L**ds united reply to email.

[w415hy]

I emailed leeds united regards to their pathetic statement, i claimed to be a neutral so i got more of a neutral look from their behalf and here is the reply.

"Gavin,

Thanks for your mail and your comments.

After all the complaints we have received, it is interesting to hear a more neutral view.

At the outset I have to stress that Leeds United did not want any of this in the public domain. Huddersfield Town chose to issue a rather strangely worded statement yesterday regarding our claim for travel expenses. The claim is something any club is entitled to within Football Leagur regulations and we were very surprised to see it brought into the public domain, particularly in the manner that it was.

After reading that we felt it was only correct that the facts of the matter were made public - hence our statement.

I can assure you there is no bitterness on our behalf, we had no intentions of making anything public until we read Huddersfield's statement.

Taking your other points. We have received many complaints about the behaviour of the PA announcer.

Is it really within the spirit of the game to welcome the opposition as "a team from Beeston?" Maybe it is in Huddersfield, but like the majority of football clubs, we felt it was disrespectful and wouldn't treat our visitors in such a manner. At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away support. Can you imagine if our announcer had behaved in similar fashion five days earlier against Millwall?

In terms of the DVD, Huddersfield simply failed to ask permission to use footage which we pay a substantial sum for. This happened in November and we never made it public. Yet, Huddersfield requested £5000 for us to film the game at their ground 24 hours beforehand - they are the first club to make such a demand and are the first to fail ask for permission to use our footage.

I would like to ask how our "treatment of Huddersfield is unjust"? We only made a public statement in reply to Huddersfield. Up to that point we had no intentions of making anything public.

It's also interesting to note that many of our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end. We have not made this public, but whose treatment of who is unfair here?

I'm disappointed you feel like you do, but as a club we have conducted ourselves with dignity and would rather keep these things out of the public domain.

Unfortunately, Huddersfield chose not to do that, and we felt that the facts needed to be made clear so people could make their own judgement.

Thanks again,

Paul





Paul Dews
Head of Media and Publications
Leeds United "

I think it is ridiculous that they are being extremely childish regards to the situation, and quite frankly i hope they have to pay for all of their costs and expenses.

[Grandfather Berty of Cleck]

"At the outset I have to stress that Leeds United did not want any of this in the public domain."

I bet they didn't, as it makes them look the very petty club we know they are.

[artysid]

Am I missing something here

L33ds charged Town for use of the footage from the game at Bellend Road, but consider it 'unique' that Town considered charging them to film the match at the Galpharm?

Have I got this right???

[w415hy]

is it the case of "he hit me, so i hit him" of a 10 year old playground fight.

[stevvy]

Feb 21, 2009 17:05:21 GMT 1 artysid said:

Am I missing something here

L33ds charged Town for use of the footage from the game at Bellend Road, but consider it 'unique' that Town considered charging them to film the match at the Galpharm?

Have I got this right???

dont think you're allowed to distribute footage of matches into the public domain (eg dvd's to fans) without consent from the opposition team,whereas LUTV would have just filmed the game as we usually do at our place,but wouldnt have placed the match on sale via dvd to their fans without our permission

[ThaiTerrier2nd]

what did he say?

'At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away'.


also this has nothing to do with the football club

'our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end'.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2009 17:14:27 GMT 1 ThaiTerrier2nd said:

what did he say?

'At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away'.


also this has nothing to do with the football club

'our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end'.

Point 1 - He cupped his ears.
Point 2 - If true, they have grounds for complaint.

[Porrohman]

Feb 21, 2009 17:20:05 GMT 1 lodgey said:

Feb 21, 2009 17:14:27 GMT 1 ThaiTerrier2nd said:

what did he say?

'At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away'.


also this has nothing to do with the football club

'our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end'.

Point 1 - He cupped his ears.
Point 2 - If true, they have grounds for complaint.

town have nothing to do with the stadium caterers just as we didnt have any say in the coppers inability to police a game at a normal time so as far as i'm concerned the yiddoes should take their claims up with WYP and uncle ken

[tescobag]

Feb 21, 2009 17:06:13 GMT 1 @w415hy said:

is it the case of "he hit me, so i hit him" of a 10 year old playground fight.

YEP fight, beardy & hoyle neutral ground say IKEA car park birstall my money's on dean ;D

[mirfieldchris]

12.05 first punch, we'll not have any of that hotel bollox. ;D

[captainbeefheart]

Feb 21, 2009 16:56:18 GMT 1 @w415hy said:

I emailed leeds united regards to their pathetic statement, i claimed to be a neutral so i got more of a neutral look from their behalf and here is the reply.

"Gavin,

Thanks for your mail and your comments.

After all the complaints we have received, it is interesting to hear a more neutral view.

