Already crowned Right Result title winners, Manchester United completed their domestic programme in style with a win at Wigan Athletic. The final day win should have been even more emphatic as United should have been awarded a second-half penalty for Titus Bramble’s trip on Paul Scholes. Whether the former England midfielder should have still been on the field of play at that stage is debatable but outside of the Right Result remit.

The Right Result is a 3-0 win for Manchester United.

As far as the Right Result table is concerned, Arsenal finished the season as runners-up to Manchester United. Although it wasn’t a final day cliffhanger, the Gunners ended their campaign with a victory at Sunderland. The only disappointment was that another of Arsene Wenger’s young guns was denied a first senior goal. On his Premiership debut, 18 year-old Mark Randall had his strike wrongly ruled out for offside shortly after replacing Emmanuel Eboue.

The Right Result is a 2-0 win for Arsenal.

It was no surprise that Ken Bates was scathing of the Independent Arbitration Tribunal that last week systematically dismantled his arguments against the Football League’s fifteen-point “condition” on Leeds’ League One membership. The tribunal were scathing too. “No authority to act”; “Misconceived proceedings”; “No credible explanation nor convincing excuse for their unreasonable delay” said the report. Unfortunately for Bates, these comments referred to Leeds, not the League.

Little wonder he’s been so bullish, if misguided. His status as the biggest w***** in English football is coming under domestic (John Batchelor, Keith Haslam, Rupert Lowe, Richard Scudamore) and overseas (Tom Hicks, Thaksin Shinawatra) threat. Calls for the resignations of League chairman Lord Mawhinney and his board for “totally disgraceful” behaviour are contemptible, even by Bates’ gutter standards. But these guys have set new standards.

Bates continually railed against Leeds ‘double’ punishment for entering administration last season, as soon as relegation to League One was otherwise assured, publishing his ludicrous ‘real’ League One table in the programme, with Leeds’ points deduction airbrushed in true Stalinist-manner. Even in response to the tribunal’s “unequivocal support” of the League, Bates was claiming “moral victory” – a first, surely, and a last, surely.

Bates claimed: “We have been penalised…for adhering to the League’s policy of paying all football creditors”; “the FA dragged their feet, we asked for arbitration for six months”; “the League admitted (we) did nothing wrong”; “we lost on a technicality”; “all the financial failures were down to previous administrations” and “my wife said: ‘we lost the battle but won the war.’”

In order, those statements are: untrue, untrue, laughably untrue, preposterously untrue, untrue (if Leeds accounts to June 2006, the only ones before administration, are to be believed) and…well, his wife’s probably biased (and her career as a military strategist should be put on hold). But even she must sometimes think: “Ooooh, Ken, not sure about that.” She’d certainly not read the tribunal’s report.

The story ran in the media as follows: Leeds entered administration last May and sought to pay off creditors via a ‘Company Voluntary Arrangement’ (CVA). They obtained the 75% support for their proposals required to allow them to start the new season, even though HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) voted against them in protest at not receiving their money while ‘football’ creditors were paid, as required by law, in full. These included astronomically-paid players, most (in)famously Danny Mills, paid £216,666.68, even though he hadn’t donned a Leeds shirt since May 2003.

However, HMRC, owed £7.7m, mounted a legal challenge to the CVA and with their case not due in High Court until three weeks into the season, Leeds were unable to meet the League’s CVA requirements, ‘through no fault of their own’, and were deducted 15 points as a ‘penalty.’ Leeds sought to appeal but encountered obfuscation from the League and FA, only getting the ‘fair’ hearing they’d demanded by threatening High Court action.

Presented with documentary evidence from both sides, the Tribunal told a different story.

The least publicised aspect was the most fundamental. The Tribunal were concerned that “the (15-point deduction was described by the League Board as a ‘penalty’ and was understandably perceived to be so.” And for all Bates’ ‘proper’ league tables, Leeds agreed the deduction. League regulations require “that a new member should start the season in a lower league (here League Two).” Administrators KPMG had sold Leeds to Bates’ “rich and powerful consortium” after the CVA failed and their new company was the ‘new member.’ But “Leeds wanted to avoid this ‘relegation’ and was prepared to pay a price.” That price was 15 points.

Bates expressed “surprise and concern…in blunt and direct terms” to Mawhinney (you can imagine the language). But his own Chief Executive Shaun Harvey and his own solicitor Mark Taylor agreed the deduction at a meeting with the league prior to the season’s start. So he can’t have been that surprised.

The notion that Leeds were ‘punished’ for obeying the League’s ‘football creditors’ rule’ is equally…er…’misleading’ (don’t know the legalese for total b******s, sorry).

