisfaction on his face as he made things even worse for us. He definitely looked like he was enjoying passing the sentence to much for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 so, he may or may not have been smug..? hmm, no one can see the bigger picture here on why we HAD to get the 10 point penalty.. such short sightedness is rife in football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 This is just a figment of people's imagination. Much like the countless weeks of people saying we were definitely definitely definitely going to get more than ten points deducted. Definitely. And we didn't. The ten point penalty was correct and deserved. But he still had to widen the scope of the rules to make it stick - and insist on denying Southampton the right of appeal. Hardly natural justice, is it? And if something is 'deserved', then surely that implies that Mawhinney be consistent. In which case, Bates would not still be at Leeds (for 'misremembering' that he's not actually the owner, despite claiming he was); Briatore would not still be at QPR (it seems an open-and-shut case under the FL's own rules that he should be banned from part-ownership of a FL club); and Notts County wouldn't still be getting away with the claim that their ownership is transparent, when in fact it's lost in a fog of tax-haven companies whose personnel were photographed last week doing deals in North Korea.) Mawhinney has been a disaster. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 But he still had to widen the scope of the rules to make it stick - and insist on denying Southampton the right of appeal. Hardly natural justice, is it? And if something is 'deserved', then surely that implies that Mawhinney be consistent. In which case, Bates would not still be at Leeds (for 'misremembering' that he's not actually the owner, despite claiming he was); Briatore would not still be at QPR (it seems an open-and-shut case under the FL's own rules that he should be banned from part-ownership of a FL club); and Notts County wouldn't still be getting away with the claim that their ownership is transparent, when in fact it's lost in a fog of tax-haven companies whose personnel were photographed last week doing deals in North Korea.) Mawhinney has been a disaster. Good riddance. he has not been a disaster at all...how many lower league clubs have gone bust and disapeared..? isnt the CCC the 5th biggest league in europe..? (or something like that) he has done huge amounts for distribution of wealth in the lower leagues with the little money the football league get... all of that with the aftermath of the ITV digital fiasco we deserved admin, we deserved the -10..... get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 he has not been a disaster at all...how many lower league clubs have gone bust and disapeared..? isnt the CCC the 5th biggest league in europe..? (or something like that) he has done huge amounts for distribution of wealth in the lower leagues with the little money the football league get... all of that with the aftermath of the ITV digital fiasco we deserved admin, we deserved the -10..... get over it So you're just ignoring the points I've made then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 So you're just ignoring the points I've made then? they are your opinions....what I have posted have actually happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 they are your opinions....what I have posted have actually happened So it's my 'opinion' that Bates isn't the owner of Leeds United? That Briatore is in breach of the FL's rules about being banned from another sport? That Notts Co's ownership is concealed behind Qadbak, an offshore company - and this somehow passes the 'fit and proper test'? Again, why simply ignore what I wrote? And by the way, I made no comment on whether the penalty was deserved or not. I was making the case for Mawhinney being the same old manipulative schemer he was when he was a politician. If rules are rules, they should be applied consistently. He has signally failed to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OfnPanad Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 people can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the 10 points, it was the smug way he delivered the news and the pleasure he took in it that means hes a **** of the highest order, kick someone when they were down and not give them any help and assistance only a lead weight when drowning, if we get there and he's there then i will enjoy boo-ing the **** loudly big +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 So it's my 'opinion' that Bates isn't the owner of Leeds United? That Briatore is in breach of the FL's rules about being banned from another sport? That Notts Co's ownership is concealed behind Qadbak, an offshore company - and this somehow passes the 'fit and proper test'? Again, why simply ignore what I wrote? And by the way, I made no comment on whether the penalty was deserved or not. I was making the case for Mawhinney being the same old manipulative schemer he was when he was a politician. If rules are rules, they should be applied consistently. He has signally failed to that. Well said Verbal and yes Delldays has ignored your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 they are your opinions....what I have posted have actually happened No what actually happened was our sister company went into administration not the football club, we tried to use the loophole that Derby used many years ago, however we did deserve the 10 point penalty. What was wrong was not being able to appeal if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
September Saint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 why is it good riddance...did we not deserve a 10 point penalty..? Probably not 1. Because other teams have (unfairly, in my opinion) been given penalty points doesn't mean we have to feel guilty about not having them 2. I think we were within the letter of the law when we said it was SHL in administration not SFC. The poorly drafted regulations seemed to be retrospectively amended 3. I also think we were not allowed to appeal because it would have shown the FL to have acted illegely. We should seek a judicial review of this. 4. Like Rupert he may have done some good work for his organisation but will always be remembered by most for his smug arrogance. 5. There is a feeling he got the post because of his connections. I'm certain the job description didn't ask for a third rate failed politician in need of gainful employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 No what actually happened was our sister company went into administration not the football club, we tried to use the loophole that Derby used many years ago, however we did deserve the 10 point penalty. What was wrong was not being able to appeal if that was the case. the football club and our "sister" company were linked...of course they were...lol were we DEFFINATELY unable to appeal..