What is the situation regarding Leeds, CVA, Golden share etc.

[larus]

OK. I know that there are still issues surrounding Leeds and coming out of administration and the CVA etc. Could someone explain the issues please, and who is really at fault. I know Bates is an a***hole, but is it all his fault, or are politics being played by other parties which in reality are unreasonable?

Thanks.

 

[severnside gull]

seems the tax man - who in this case represents you and me as its our money thats owed - wants more than a pittance from the funds which bates clearly has access to but refuses to identify or explain.

seems pefectly reasonable

 

[larus]

But how does this affect the golden share and the Football League?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

As far as I undertand it, the Football League withold their golden share until the situation is resolved. Either by Bates or the IR caving in and meeting the demands. They will not be able to play in the football league without the share.

Leeds Utd are affected by a transfer embargo and can't sign anyone until the situation is resolved.

 

[Starry]

OK. I know that there are still issues surrounding Leeds and coming out of administration and the CVA etc. Could someone explain the issues please, and who is really at fault. I know Bates is an a***hole, but is it all his fault, or are politics being played by other parties which in reality are unreasonable?

Thanks.

there is no cva that is the problem. bates brought the club without one hence no share and he (kpmg) demanded that the exceptional circumstances (which the fl were willing to grant/allow) were not allowed (because it meant they had to be accountable for money/debts/payments) and so we have a stand off.

bates was (i would say is, but notice the deathly silence from the bearded one)being a twat and leedsunited07 have completely lost the plot.

the fl are not being exactly helpful. they keep saying leeds united fc can start the league in admin, but kpmg have sold leedsunited fc and cannot fund something that in theory no longer exists and no one else can buy it because it has already been sold.

kpmg have screwed everything up right from the initial administration way back in may to providing us with documents.

it's a complete stand off now.

ten days. tick tock.

the hrmc is something completely separate to this and is between them and kpmg rather than them and bates.

no way we'll play on august 11th as things are right now.

 

[larus]

Starry.

Can you explain a bit more ebout the FL and the exceptional circumstances which were/weren't allowed and what these normally mean and why Bates/KPMG didn't want them?

Thanks.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

These are really desparate times for Leeds. Its gone beyond them falling down the leagues.

The problem for Leeds is things have been so screwed up by so many parties, that I cant really see anyway that they can get themselves out of it.

In effect there are two Leeds. One Leeds AFC which is in admin and which can play in the FL, the other Leeds 2007 which is owned by Bates and which currently cant play in the FL. Bates will not fund Leeds AFC so effectively that club will no longer exist.

The obvious thing is for Leeds 2007 to be allowed to play in the FL. Thing is they are outside of the Football league rules. So what do the FL do? Break their rule book and let Leeds 2007 in? If they do that, then what is the future of football in this country if in effect push comes to shove, any club can break the rules. Its a green light to any businessman to do what Bates has done.

I really do fear for Leeds or the future propriety of football in this country. Its all down to the football league. Leeds haven't helped themselves by angering the FL with there ploy last season with the 10 point deduction, plus it doesn't help having a chairman called Bates, who has pissed the football authorities off for years.

I can see the FL now taking the chance in screwing Bates back. Unfortunately, the result will be Leeds death.

 

[Starry]

Starry.

Can you explain a bit more ebout the FL and the exceptional circumstances which were/weren't allowed and what these normally mean and why Bates/KPMG didn't want them?

Thanks.

exceptional circumstances is a way for a club to be sold in a situation like this without the cva. the fl were willing to negotiate this with leedsunited07 (kpmg) and possibly come to some sort of agreement (not definite, but the chance was there) it would have meant the fl having some degree of control over finances and things. bates said no thanks, give me my golden share and that's all i want from you. i can only assume bates did not want the fl involved in this way because the finances are less than above board.

kpmg agreed this deal with bates to buy the club but the fl have serious concerns over the way the deal was done, over how the administration was handled from start to finish and having now received the documents from kpmg regarding all the bids etc i think they are now convinced that bates was not the best deal for creditors. the fl have also gone a step above that and are looking at the running of the club and how some debts managed to get voted on at the cva meeting when they may well not have existed in the first place.

 

[larus]

Thanks Diffbrook & Starry.

As much as we may banter with other fans from other clubs, I don't hate any club (well maybe one ). I really hope this can be solved so that Leeds start the league season properly and Bates gets screwed; after all that's what he seems to have attempted to do to the other creditors.

The sooner that this guy is out of football the better IMO.

The perverse thing about all of this money coming into football which should in theory make the game so much better, has ended up in fact ruining it for most fans. Either the clubs are so big, wealthy and powerful, or you're an also ran with no real chance of ever winning anything of worth in the game any more. The players get paid far too much; £140,000 p.w. ffs. So many of them now appear to be so far up their own backsides.

The money hasn't filtered down through the divisions enough to really support grass-roots football better. There are clubs at risk with debts in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, when players in the top clubs earn that in a month. It just ain't right.

 

[pornomagboy]

Leeds United chief executive Shaun Harvey has called on the club's supporters to 'unite not divide' following growing pressure on chairman Ken Bates to step down.

With the West Yorkshire club still awaiting their 'golden share' from the Football League to play in League One this season, fans have staged a 'flower power' protest outside Elland Road.