HMRC have voted against football-related CVAs as policy since the 2003 Companies Act reduced them to unsecured creditors, scrabbling for scraps after football people took their full share. They tried the High Court route in 2004, when Milton Keynes-based “””Wimbledon””” tried to exit administration. But their challenge to the football creditors rule was dismissed.

Their challenge to Leeds CVA was specific to Leeds’ case. Guardian journalists Matt Scott and David Conn had asked: “Why did (Leeds) owe their own company Yorkshire Radio, of which Bates and Taylor are also directors, £480,000, and why was this…revealed only at the creditors’ meeting?” HMRC were equally puzzled, also wondering why ‘Mark Taylor and Co’ (Bates’ solicitors) upped their claim by £213, 859.32 at the last minute. This, purely co-incidentally, allowed the CVA to pass by the skin of some poorly-enamelled teeth. Bates paid creditors 52.9p in the £. One assumes Taylor received his extra £113,131.53.

HMRC didn’t take Leeds’ case to court ‘just because they lost’ over the football creditors’ rule. So Leeds weren’t punished for obeying it, whatever Bates claimed.

Bates claimed that the League were only forced into arbitration by threat of High Court action. The Tribunal disagreed: “Leeds was in the same position in August as…in March when it finally commenced arbitration proceedings…there was no reason why they could not commence arbitration proceedings (in August).

Bates claimed Leeds did nothing wrong. The Tribunal disagreed: “(Court) proceedings were issued by Leeds and Barnsley…against the League…there was a delay of five weeks” while it was established that Barnsley “did not…lend its name to proceedings…(the delay was) primarily due to the misconceived proceedings commenced by (Leeds) solicitors and their conduct of them.” Nothing wrong there, then.

Bates would have been wise not to blame Leeds ex-directors again for current financial problems. So, naturally, he did. Not connected to the Tribunal, just another clumsy attempt to mask his own failings. Elmet MP Colin Burgon said Bates “assured fans that the corner was turned financially.” And the club’s 2006 accounts showed only £12m ‘due within one year” – the debt hung-over from previous administrations - not the £35.5m debt which forced them into administration. Bates would have been wise not to write in Leeds’ programme: “Any financial mismanagement is the responsibility of…Ridsdale and Krasner.” So, naturally, he did.

Bates claimed Leeds lost on a technicality, i.e.: “agreeing to the…deduction” and promising “not to bring the claims it has now sought to assert.” A club statement claimed: “We had no option…(otherwise) the club would have been lost forever.” The Tribunal…yep… disagreed: “Normally (Leeds would have been) required to start the season in League Two.” Hardly ‘lost forever’, even if you concur with Boston United fans in the 1980s: “When I die I’ll go to heaven because I’ve already been to Macclesfield.”

The club statement equated criticisms of Leeds, which peppered the report (highlighting them in red makes the report resemble Doncaster’s home-kit), with criticisms of the league, which amounted to less than half the postscript: “The Board should be astute NOT to think in terms of a ‘penalty’ “ (like Mike Riley, then), the Tribunal preferring “condition” and, wait for it,…”indulgence.” (Bates wrote to League clubs, calling the deduction a “sanction” - a ‘penalty for breaking the rules’ – arguing that Leeds hadn’t broken any. We now know that he knew different even then. Which needs no further comment).

Bates claimed the appeal to League clubs was fatally flawed by self-interest. The Tribunal…agreed! : “We consider (such) an Appeal…unsatisfactory (due to) understandable self-interest.” So, there IS always one. Nonetheless, two-thirds of League clubs – from Championship and League Two – had no self-interest in Leeds’ fortunes. Indeed, League Two clubs could have benefited from increased gate receipts from Leeds matches. But the issue wasn’t tested as, whatever the appeals process, the original decision was right.

Burgon asked Mawhinney: “Why should fans suffer for the actions of Ken Bates?” It remains the underpinning question. Some fans’ comments on the report have verged on the ridiculous, proclaiming either ‘victory!’ or ‘vendetta!’ The Yorkshire Evening Post’s account rendered the report itself a huge surprise.

Yet fans may not suffer, if Leeds win promotion via play-offs rather than the second-place the deduction cost them, something which, collectively, the fans deserve. The Independent wrote: “The deduction effectively condemns Leeds to at least two seasons in League One.” Maybe not, thanks to Gus Poyet and, late on, Gary McAllister – an achievement to dwarf those of many a ‘manager of the year.’

Bates was ultimately right, however. Not the offensive rubbish about serving “poetic justice” on Gillingham, for publicly supporting the deduction, by relegating them (eliciting sympathy for Gills chairman Paul Scally surely ranks high among Bates’ achievements). Nor the Bates version of ‘we know where you live’: “Leeds have long memories…we’ll remember those clubs who may want help in the future.”

