I wouldn't trust the FA to be able to fight it if a club and their sponsors were set on it.



For one thing Leeds United aren't even under the direct authority of the FA right now, they are a FL club. Now, if Leeds became Red Bulls Leeds and gained promotion to the PL, the FA might try and stop it, but personally I think the PL would step in and tell them to do one.



For me the power rests with the fans. If there's a genuine prospect of LUFC becoming LRB then they need telling that if it happened they'd refuse to support the club and there would be an active campaign against Red Bull.







I'm pretty certain the same thing happened after he left Chelsea. He was supposed to have an honoury presidents position, but within 5 minutes he was whining about how Abramovich was doing it wrong and he soon left.



I liked Ken Bates at CFC. At least he stood up for the club. But he was always too poor to be able to run a football club, even back in the 80's.

football league or premier league it doesn't matter. you can't have a trade name in your title

If Red Bull, Leeds United FC and the fans of Leeds United felt that becoming Leeds Red Bulls was going to help them become a PL club again, then they'd put up a challenge to the rules. And I think they'd win.



Austria Vienna did it back in the 90's. I remembered that from Chelsea playing Austria Memphis in the 90's. Just looking at Austria Vienna's wikipedia page I see there's also something on that about Red Bull Salzburg. There's also the New York Red Bulls.



The reason the FA can talk big and say they'll fight it is because they know the fans won't back it.

this is England not Austria. also in the states its all trade names.

I will keep repeating it won't happen here.

even if the fans kick off it won't happen.

simple as that

[url=http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/rules-of-the-association.ashxFA Rule 3(l), p101[/url







What you keep repeating isn't the issue they are the rules.



Looking at the articles from David conn this morning just highlights the trouble the club is in.

Some press reports are reporting the club has finally severed bates connection with the club.

Allegedly due to costs for his private plane jetting in from his tax exile base of Monaco , if only we all had that sort of problem. I am not much of a football fan but with bates around there was never a dull moment.

Whilst at Chelsea addressing the journalists post match, he said right the meetings over you lot can p..ss off to your council houses whilst I go to my 300acre farm.

I would have loved a dull moment the last 8 years have been a p1ss take.

I have never really kept up with what went on at utd, one thing I know for certain is somebody I know very well with several other business associates of his tried to buyutd before bates took over. They were all Leeds supporter and successful businessmen.

They could not make any sense out of the accounts and people selling the club, it would have cost them a fortune to do a diligence exercise. They wanted to buy the club as supporters, not to asset strip it as various other parties have done.

The club was in trouble and needed stabilising if it had have been managed correctly it would have been back in the top flight withing 2-3 seasons. Sadly Bates got his claws in.



Though his legacy is being removed, with yorkshire radio now being shut down.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/2 ... witterfeed

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/2 ... witterfeed

Can't wait for the new season now, no doubt it will yet again be a disappointing and humbling experience, but here's hoping we can pull something out of the bag.



Big crowd due as well, a win playing decent football should hopefully bring a few of the curious stay aways who are attending back.

There were rules preventing football clubs from paying directors. There were rules that directors weren't able to profit from clubs going bust.



Clubs just walked round these rules and the FA did FA about it.



The FA have rules about names of clubs. Hull City have recently come out and said they are no longer Hull City AFC and are now Hull City Tigers (locally) and Hull Tigers (nationally and internationally).



What have the FA done about Hull City changing their name and not abiding by their rules? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Have a quick google search of "chelsea fc" and you'll see their first game is against "Hull City Tigers". Hull City have effectively managed to change their name unofficially and it's been accepted by outsiders as a change of name. The FA have sat on their hands, because they are useless.



Now, the Hull City Tigers name change is just a pathetic marketing attempt by a div. It's an embarrassment to supporters of Hull City to have their history and identity thrown away in a foolish attempt to build a "brand". And the FA have sat silently by and done nothing about it. You want to believe that if Leeds United sell the naming rights of the club to Red Bull and they will suddenly rush in stop it? You probably still believe in the tooth fairy, father christmas and god as well.