Bates has a massive ego that I reckon overcomes his desire for cash to a
point.
He hates the FA and Chelsea and wants to be a success somewhere else
If Bates success in this we succeed as a club!
From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Scratchinshed'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LU] How re-assuring
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:06:31 -0000
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.
_________________________________________________________________
Find Love This New Year With match.com! http://msnuk.match.com
_______________________________________________
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.