But the chairman and his board resigning over their “disgraceful behaviour”? That rings true - referring to Leeds, not the League.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

As an attention-grabber, it was tops. “Liverpool to be scrutinised by the Government” screamed the headline, bringing visions to mind of Tom Hicks’ breakfast cereal flying to all parts if he read it.

In announcing the altogether dryer prospect of an ‘All-Party Parliamentary Football Group’ (APFG) inquiry into football’s corporate governance last week, chair Alan Keen mentioned “case studies in governance” (zzz) but woke everyone up with “…including Liverpool FC.” Never mind that Liverpool is being personality-driven into the ditch and that its board structure is neither unusual nor, with Hicks in-built minority, all bad.

Actually, few headlines screamed. And without the Liverpool reference, the “new look at corporate governance structures” would barely have made the ‘news-in-briefs’ next to the Rugby League in southern editions.

It’s a “new look” because the APFG has been down this road before. And got lost. In 2003, they began a nine-month investigation which produced a “comprehensive” report – ‘Football and its Finances”, published on February 11 2004 and…rubbished by its major targets on February 12. “There has been slow, or no, progress on the majority of the group’s recommendations” lamented Keen last week. Hence the new inquiry.

It only covers England and Wales (‘Scottish Football’ has its own group). But the APFG is, unsurprisingly as populism equals success in democracy, the largest of the 530+ all-party groups (including one on ‘Cider’ for which I’ll gladly take the minutes). It has 150 MPs and Peers, over 10% of parliament. Yet sheer numbers haven’t translated into impact. It is resolutely an advisory body, hamstrung by its own prime objectives: “To increase the profile of the football industry” but merely “(raising) awareness of current issues facing the game” – little more than this column does.

“It is not us who will change football,” Keen acknowledged in 2004, “it’s the authorities who have to make the decisions, listening to the views we have gathered.” And that’s the problem. A group without a parliamentary select committee’s authority can only ‘have a word with their mates.’ And their ‘mates’, the Government, were already reluctant to force anything on their mates, the Premier League (PL), the self-styled “best league in the world”, “England’s finest export.”

Before and after the APFG report, the Football Task Force and Independent Football Commission (IFC) fell by the same wayside. “Official reports into what ails football have come along like buses…(producing) near-identical analyses” sneered David Conn, correctly, in his 2005 book ‘The Beautiful Game?’

In the almost-immediate aftermath of the APFG’s announcement, the IFC launched its final report at its ill-attended Upton Park funeral (“could’ve taken place in the foyer” sneered the Mail’s Charles Sale, correctly). Most of its recommendations had been accepted over the years, claimed much-derided chairman Professor Derek Foster. But it achieved some small things, no big ones. Like the APFG.

To borrow ‘Football and its Finances’ description of football’s insolvencies, “it’s a shameful record.” Particularly as the APFG came up with some good stuff. A series of common-sensical recommendations on wealth re-distribution and governance/insolvency – how a lack of governance too-often produced insolvency…”not all of which can be blamed on ITV Digital” (despite many chairmen’s subsequent efforts).

What it lacked was enforcement mechanisms, which meant that being absolutely right, as the report invariably was, meant nothing. Opponents dismissed recommendations simply by talking rubbish, clearly PL chief Richard Scudamore’s tactic.

It’s not addressing the relevant issues,” he declared, without adding what he thought those issues were. “It’s a little bit narrow,” he complained, presumably preferring A3 paper to A4. And “top clubs in Italy and Spain don’t redistribute as much as we do,” he whined, boiling everything down to competition with European Leagues and, in terms of lower-league structures, hardly drawing a relevant comparison.

It didn’t matter that Scudamore’s statements collapsed on merest scrutiny (you must admire his consistency…you can’t admire much else).

The report recommended doubling re-distribution of the PL’s TV money to 10%. Scudamore claimed that this donation, £30m phased in over the three-year duration of the latest TV contract, would destroy clubs’ European competitiveness, while insisting that the PL was “the envy of Europe.” Not much to envy if £10m per year could destroy it. And no reference to the English League’s seven European Cup wins in eight years while 25% of TV money went south.

And only a passing ‘Oh, by the way’ to the PL’s own evidence to the report: “The top-five in last year’s Premier League (the current top-four plus…Newcastle) earned more TV money than all 72 Football League Clubs combined.”

“You can’t argue that change is not necessary when the Football League (FL) and the Football Conference have done so,” argued Keen. “We have to strike the right balance between looking after our top clubs and the rest of the game” cried Scudamore. “A balance needs to be struck,” agreed the report, “but the current one is not the right one.” It’s obvious who’s right, probably even to Scudamore (though some would argue I’m giving him too much credit there). But the imbalance grows to this day.

