----- Original Message ----- >> Their objective is to get the club back to the premiership, >> then sell it in order to make their profit. What is your >> problem with that ? > > None at all, I am a realist and surely Ken Bates is trying to do the same > as > that.
The difference between the two is that Ken always intended to do it by exploiting the fans as much as he could. From the very start of Kens reign at Leeds I have always said that if he put his own money in (in its widest sense) then he deserves the capital gain which has always been his ultimate objective. I have also said that if the fans are paying for ownership (or at least part ownership) then that is what they should be getting. This is not new to Mr Bates. I said exactly the same thing to David Richmond and Gerald Krasner about the 20 yr ticket project, though I'm fairly sure that Mr Krasner does not remember it (which tells you something about its perceived lack of significance). The fans have paid premiership prices (and were told that this was to obtain premiership football) but were delivered a totally inferior product. The fans have part-paid for Mr Bates' ownership of the club. It is also clear that the creditors including the citizens of the UK via HMRC have been funding the running costs of the club for Mr Bates. That is after all where the money that they have lost has gone. This is NOT the same business model as Redbus for example though that is ONLY an example. > So are you saying that redbus only want to invest in the club not own it? > If that is the case fair enough, presumably they'll be knocking on Capt > Birdseye's door. Redbus are only interested in majority control. They are not interested in being a minor party. Their preference as I understand it is for 100% ownership. > If however they want to own it and then go bust, I really can't see how > that > would be anything other than another disaster for all concerned, how could > the club carry on in any meaninful way if the holding company went bust? The club, as an asset, would be sold to the highest bidder after having had millions of risk capital spent on it. It would cease to have anything to do with Redbus. I suppose given recent experiences there is an alternative to the highest bidder in that Redbus might prefer for whatever reason to sell to somebody other than the highest bidder but if they then went bust it could be wound back as a disposal at under value. I sincerely hope that the direction you are taking this is not going to imply that anyone is suggesting that Redbus buying the club and then going bust is a positive thing to happen. The second event does not follow on automatically from the first. > But surely you find his alledged comments that his company would go bust > if > we didn't get to the premiership, naive and dangerous given our history > and > what we all know about vagaries of football? I prefer to think that this was a hypothetical attempt to indicate how serious Redbus are about returning Leeds to the Premiership. It was intended to answer fears, which had been expressed, that Redbus had some other motivation for wanting to buy the club. It was an indication of their level of commitment. I don't think for a moment that Simon would let the club take down the whole of Redbus and I suspect that he would sell the club before any losses became so critical. Neither at the creditors meeting, nor in my subsequent conversation did Simon strike me as being in any way naiive. In any event he said that Redbus might go bust and not that Leeds United would go bust. There is a very big difference which you seem to be ignoring and it was definately a hypothetical "what if" anyway. I have no idea what you mean when you talk about our history implying some increased level of danger. The vagaries of football represent the risk which would be being taken on by Redbus. In football the vagaries are frequently affected by budgets. Redbus know the budgets of clubs at various levels and that is a part of their business plan. In their view they have allocated sufficient funding in order to make success likely. Success for Redbus would be promotion to the premiership. I am also saying far more than I have any right to on behalf of Redbus. I'm answering according to my understanding but I can't speak for them in any way at all and my understanding is unlikely to be 100% accurate even with the best will in the world. > I would prefer someone to say they will invest in the club and the youth, > while providing fans with a reasonable entry charge, with a view to > produce > a team capable of challenging for promotion within, say n years. BUT not > at the risk of bankrupcy. Perhaps it was unwise to mention that hypothetical and remote possibility in connection with Leeds but Simon was not fully up to speed with the paranoia and hysteria of some Leeds Fans. It seems that the only way to make you completely happy would be if Simon gives you the job of writing everything he says in connection with the club before he says it. I do know for a fact that the attitude of Leeds fans is one of the major concerns expressed by potential investors. Almost nobody wants to attempt the recovery of Leeds United against the will of the fans. Whoever does the job is going to have to invest significant money or it simply will not happen. Any such investment carries with it the investment risk. However much you might prefer it you are not going to get one without the other. _______________________________________________ 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 Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