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Probably not 1. Because other teams have (unfairly, in my opinion) been given penalty points doesn't mean we have to feel guilty about not having them 2. I think we were within the letter of the law when we said it was SHL in administration not SFC. The poorly drafted regulations seemed to be retrospectively amended 3. I also think we were not allowed to appeal because it would have shown the FL to have acted illegely. We should seek a judicial review of this. 4. Like Rupert he may have done some good work for his organisation but will always be remembered by most for his smug arrogance. 5. There is a feeling he got the post because of his connections. I'm certain the job description didn't ask for a third rate failed politician in need of gainful employment. I'm in complete agreement with every point. IMO there was a loophole that we exploited. Because the implications of letting us get away with it were large, Mawhinney stopped us dead in our tracks by blackmail, threatening us that if we appealed, the penalty might have been much greater. I wholeheartedly concur that he is the consumate failed politician, relying on old school tie contacts to place him in employment that he is neither qualified for, or suited to. Politicans should stay well away from sport. As for Mawhinney, I hope that he just disappears off the radar, never to be heard of again until his obituary in the Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 No what actually happened was our sister company went into administration not the football club, we tried to use the loophole that Derby used many years ago, however we did deserve the 10 point penalty. What was wrong was not being able to appeal if that was the case. Surely it was out parent company not our sister company. Its only the Skates where your sister is your parent or vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 There's a wonderful irony in the Football League's position that it can't act against Briatore yet because he is appealing the FIA's decision in the French High Court. That would be the very same kind of appeal that we should have had, if we'd wanted it. If the notoriously dictatorial FIA can accept that it is still subject to legal constraints, why couldn't the FL? What really ******es off a number of fans - in my opinion, DD! - was not that the penalty was right or wrong, but that the FL felt it had the leverage in our case to deny us the right of appeal that natural justice demands. The FL decided that it could not only make the decision, based on what it admitted at the time was an 'interpretation' of the rules, but that it could decide, unilaterally, that it did not have to defend or justify that decision in any way. It made itself, literally, above the law. And it did this by holding the club over a barrel about participation in the FL this season. That was outrageous - but typical of Mawhinney. When Bernie moves over, the FIA have a natural successor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncoboy Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 He had no love of football being "a rugby man " and was an arrogant arsehole . Guys like him are tough a nails on people unable to defend themselves but weak as water with the bug guys. Complete tosser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 There seems to be movement towards Clubs being run on a sound financial footing. In recent weeks both Southend and Accrington have avoided going into admin by paying the tax they owe. Boscombe are also desperately seeking a way of paying their outstanding amount as well. This has in the main been driven by Mahwinney and his measures for punishing Clubs that do. Measures that were voted for by the Clubs and have been applied consistently since being introduced. The 10 points being suspended until the following season was a direct result of Leeds going into admin following relegation and therefore swerving any deductions. This was also put to a vote and vote through by the Clubs. Bates' dodgy dealings in buying back the Club meant a CVA could not be obtained and another 15 points was added, Leeds appeal was held by all the other Clubs and again they voted with Mahwinney. The reason our 10 points applied this season was down to Lowe, Wilde, Jan and Wotte and not Mahwinney. He has also made Clubs publish agents fees, another good move, in my opinion. Luton would have been given the same points deduction Boscombe were, 10 for admin,15 for not having a CVA and 2 more for being in admin twice before. The FA topped it up (due to financial dealings) to the figure which guan teed relegation, not Mahwinney. It's very easy to sit back and complain about Mahwinney, but on the whole he's done more good than harm. I prefer his approach the making the Clubs sort their finances out than the Premier League's. Witness their head in the sand approach to Poorsmouth's latest circus, where they seem to be bending over backwards to ensure one of their members stay out of admin. The question of ownership is always going to be hard to police in this day and age, you can not just bar someone for not liking the "cut of their jib". You have to have proof before you start banning people from the game, but again would rather he was looking into it, than the Premier League. Overall the FL has become stronger and more financially sound under his leadership. The way he delivers the message, should not take away the fact that the message was, on the whole,a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 the football club and our "sister" company were linked...of course they were...lol were we DEFFINATELY unable to appeal..? Your question mark means even you are unsure it was definately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman35 Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Your question mark means even you are unsure it was definately I am sure that it is "definitely." ( Sorry to be pedantic!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 He was a **** the way he treated Luton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Why? They broke FA rules for paying agents, so got 10 points, nothing to do with the FL. They got 15 for no CVA, a ruling that all FL Clubs had a vote on when it was applied to Leed.s They also received a further 5 points for being in admin 3 times. There has to be some penalty for constantly entering admin.The Clubs had a chance to throw out the extra points for CVA and voted FOR that measure. There is no doubt had previous rules been in place more Clubs would have taken the admin route in the present climate. The fact that in these troubled times, Clubs are not, shows the rules are working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now