Where there has been progress on the report’s recommendations that progress had invariably started by the time of the inquiry; for instance, disclosure of agents’ fees. The FL instigated full disclosure from January 1^st 2004. Internal squabbles between Ferguson and erstwhile horse-racing chums John Magnier and JP McManus had opened a brief window on how Man Yoo’s agency dealings were being kept in the family…before the Glazer family slammed it shut. And Portsmouth soon followed suit, for some reason, while Harry Redknapp was manager first time around.

Agents weren’t a central focus of the inquiry - “maybe the subject of a future inquiry” said the report. In August 2006, that inquiry was announced before being submerged by Stevens’ investigations. The mighty Gary Lineker commented: “The money going out of the game is mad, especially when it is such a simple job,” although he may just have been talking about presenting ‘Match of the Day.’

The ‘Fit and Proper Persons’ test was also waiting to happen, with the FL, if not the PL, in no need of persuasion (sometimes you forget FL chairman Sir Brian Mawhinney is a Tory). But, as we now know, the test – introduced for “anyone who can become a director” still seems to mean “anyone can become a director.” And when an owner’s fitness and propriety is called into greater question over a poor managerial decision than a poor human rights and financial record, you despair of progress.

The big one was in Chapter One: “…the football authorities to be given an explicit duty to actively promote the competitiveness of the professional game,” Keen concluding at the end of the report: “Football is nothing without competition.”

But as to how to award this duty? They “recognised work the football authorities are currently doing on this issue” – which was more observant than most. Yet whatever this work was…clearly hasn’t worked for clubs, except in Scudamore’s beloved Europe. “The football authorities have it in their own hands,” Keen continued. But no-one’s making them attend catching practice.

It’s unfair to disparage the inquiry panels, though. One eye-catching addition in 2008 is Iain Duncan-Smith. The ‘quiet man.’ The worst Tory leader of a succession of stinkers. But as a genuine fan, a Spurs season-ticket holder, exactly the sort of panellist required.

Few other Tories with him which, despite Mawhinney’s fine work, is a good thing – Old Etonians reached their last FA Cup Final in 1883. Few women, either – one in 2004, two in 2008 – which isn’t so good. But that aside, a reasonable cross-section of football experience, ranging from club-rugby player Andy Reed, president of Loughborough FC “for a time” to Clive Betts, a club chairman – albeit the All-Party Parliamentary FC.

Betts is “frequently found in the stands at Sheffield Wednesday,” watching the Owls rather than wandering aimlessly, one assumes. Colchester season-ticket holder Bob Russell has seen every level from Conference to Championship at Layer Road since 1992. Alan Keen was ‘tactical scout’ at Middlesbrough – looking for tactics a more arduous job under Jack Charlton than Malcolm Allison. And though Joan Walley strikes a discordant note with: “happily, not being able to buy tickets is not a problem facing Port Vale”, it’s purely unintentional.

In 2003, the interviewees’ cast-list was impressive – bar the execrable Scudamore. Journalists Conn and Mihir Bose, fan representatives from Man Yoo upwards, PFA officials, business and broadcast experts, Peter Ridsdale’s insolvency ‘expertise’ and David Mellor’s fan-loyalty expertise (a lifelong Chelsea fan since he was…a lifelong Fulham fan). It would have been fascinating to interview Bates. But 2003/4 was a golden-era in football because Bates wasn’t in football.

But ‘Football and its Finances’ wasted so many valuable people’s valuable time – this year they’re virtually starting from scratch. To the people they had, and have, to influence, the “good of the game” is hippie nonsense. “For far too long” said the report, “standards of corporate governance within football have been far too lax.” The APFG have their work cut-out changing that.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Saturday was Judgement Day in the world of the Right Result. Manchester United were confirmed as champions while Reading and Birmingham City will join Derby County in next season’s virtual Championship. To add an additional nail into Reading’s coffin, they should have suffered a heavier defeat than the critical single goal setback against Tottenham Hotspur at the Madejski Stadium. Having taken the lead, Spurs should have had their lead doubled in the first-half as Steed Malbranque’s goal that was ruled out for offside should have stood. The outstanding Right Result issue for the final day of the season will be the final Champions League position with Liverpool trailing Everton by one point.

The Right Result is a 2-0 win for Tottenham Hotspur.

Everton are the only club in this season’s Premier League who have yet to be awarded a penalty. We believed that should have changed in Game No. 36 with Aston Villa’s visit to Goodison Park. Shortly before the first of the four shared goals in a pulsating second-half, Villa’s Stilian Petrov blocked Lee Carsley’s shot with his arm. The Bulgarian midfielder had his arm outstretched and, due to the distance the ball travelled, had the opportunity to take evasive action.

The Right Result is a 3-2 win for Everton.