Harvey is sorry Leeds fans have not been kept up-to-date with the latest news from the club and he also confirmed the club are now pushing the League for a swift decision on their share issue.

"It has proved extremely difficult since Leeds United 2007 Limited bought the club from the administrators on July 11, 2007 to keep supporters up to date," he told the club's official website.

"We are in daily contact with the League and are now pushing them to schedule a date for the board meeting as we know they now have the information they were waiting for from (administrators) KPMG and have had time to consider it.

"We have been accused of sitting on our hands and not pushing them enough but as those who have dealt with regulatory bodies will testify, too much pushing can often slow the process, not speed it up. Our judgement call is that now is the time to push and we are doing so.

"It is important that we receive everybody's support behind getting the share back which is why I am dismayed that there seems to be a resurgence, fuelled by certain sections of the media, against the consortium led by Ken Bates. This is time to unite not divide."

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Not really sure what the angle is with Bates though. I suppose if the FL let Leeds 2007 in, then Bates (after say 6 months) will be able to sell the club (minus the debts after screwing all the smaller businesses) to another businessman. Astor the major creditor who has backed Bates (despite other potential buyers of the club offering more money back in the pound than Bates) will presumably see some of the profit Bates makes back on that potential sale.

If the FL do not Leeds in, then Bates has the legal buy back option on Elland Road and Thorpe Arch at a certain guranteed price (I think). Not sure what the value of Elland Road is. Seeing as its industrial land by the M62, then perhaps not that high. But Thorpe Arch is a goldmine for housing property developers. Its a very nice area and command some high prices.

Put its this way, unless the FL can somehow screw him, then Bates will be alright no matter what happens. But then asset strippers always are. They should never be allowed near football clubs.

 

[Rookie]

according to sky got no keepers to start the new season at the moment and are asking for special treatment from the league

 

[Starry]

got two, casper and loach who have deals agreed if the golden share is given. if the golden share is not given it doesn't matter anyway because we won't be starting the league.

but yeah, as it is right now we have no keeper who could play.

 

[Storer68]

What United fans are anxious to know . . .

Q: Will Leeds United now be able to kick off the new season?

A: YES. The Football League allows clubs to play in administration for a maximum of 18 months – even without the transfer of the so-called 'golden share.'

Q: Is manager Dennis Wise now able to sign new players?

A: YES. Although the club remains the subject of a transfer embargo, League rules still entitle any club with less than 20 professionals to bring new players in, albeit on a case-by-case basis and subject to League approval. At the last count, Wise had 17 players at his disposal.

Q: Do Leeds have permission to play in pre-season friendlies, including tonight's trip to York City?

A: YES. The Football Association, who sanction friendlies, will allow Leeds to play as long as they are not breaching any of the game's rules and have enough registered players.

Q: How much has Ken Bates agreed to pay to the creditors?

A: No one knows just yet. It is believed to be more than his last offer of 8p in the pound, but will be revealed in a report to creditors at a later date.



Last Updated: 13 July 2007 9:48 AM

 

[withdeanwombat]

It is just a sorry mess,isn't it?

Is it the case that a CVA cannot be put in place because the tax office (and as someone said,it is OUR money being withheld )will not agree to one?

It must be totally baffling being a Leeds supporter right now,and though there is no divine right in football,Leeds are by potential and history one of this country's "biggest" teams.

And like them or loathe them,those supporters feel for their club in exactly the same way we do about the Albion.

They are being royally rooked as we were not that long ago,and it must stop.

 

[Storer68]

ah yes, but if you sup with the devil..........

 

[Lord Bracknell]

the fl have also gone a step above that and are looking at the running of the club and how some debts managed to get voted on at the cva meeting when they may well not have existed in the first place.

Presumably if that sort of thing WERE to happen (and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it HAS happened), then a criminal conspiracy would have occurred and the perpetrators would be liable to end up serving a very long prison sentence.

 

[sully]

Presumably if that sort of thing WERE to happen (and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it HAS happened), then a criminal conspiracy would have occurred and the perpetrators would be liable to end up serving a very long prison sentence.

It sounds pretty similar to what has happened at Crawley with the alleged debts owed to the SA Group (who also own CTFC) being so considerable as to mean that no potential purchaser could make a sensible offer.

If the administrators cannot satisfy themselves of the reality of such debts and provide proper evidence of how they have been amassed, then they should not be considered. If those responsible for running up such debts cannot provide the information required to prove what the debt is for and how they came to lose so much money in the first place, then they should go to jail. Simple.

 

[Starry]

Presumably if that sort of thing WERE to happen (and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it HAS happened), then a criminal conspiracy would have occurred and the perpetrators would be liable to end up serving a very long prison sentence.

quite, lord B, quite.

still i am treating the wife and kids to an exotic long weekend in burnley to take it what might be one of our last games. maybe we return we'll have some good news.

 

[Boroseagull]

'If the administrators cannot satisfy themselves of the reality of such debts and provide proper evidence of how they have been amassed, then they should not be considered. If those responsible for running up such debts cannot provide the information required to prove what the debt is for and how they came to lose so much money in the first place, then they should go to jail. Simple'


To be released early and start over again! What needs changing is the company law that allows situations like this to be made possible.