Ok, if it isn't Bates but someone else and Bates has nothing to do with it then I fall back to what Harvey said a week or so ago, that the ownership of the ground had changed but that this in no way affected the rent or buyback options for LUFC, and indeed the intention was to buy back the ground.
If Bates has got something to do with it... even if Adler sold for the original buyback price, therefore the new owners wouldnt make a penny buy selling to LUFC, in the meantime they are making quite a nice rental income. So it still makes sense for Bates to buy off Adler doesn't it? If he bought for £12 mil, and he earns £1m a year off that, thats a rather nice risk free (they have the ground/land still) ROI. Make no mistake, Bates is in this to make a few quid but I happen to think that potentially LUFC could come out of this rather nicely financially too, but if not they will at least be no worse off. I mean, at the moment what do they have? A failing football side, a 25 year rental agreement for ER and the buy back option? If Bates makes a mint from the surrounding land so what? Its not like LUFC own that land any more. The time to start worrying or complaining about that was when Krasner sold it to Adler. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scratchinshed Sent: 11 January 2007 22:19 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] How re-assuring ----- Original Message ----- The ground thing doesn't affect us negatively in any way, shape or form. LUFC still pay the same rent, still have the same options, its just a different landlord. So what if it's Bates company? Why are we bothered if its him making a few mil instead of Adler? At least if its Bates it means he doesn't need to make a living by taking money out of the club. Also, by it being in his ownership we wont have any problems when it comes to buying the ground back will we? It is true that as it stands right now the club is unaffected as you say, but have you actually thought about the rest of what you have written. An option to buy is only of some use if you have the WILL to exercise the option. Also - if the landlord and the club agree to tear up the option who is to stop them ? Who is to stop them agreeing a completely new lease if they both agreed to do so ? The ownership of shares in a BVI company need not be disclosed so the owner could sell their shares to an new owner and nobody would know.Why on earth would Adler sell his investment to ANYBODY at a price low enough to permit them to make a few mil on the buyback ? Maybe you didn't hear but Mr Taylor (director and legal adviser to Mr Bates) said that Mr Bates had no involvement in the BVI company so it isn't Bates' company, or at least it wasn't when he said it. Maybe you might also consider where the benefits of future property development might go depending on who owns what. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist 'I am in shock,' said Ferguson.