Birmingham City earned a vital point in their battle against relegation with their draw against Liverpool. It came courtesy of a controversial second goal from Sebastian Larsson’s free-kick. Blues’ Radhi Jaidi was shown to be in an offside position in a direct line between the free-kick and Liverpool keeper Jose Reina. The big defender also moved from side-to-side as the kick was taken to fulfil the interfering with an opponent criteria - making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts. No indication is suggested with regard to the degree of distraction so, as Jaidi is 6ft 2ins and 14st, it would be surprising if something didn’t catch the corner of Reina’s eye.

The Right Result is a 2-1 win for Liverpool.

Barcelona have to hold Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez for maybe two hours. And “have to score at Old Trafford…and not many teams have done that” said SKY’s Alan Parry, his confidence borne of forgetting his impartiality. But Derby did.

Meanwhile, crucially, the Liverpool/Chelsea second-leg is at Stamford Bridge for the first time – a more vital factor than bullet-headers from unfeasibly-ginger Norwegians. Roman might return to Russia. Let’s hope his financial ‘history’ doesn’t keep him there for questioning.

Another nil-nil, at Chelsea, and the title was Man Yoo’s. Two months after “a nil-nil at Old Trafford and the title’s Arsenal’s.” Many claim Arsenal never recovered from Eduardo’s injury. But they did on the day. Composure restored by the half-time team-talk, they were two-one up, inches from a third and denied a clearer penalty than the one they conceded. Had they got a third, none of it – Clichy, Gallas, Middlesbrough – would have either mattered or happened and Arsenal would have been still in it.

If it goes to the last day and Man Yoo need to win at Wigan, they shouldn’t fail like at West Ham in 1995. Steve Bruce doesn’t have revenge to exact on Ferguson, unlike, say, Roy Keane. So Wigan won’t hold them. Pressure might.

No need for split-screen TV coverage of the PL’s relegation dogfight. One hopes the blue half of Birmingham will be bluer still, because of the greasy David Gold and the squalid David Sullivan. Then we’ll be spared Gold’s pontificating on the England team’s problems (“not the PL’s responsibility”) and the ‘39^th game’ (“like a cup competition…you pull your ball out and hopefully get the team you want”). It’ll mean the supremely untalented Gary Megson getting unwarranted plaudits for rescuing Bolton from Sammy Lee’s experiment in, well, football. But hey-ho.

SKY must have long-known Portsmouth/Blackburn was Inter-Toto Cup play-off material but even they haven’t been naff enough to advertise it as such. Portsmouth have apparently done wonders to be near European football, given where they were in 2006. Guff. Redknapp did wonders to avoid relegation in 2006. But he’s spent millions on transfers to finish in a mid-table so bad West ham are in it. Worth losses of £23m? Maybe to Redknapp…somehow.

If the PL’s mid-table is ordinary, the Championship is extra ordinary. It’s been this close many times (although for a congested relegation battle, see the Unibond Premier). This excitement is translated as mediocrity by TV companies…who don’t have the broadcast rights. This year, they’re right.

Forget Barnsley’s Cup, remember Sheffield United’s, ghastly under Bryan Robson – whack it towards James Beattie and hope, against hope. Watford seem to have only won twice since Graham Taylor left, yet can’t leave the play-off places. Their tactics haven’t changed since ITV4’s ‘Big Match Revisited’ era. And Darius Henderson is no Ross Jenkins, let alone Luther Blissett.

Hull are refreshing, though 94-year-old Dean Windass’s success speaks volumes. Stoke aren’t. Bristol City make Gary Johnson look good and he’s less popular in Latvia than Mike Riley after his ‘inauspicious’ national team management spell there. Ipswich look borderline-Premiership at home, borderline-Eastern Counties away. Crystal Palace’s average age is twelve…and they’re sixth. And Colchester managed a-point-per-game until March with NO good players whatsoever.

The Independent noted that players stepping up a grade from the Championship have rarely made the grade. David Nugent is the contemporary example. England goalscorer, albeit from a centimetre against Andorra, to Pompey substitute in a year. And you fear for the play-off winners as you feared for Derby last year, especially if it’s the sixth-placed team, like Watford in 1999…especially if it’s Watford again.

And one big League One ground will replace Swansea next season. I’d love to see Southampton’s Rupert Lowe in Oldham’s directors’ box. Not why he left hockey.

League One’s points deductions have been as significant as the football. Leeds’s seemed a motivational tool for Morecambe & Wise’s bastard offspring, Bates & Wise. Until assistant-manager Gus Poyet left for Tottenham and we discovered it was Poyet, not the points. Scorelines like ‘Leeds 1 Cheltenham 2’ carried many of us through winter.

Swansea’s promotion has provided accent-monitors with endless fun as manager Roberto Martinez gets slightly more Welsh each week, though not yet up to Jan Molby’s scouse. Forest weren’t affected by Junior Agogo ‘starring’ in the African Cup of Nations…and weren’t much affected by his return.

Minus ten points only partly did for Luton. Off-field sagas long pre-dating Mike Newell hardly helped. But administrator Brendan Guilfoyle’s willingness to undersell players, totally unconnected to his “advisor” being…football agent…Ben Mansford, did most damage, half the team departing between Cup draw with Liverpool and Cup replay with Liverpool.

Bournemouth might survive their minus ten, the one slight advantage of such a deduction being that it equals three-and-bit defeats with a zero goal difference. They’ve been showing promotion form while their takeover saga assumes Whitehall Theatre proportions. They’ve overhauled the wildly-popular Paul Scally’s Gillingham, whose precarious finances suggest minus ten might emerge before the year, or the season, is out. And Millwall were in their sights, which would have meant plenty of new grounds for the playful troupe of groundhoppers who follow them. There’ll be a few League Two stewards grateful for Carlisle’s incompetence at the weekend.

Dagenham were the team making the late charge for relegation into the ‘oblivion’ of non-league football. Offering two promotion places to the Blue Square Premier (BSP) has acknowledged that relegation isn’t oblivion and kept interest alive beyond Wrexham’s relegation blotting Wales’ 2008 sporting copybook.

The gap between League Two and BSP is scarcely greater than between Football League divisions. BSP attendances averaged 2,500 this midweek, with most promotion, play-off and relegation issues decided. Mansfield’s (wilful?) mismanagement sees them second-bottom and neutrals’ relegatee of choice, despite their fans. But away from protests and boycotts at home games, Mansfield’s form has been OK. Chester have been ‘non-league’ before. They could be again.

Rochdale’s possible promotion excites those hoping to see Rochdale/Leicester or Rochdale/Southampton as a league fixture, reminiscent of not-too-distant days of Man. City/Macclesfield Manchester derbies; or Fulham’s descent down the divisions via derbies with Chelsea, then QPR…then…Brentford (“How long before the ‘we hate Kingstonian’ graffiti?” despaired one Fulham-ite); or fellow League Two promotion candidates Hereford playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge in the OLD Division Two (modern-day Championship) – Terry Paine’s sideburns at their longest and proudest (earlier this season, a Hereford/Newcastle re-match looked one division away).

Good to see young, English (black) management succeeding, even if it’s Paul Ince, even if it’s Milton Keynes. But there’s another managerial Ferguson on the march, unless Peterborough succumb to over-ambitious ownership, like so many before, and spend themselves into administration.

The UEFA Cup’s downside is that winning it could deny Scotland’s best team this season the Scottish title – like 1981 in England, Ipswich losing to an inferior Aston Villa – having completed the double over them with an April 2-1 win at Villa Park, before anyone argues. Being good Catholics, Celtic fans will feel suitably guilty if they nick the title from a knackered Rangers.

To the three non-family members wondering “Whatever happened to Dick Advocaat?” the competition has supplied the answer - and a proper competition after the institutionally unfair group stages - Advocaat’s Zenit St. Petersburg supplying the football of the season at Bayer Leverkusen.

Sevilla’s consecutive wins notwithstanding (no-one’s retained the Champions League; the variety of teams in the cup’s later stages provides an antidote to the sterile repetitiveness of UEFA’s major competition, Bolton notwithstanding. It’s a long trek from the Inter-Toto Cup – some Fulham fans still have jet-lag from 2002. But a Zenit/Fiorentina final would be worth it (writes a Celtic fan).

2007/08’s wonderful FA Cup shouldn’t be undermined by it’s semi-finals. Even the BBC made excuses for Cardiff/Barnsley, concentrating on the atmosphere (Alan Green told Match of the Day viewers to switch-off after the seventh-minute goal, which – hopefully – annoyed his bosses). They weren’t the first rubbish semi-finals. And there were enough “never been to Wembley” stories to explain players’ nerves. I just wish Green hadn’t sounded so ‘I told you so.’ Like he’s not even a football fan.

However, Joe Ledley’s goal was as good as Zidane’s in the 2002 European Cup final. And don’t believe Lawrenson’s bleating about ‘clear’ handball before Portsmouth’s winner. “Oooh is that handball?” he asked, after the THIRD replay.

And finally…your eyes didn’t deceive you, even if they deceived him. Mike Riley gave a penalty. He must only give them against defenders like Sunderland’s Nyron Nosworthy, with – as another writer spotted – names straight from a Charles Dickens novel). Inevitably, it wasn’t a penalty but the season’s worst decision. Which, as Rob Styles-fans know, beats off some stiff competition.

