Dirty Leeds at it again!

[M17TT C]

Fair enough then. Still doesn't make them a better potential investment by getting relegated.

Great post above BTW Jeff!

 

[pipes]

Interesting to see Boston into administration today, and their cheif executive is...


Barrie Pierpoint!

 

[Dour]

Do all the creditors have to agree to the administrator's proposal (ie selling back to Bates), or just most?

Because it looks like most of the debt is to other Virgin Isles companies (and thus probably controlled by Bates - and likely to agree). What with the cash coming in from transfers, this then looks like a £5 million sting against the Revenue. Not necessarily the best people to aggravate, especially given Bates tax-dodger status.

 

[Jeff]

Do all the creditors have to agree to the administrator's proposal (ie selling back to Bates), or just most?

Because it looks like most of the debt is to other Virgin Isles companies (and thus probably controlled by Bates - and likely to agree). What with the cash coming in from transfers, this then looks like a £5 million sting against the Revenue. Not necessarily the best people to aggravate, especially given Bates tax-dodger status.

This is what someone posted elsewhere:

Bates is known to have 'involvements' with Astor Investment
Holdings, Krato Trust and Forward Sports Fund (FSF).
These 3 creditors are owed £22M of the 'newly' appeared total debt
of £35M and so they will effectively control the creditors meeting.
The £22M, I'm pretty sure, includes the initial purchase price AND
the hereto 'fictitious' £10M cash injection reported by Bates but
never actually evidenced by outside observers. Therefore, the actual
cost to Bates and his friends of acquiring Leeds United will
probably be much less than £22M.
Certainly value for money when one considers that you can buy £60M
worth of real estate for an extra £18M - of course the real estate
is currently in use but what does a league one club need a 40,000
seater stadium and/or a state of the art training facility for
anyway....

 

[Hazzman]

Interesting to see Boston into administration today, and their cheif executive is...


Barrie Pierpoint!

He's only just been hired though, his job is to get Boston through admin.

 

[Dour]

This is what someone posted elsewhere:

Bates is known to have 'involvements' with Astor Investment
Holdings, Krato Trust and Forward Sports Fund (FSF).
These 3 creditors are owed £22M of the 'newly' appeared total debt
of £35M and so they will effectively control the creditors meeting.
The £22M, I'm pretty sure, includes the initial purchase price AND
the hereto 'fictitious' £10M cash injection reported by Bates but
never actually evidenced by outside observers. Therefore, the actual
cost to Bates and his friends of acquiring Leeds United will
probably be much less than £22M.
Certainly value for money when one considers that you can buy £60M
worth of real estate for an extra £18M - of course the real estate
is currently in use but what does a league one club need a 40,000
seater stadium and/or a state of the art training facility for
anyway....

Thanks.

Some of that doesn't sound entirely right, though - where was it from, by the way?

 

[alex]

Ken Bates + Dennis Wide = A roight load of bovver.

Horrid.

 

[Durham Fox]

Leeds have made no attempt to avoid administration, they have players who could be sold to raise money, the only reason they went into administration when they did was to get the 10 point deduction this season.

When we went into administration the club had sold as many players as possible in the summer, and unsuccessfully tried to give several away. Also it was just after the ITV digital collapse, which in addition to costing us money, also had a negative effect on the transfer market, which meant we couldn't raise as much as was anticipated after going down. Leeds don't have that excuse, they're just cheating, their directors should be banned from being directors of companies in future, if Bates gets to take control of the club with reduced debts that's just taking the piss.

Spot on. Scandalous and not like our situation at all.

 

[Darth Vodka]

fair play to leeds, they acted within the rules, annoying yes, but it's what any business does

perhaps we should have gone into admin quicker...

 

[Hazzman]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2076481,00.html

There is a god.....and that's the main bloke behind the body who make the decision questioning the loophole.

 

[homer]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2076481,00.html

There is a god.....and that's the main bloke behind the body who make the decision questioning the loophole.