At the outset I have to stress that Leeds United did not want any of this in the public domain. Huddersfield Town chose to issue a rather strangely worded statement yesterday regarding our claim for travel expenses. The claim is something any club is entitled to within Football Leagur regulations and we were very surprised to see it brought into the public domain, particularly in the manner that it was.

After reading that we felt it was only correct that the facts of the matter were made public - hence our statement.

I can assure you there is no bitterness on our behalf, we had no intentions of making anything public until we read Huddersfield's statement.

Taking your other points. We have received many complaints about the behaviour of the PA announcer.

Is it really within the spirit of the game to welcome the opposition as "a team from Beeston?" Maybe it is in Huddersfield, but like the majority of football clubs, we felt it was disrespectful and wouldn't treat our visitors in such a manner. At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away support. Can you imagine if our announcer had behaved in similar fashion five days earlier against Millwall?

In terms of the DVD, Huddersfield simply failed to ask permission to use footage which we pay a substantial sum for. This happened in November and we never made it public. Yet, Huddersfield requested £5000 for us to film the game at their ground 24 hours beforehand - they are the first club to make such a demand and are the first to fail ask for permission to use our footage.

I would like to ask how our "treatment of Huddersfield is unjust"? We only made a public statement in reply to Huddersfield. Up to that point we had no intentions of making anything public.

It's also interesting to note that many of our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end. We have not made this public, but whose treatment of who is unfair here?

I'm disappointed you feel like you do, but as a club we have conducted ourselves with dignity and would rather keep these things out of the public domain.

Unfortunately, Huddersfield chose not to do that, and we felt that the facts needed to be made clear so people could make their own judgement.

Thanks again,

Paul





Paul Dews
Head of Media and Publications
Leeds United "

I think it is ridiculous that they are being extremely childish regards to the situation, and quite frankly i hope they have to pay for all of their costs and expenses.

So, it appears it is your club who lacks the moral fibre.

Tut, tut, tut.

(where is a finger wagging smiley when you need one?)

[digwon]

Feb 21, 2009 19:56:49 GMT 1 @captainbeefheart said:

Feb 21, 2009 16:56:18 GMT 1 @w415hy said:

I emailed leeds united regards to their pathetic statement, i claimed to be a neutral so i got more of a neutral look from their behalf and here is the reply.

"Gavin,

Thanks for your mail and your comments.

After all the complaints we have received, it is interesting to hear a more neutral view.

At the outset I have to stress that Leeds United did not want any of this in the public domain. Huddersfield Town chose to issue a rather strangely worded statement yesterday regarding our claim for travel expenses. The claim is something any club is entitled to within Football Leagur regulations and we were very surprised to see it brought into the public domain, particularly in the manner that it was.

After reading that we felt it was only correct that the facts of the matter were made public - hence our statement.

I can assure you there is no bitterness on our behalf, we had no intentions of making anything public until we read Huddersfield's statement.

Taking your other points. We have received many complaints about the behaviour of the PA announcer.

Is it really within the spirit of the game to welcome the opposition as "a team from Beeston?" Maybe it is in Huddersfield, but like the majority of football clubs, we felt it was disrespectful and wouldn't treat our visitors in such a manner. At half-time, it was deemed fit for the announcer to encourage abuse (including swearing) from the away support. Can you imagine if our announcer had behaved in similar fashion five days earlier against Millwall?

In terms of the DVD, Huddersfield simply failed to ask permission to use footage which we pay a substantial sum for. This happened in November and we never made it public. Yet, Huddersfield requested £5000 for us to film the game at their ground 24 hours beforehand - they are the first club to make such a demand and are the first to fail ask for permission to use our footage.

I would like to ask how our "treatment of Huddersfield is unjust"? We only made a public statement in reply to Huddersfield. Up to that point we had no intentions of making anything public.

It's also interesting to note that many of our fans have also complained that they were charged above the advertised prices in the refreshment areas in the away end. We have not made this public, but whose treatment of who is unfair here?

I'm disappointed you feel like you do, but as a club we have conducted ourselves with dignity and would rather keep these things out of the public domain.

Unfortunately, Huddersfield chose not to do that, and we felt that the facts needed to be made clear so people could make their own judgement.

Thanks again,

Paul





Paul Dews
Head of Media and Publications
Leeds United "

I think it is ridiculous that they are being extremely childish regards to the situation, and quite frankly i hope they have to pay for all of their costs and expenses.

So, it appears it is your club who lacks the moral fibre.

Tut, tut, tut.

(where is a finger wagging smiley when you need one?)

but isnt our club your club too?,i think so

[dunnboothbilly]

if L**ds had won they wouldn't have got their nickers in a twist about any of this

sour grapes

[w415hy]

Well i was thinking there if they are going to be sour about the situation i think that our club should refer to away at bellend rd, when a good couple hundred of fans, missed the first 5 mins due to buses from the station as well as the police faffing about.