That’s yer actual football for you.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

There was me thinking Bournemouth’s tale would have a happy ending or at least an ending in sight. Alongside Mansfield and Southampton, Bournemouth’s woes were almost romantic. The team’s remarkable win at Champions-elect Swansea, one-nil down with NO minutes left, suggested another Easter resurrection, their relegation nowhere as assured as when they entered administration and were deducted ten points. AND Harry Redknapp said he’d save them. What could go wrong? Well…

AFC Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic (bet their scarves are warm, with that to fit on) are war veterans in financial-troubles, critics tracing these back to Redknapp’s generally well-regarded 1980s managerial tenure, when Man Yoo fell Cup victim at Dean Court. Debts multiplied. Redknapp boasted £848,000 transfer-profit (yes…a lot of money in those days). But wages turned that into £2.6m losses, a lot more money in those days. “The mess we are desperately trying to resolve,” said a club source, years later.

In 1997, Bournemouth became a ground-breaking supporter-owned club, 51% voting rights (the ‘golden share’) in a supporters’ ‘trust fund’ after they’d bought Bournemouth out of £5m receivership. But even if supporters’ mistakes came with the noblest intentions, they remained mistakes. By 2005, Bournemouth were £5m light again and had to sell assets, including a three-parts refurbished Dean Court (that’s when the money ran out), sold to property firm Structadene and rented back at…eek!…£300,000 p.a.

Bournemouth’s latest saga began in March 2007 when local businessmen Jeff Mostyn and Steve oooh-change-that-name Sly gained a controlling interest via a £750,000 share-purchase plan, enthusiastically backed by shareholders at an EGM. The Supporters Trust transferred their ‘golden share’ on the basis of this investment. A mistake, as we’ll see.

Despite considerable financial assistance, from Mostyn especially, it was always a case of when Bournemouth would file for administration, not if. Three ‘notices of intention’ were issued, protecting them from creditors’ attempts to get their money back, while new finances were sought. But, two months ago, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) issued a winding-up petition to reclaim £644,000 tax and £344,000 VAT.

HMRC had taken a hard-line with football clubs since losing ’secured creditor status’ – their right to full repayment – in 2003 (some phenomenally-paid players, often the root cause of administration in the first place, get their money by right, taxpayers have to make do with bits of what’s left…no, me neither). The hard-line was reinforced after losing £6m+ through Bates’ Leeds United manoeuvrings. This petition couldn’t succeed because of Bournemouth’s third ‘notice of intention’, filed when HMRC weren’t looking. But no new investment emerged, so Bournemouth entered administration anyway.

Like HMRC needed Leeds reminders, Elland Road ex-chairman and insolvency expert Gerald Krasner became joint-administrator alongside Julie Palmer, representative of ‘business recovery specialists’ Begbies Traynor. Palmer could have conducted business semi-naked (not topless, neither) and still been the low-profile one. Krasner introduced himself thus: “If somebody thinks they’re buying Bournemouth for £2, they don’t know me.” Everybody soon would.

Cynics suggested Mostyn was a shoo-in to buy the club ‘back’ (the inverted commas will be explained). The board’s favoured administrator was their own financial advisor, BDO Stoy Hayward’s Andy Beckingham. Mostyn preferred Krasner.

There were two other interested parties. The Bournemouth Echo helpfully explained administration to readers but less-helpfully induced collective-coronaries by declaring Luton ex-director John Mitchell, ‘involved’ in Luton’s recent ‘disputes’, as one party. The Mitchell was actually Dorchester Town majority-shareholder Eddie, whose business history wasn’t confidence-inspiring either, someone suggesting his company was called ‘Seven Developments’ after his seven…bankruptcies. He’d pass the ‘Fit and Proper Persons’ Test, naturally.

Within a fortnight, however, Mostyn’s credibility went bankrupt. The Trust discovered that his share ‘purchase’ was…a loan which, eleven months on, remained a loan. Director Eddie Battey explained that the ‘commitment’ was “without a specific timetable…there is only a marginal difference between loans in a company with few assets and money invested as share capital.”

True but, Mostyn-like, no-one was buying…AND it missed the point. “The issue was paramount” to the Trust handing over the ‘golden share.’ Some even questioned Mostyn’s authority to take Bournemouth into administration in the first place, right decision though it was. But Mostyn, and Sly, were undermined from then on. Whatever else they did for Bournemouth wasn’t enough.

Mostyn courted further unpopularity, squabbling with ‘Playershare’ – a company established to help directly with players’ wages. The administrators’ solicitors, Walker Morris, asked for Playershare’s raffle proceeds, a clumsy money-grab. Playershare, properly, refused and were told it wasn’t “appropriate that (they have) a presence at the club.” Mostyn hadn’t instigated this but insulted fans’ intelligence by suggesting they’d be “disadvantaged (into) believing they were helping the club.”