That will apply for future seasons, if implemented - so won't actually affect Leeds at all

 

[Melton Fox]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2076481,00.html

There is a god.....and that's the main bloke behind the body who make the decision questioning the loophole.

Don't fall for it Hazza.
This was probably always going to happen. They were just going to lets Leeds get away with it first

 

[bocadillo]

fair play to leeds, they acted within the rules, annoying yes, but it's what any business does

perhaps we should have gone into admin quicker...

It's not fair play at all. You've got to question whether the rules are being upheld when so much of the debt is owed to somebody who is a major player in the company - and who will single-handedly be able to approve his old company being transferred to his new company. There are also rules about 'fitness to be a director' which should come into play.

 

[Hazzman]

Don't fall for it Hazza.
This was probably always going to happen. They were just going to lets Leeds get away with it first

Generally the head of the FL is a decent bloke. He's the one that led to the crackdown on agents in this division. Bit of an egomaniac but so far he leads the Football League. If Leeds were to avoid this then, it's a shame but at least the loophole will be covered.

 

[Darth Vodka]

You've got to question whether the rules are being upheld

are you going to explicity state that you think Leeds broke a league rule?

 

[Dour]

are you going to explicity state that you think Leeds broke a league rule?

Not a league rule, but they may be very close to defrauding the Revenue.

And if the Revenue take this view, they may point out to the league that they are not obliged to be as lenient with football cluds as they have been (in allowing debts to accumulate). Which may push the league into questioning the transfer to Bates's new vehicle.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Not a league rule, but they may be very close to defrauding the Revenue.

And if the Revenue take this view, they may point out to the league that they are not obliged to be as lenient with football cluds as they have been (in allowing debts to accumulate). Which may push the league into questioning the transfer to Bates's new vehicle.

defrauding by allowing it to rack up and then folding the company?

that's not defrauding, that's just what every shyster businessman does

agreed, they're gonna be pissed off, but all they can do it demand income tax as quickly as possible from leeds (and others) in the future and threaten clubs with court ASAP

i'm of the opinion they have broken NO RULES WHATSOEVER

if someone wants to prove me wrong, quote me the law they've broken...

 

[bocadillo]

are you going to explicity state that you think Leeds broke a league rule?

I don't know exactly what the league rules say, but I doubt if they are bright enough to be able to catch this one. I was really referring to company rules - the idea, that somebody can be the major creditor of the company that he runs, then put that company into administration, then is able to buy the company out of administration by virtue of the fact that he is able as the major creditor to permit it, is a total anathema IMHO. He can not be fit to run a company and should be disqualified from doing so.

Football clubs can not be allowed to go bust and revive themselves at the rate at which they are at the moment. The situation will come where nobody in their right mind will give a football club any credit at all for fear of never receiving their money. I don't imagine that HMRC will for much longer accept reduced payments when they see 'football debts' being paid in full and the clubs reviving themselves and continuing to rake in money in the following seasons. They will simply say that they want the lot and veto moves out of admin.

 

[bocadillo]

defrauding by allowing it to rack up and then folding the company?

that's not defrauding, that's just what every shyster businessman does

agreed, they're gonna be pissed off, but all they can do it demand income tax as quickly as possible from leeds (and others) in the future and threaten clubs with court ASAP

i'm of the opinion they have broken NO RULES WHATSOEVER

if someone wants to prove me wrong, quote me the law they've broken...

I don't know what rules might have been broken because I don't know enough about Company law. But this ia an usual case in that the majority of the debts that have been 'racked up' are owed to the bloke running the company.

 

[Hazzman]

I don't know what rules might have been broken because I don't know enough about Company law. But this ia an usual case in that the majority of the debts that have been 'racked up' are owed to the bloke running the company.

My initials thoughts were surely they have broken company law. Seemed to me they were desperate to claim themselves in admin, the week running up to the Derby game.