20 important questions the FL need to ask re Leeds

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



DIFFBROOK

Really Up the Junction
Feb 3, 2005
2,267
Yorkshire
Interesting questions that should be answered:

Leeds United: the unanswered questions

With Leeds fans and players still in limbo, David Conn and Matt Scott pose 20 questions about the troubled club.
The Guardian July 27, 2007 12:43 AM

The Football League said yesterday it has received further details from the administrator, KPMG, about the sale of Leeds United to a new company, Leeds United 2007 Ltd, owned by the Cayman Islands-registered Forward Sports Fund and chaired by Ken Bates.

The League has so far refused to sign over its "golden share" of membership to this new company, which was not bought via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) agreement of creditors. In all, 41 other Football League clubs have collapsed into insolvency since the Premier League was formed in 1992, and in every previous case, the League has insisted on a CVA being agreed as a condition of transferring its golden share to the new owners.

Ken Bates is now asking the League to treat his company as an exception. Leeds United is at an impasse, with KPMG having sold the assets to the new company, but the League insisting that the players' registrations are still held by the old company until the golden share is transferred to a new owner. As doubts still hang over the club's future, David Conn and Matt Scott pose 20 significant questions about the ownership and running of Leeds, KPMG's handling of the administration, and what happens now.

1 Why did Leeds collapse into insolvency and administration in the first place, with debts of £35.5m, given that Ken Bates, and his solicitor and fellow Leeds United director Mark Taylor, had said during 2006-07 that the club would be in a dramatically better financial position once the season was over and the contracts of high-earning players would come to an end?

2 How did Leeds come to owe £17.7m to three offshore companies, Astor Investment Holdings (registered in the British Virgin Islands), Krato Trust (Nevis Island, the West Indies), and the owner of the club, Forward Sports Fund (the Cayman Islands), and how did the club spend that money?

3 Why was KPMG in such a hurry to sell Leeds United immediately back to the new company, which is also owned by the Forward Sports Fund and chaired by Bates, for 1p in the pound, when the administrators of other clubs have spent months running clubs and publicly seeking the best possible deal for creditors?

4 Who are the owners or beneficiaries of the Forward Sports Fund, Astor Investment Holdings and Krato Trust, and why have they chosen to register their companies in offshore tax havens where they are not legally required to declare their identity?

5 If Leeds United's owners are the anonymous people behind the Forward Sports Fund, how can the Football League be satisfied they pass its "fit and proper person test"?

6 Why have Astor and Krato agreed to waive any repayment of their huge debts so long as the club was re-sold to Forward and Bates, arguing, according to Taylor, that they had faith in the management of the club?

7 Leeds United's 2006 accounts stated that Astor did have "an interest" in the Forward Sports Fund, then at the creditors meeting on June 1, Taylor stated that the interest had been severed last December. How was this done, why, and what evidence was given of it to KPMG?

8 Why was the previous connection between Astor and Forward not mentioned in KPMG's first report to creditors, nor any explanation given of how the connection had been severed?

9 The 2006 accounts also stated that Patrick Murrin, the former Guernsey accountant, Chelsea director and representative of the large, anonymous offshore shareholding in Chelsea during Bates' time in charge, had "an interest" in the Forward Sports Fund. What is Murrin's interest in Forward?

10 The 2006 accounts stated that a company of which Murrin is a shareholder, Rivoli Limited, also registered in Nevis Island, had been paid £186,000 in "consultancy costs" during the year. What consultancy services did Murrin, and Rivoli Ltd, provide to Leeds United Football Club during 2005-06?

11 Why did KPMG allow Forward's and Bates' new company to receive the money for Leeds United season tickets - the company agreeing to refund the money if the club went bust - even though the company has not, still, been granted Football League membership, in apparent contravention of FA rules?

12 How has the money, around £4m, received from the 10,000 season tickets which the club say they have sold to their long-suffering fans, been used?

13 KPMG says it did "extensive work" to verify the claims of money owed to Leeds United creditors, while HM Revenue and Customs challenged the CVA, which narrowly approved the first sale, on the grounds of "material irregularities", arguing partly with the levels of debt claimed. So how much investigation did KPMG carry out into the club's debts?

14 Why did the club owe their own company Yorkshire Radio, of which Bates and Taylor are also directors, £480,000, and why was this debt first revealed only in the final voting at the creditors meeting, not in the initial statement of debts issued by KPMG?

15 When KPMG responded to HMRC's legal challenge to the CVA by announcing it was selling the club again, this time without going through a CVA, why did it give bidders less than three working days to make their offers, and no access to detailed financial information?

16 On what basis did Bates and Forward win the bid for the club the second time, and how did their offer beat those of other bidders, and why did KPMG agree to sell the club without being satisfied that the League would grant this company the "golden share" membership of the League?

17 Why has Forward's and Bates' new company not paid the players for the month of June?

18 What did KPMG actually sell to Forward's and Bates' new company if, as the League insists, players' registrations remain with the old company until any new company is awarded the "golden share"?

19 Why have Bates and Taylor apparently not yet obtained the permission of a court to act as directors of the new Leeds United Football Club Ltd, as required by s216 of the Insolvency Act, because both were directors of a company with the same name, which went into liquidation last year?

20 Why should the Football League make an exception for Leeds and grant Forward's and Bates' new company its "golden share" of membership despite the purchase not having been done via a CVA, given that the League has insisted on the CVA process for all 41 of its other clubs which have fallen into insolvency since 1992?
 




bhafc99

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2003
7,455
Dubai
Superb stuff.

Expect Bates to answer absolutely none of these questions, and continue his aggressive bluster instead.
 


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,825
By the seaside in West Somerset
good points clearly made.
It begs the question will the league let Leeds go to the wall?
If the Premiership's cossetting of West Ham is anything to go by (and that is looking a more doubtful decision by the day) then you would expect the league to give in to Bates' pressure. Despite feeling for the fans I can only think that would be a wrong decision in terms of the financial probity of the game retaining any last vestiges of integrity
 


DIFFBROOK

Really Up the Junction
Feb 3, 2005
2,267
Yorkshire
Many Leeds fans also want to see the FL doing the right thing and not letting Leeds in, as opposed to bemding/breaking their rules for Leeds and damaging the integrity of football even further.

If Leeds get away with it, then there will be a huge number of dodgy chairman who will do exactly what Bates has done. It will ruin football.

I know it will be hard on Leeds fans and I do feel for them, but the FL do need to stand up to Bates this time, even if it means no Leeds
 


Superseagull

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
2,123
The whole thing was dodgy from day one of the Bates takeover. The longer it goes on the worse it gets. I feel sorry for the true Leeds fans who have seen the once mighty Leeds descend into a total shambles of a club. But I reckon the Football League needs to stand up to Bates and make the club pay back what it owes, or at least a decent percentage of it. Then we will see how genuine the new investors really are...
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,015
i think point 19 will be the straw that breaks the camels back, dont see how LU2007 can operate with this not resolved, its breaking company law isn't it?
 


Jim D

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2003
5,268
Worthing
Point 14 is also interesting. Was this the additional debt that was found and swayed the voting in favour of Bates?

The other item that seems obvious is that KPMG have a lot of serious questions to answer about their handling of the whole affair.
 




cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,307
La Rochelle
I did suggest on another thread, that rather than let Leeds united go to the wall............surely better to suspend them from the League for 1 year, until it,s all resolved properly.
Let,s see if Mr. Bates blinks, with no income for 12 months, staring him in the face.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top