Mitchell (remember him?) claimed Krasner told him not to bid as “things were advanced with someone else.” Chinese whispers, this. Krasner told Mitchell’s solicitors to hurry up because things were “far advanced” after three weeks in administration. But suspicions that Mostyn had a ‘done deal’ were fuelled. And re-fuelled by revelations that Mostyn had ‘semi-exclusivity.’ His consortium could re-bid if they’d been out-bid, on the not-unreasonable basis that Mostyn was funding Bournemouth throughout the whole process.

Ex-president and major creditor, 81-year-old businessman Stanley Cohen allegedly made a £3m offer to Krasner’s face “with a cheque in my pocket.” Krasner insisted, as with everyone else, that Cohen sign a confidentiality agreement. Cohen, claiming he’d been advised not to sign, refused, none too politely. So Krasner refused the probably proverbial cheque. There was also a “mystery-Midlands-multi-millionaire “waiting in the wings”…where they wait to this day. And Redknapp was making noises, though that might just have been wind.

Mostyn’s was the only actual bid. On March 13^th, Krasner announced as much, remarking: “If you’re selling your house for £100,000…sorry, we’re in Bournemouth…£500,000 (HO-HO!) and £480,000 is the only offer, it’s the only offer,” inadvertently revealing that Mostyn had offered cut-price. This would be cut further if creditors didn’t accept Mostyn’s proposals for their re-payment – ‘Corporate Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).’ And a failed CVA was possible.

HMRC’s 17% of the debt garnered 17% of the vote, with only 25% required to block the CVA. 320 creditors were owed £5.8m collectively. And Mostyn’s and Krasner’s alienation of minor and major creditors (including season-ticket holders, owed for matches not played before administration) all-but-guaranteed the extra 8%. Only smaller re-payment and the spectre of points deductions for a failed CVA might have persuaded the disaffected.

Matters nearly didn’t get that far. Mostyn’s consortium now included previously-rival bidder, Dorset-based ‘international’ businessman, Marc Jackson – a “business strategy specialist…well-connected in football” or, to critics, a glorified photocopier salesman (LOTS of paperwork in administration). Relations with Jackson quickly strained. And before March was out, so was Jackson…for “contractual reasons”, i.e. Jackson was a Southampton-supporting fantasist who hadn’t produced the cash. Krasner said the bid “breached two agreements” – initial funding and proposed sale, in other words, everything.

Krasner addressed the April 7^th creditors’ meeting anyway. By then, two new, if familiar-looking bids had emerged, One was e-mailed at literally the second-last minute, which satiated Krasner’s dramatic instincts. The other was…Mostyn. Mostyn’s family had ‘persuaded’ him to walk away after the Jackson farce. But he walked back again, the ‘family’ thing not a sympathy-seeking stunt…oh no.

Both bids matched Mostyn’s original, so the CVA vote went ahead and was predictably lost. Krasner, though, was still able to announce a club sale to one bidder the next day. To both, actually. Mostyn was declared winner before “further clarification” revealed that…ooops…no, he wasn’t, his bid had “lapsed.” So the winner was…Marc-bloody-Jackson.

Except that Jackson was only a front-man for a company called EU-UK Limited. Actually, he wasn’t even that. EU-UK were unveiled at a press briefing from which they banned Jackson. “Proud to be a middleman”, he responded, downgrading his role. EU-UK were less proud, Jackson having announced grandiose plans and board structures for Bournemouth – “a forward plan for three years and money to deliver it.”

This appeared news to EU-UK’s four directors. Derided by the ever-present but not-unperceptive cynics as ‘”brickies and plumbers”, only Ian Mathison had been ‘in’ football – a partner in Glasgow-based agency Viola Management. But Jackson’s role was still “anything we decide…appropriate to Marc’s skills.” “Copy boy, maximum” critics sneered.

New director John Frost declared: “The money’s in place…its difficult to see what could go wrong.” His optician’s a charlatan. EU-UK asked for an extension to Krasner’s deadline for stumping up cash, to undertake ‘due diligence.’ Krasner granted it…if EU-UK paid £50,000 for the privilege, to fund Bournemouth through the delay. EU-UK refused and the deal collapsed, allegedly because the papers were still in Jackson’s name and Jackson wasn’t about to hand them back, instead threatening legal action over his sidelining. Back to square one…and beyond.

Krasner is hosting ‘interested parties’ (including Mostyn) again, with the first bid to pay a deposit gaining ‘exclusivity’ (last one in’s a cissy, presumably). Meanwhile, the team are unbeatable and may yet produce the greatest of escapes from relegation. It could be for nothing. Except that Redknapp said: “There’s no way I’ll see them go under.” And when has he ever lied?

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

For the second week in a row, Aston Villa have enjoyed an emphatic win against struggling opposition.
And, for the second week in a row, we’ve chalked off their second goal. This week it’s John Carew who
had advanced into an offside position before rising to head home Ashley Young’s flighted free-kick as
Villa rose to the occasion against Birmingham City in, of course, the second city derby.