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.
Interesting to see Boston into administration today, and their cheif executive is...
Barrie Pierpoint!
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....
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.
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.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.
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...
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
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?
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.
are you going to explicity state that you think Leeds broke a league rule?
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.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |