Are any of those points actually made in factual knowledge? Most seem to be
supposition, imagining you were there, putting words into peoples mouths
and guesses.
>Healy was on decent championshiop money. Better than a lot of prem strikers
I'd guess.
[Nigel Holcroft] - I somehow doubt that, but that would take inside
information to confirm or deny
>You're conveniently ignoring the bit about the player's age. A £5m player
age 21 will, in most cases, be worth at least that at 26. Maybe a lot more.
So he's on the books as a valuable asset that isn't depreciating. A £5m
player age 28 will be worth a lot less when he's 33. So his book value is
less - which affects his transfer value.
[Nigel Holcroft] No not ignoring it, at all
.but it works two ways.
Younger players are often looked at as unproven and bought with a view to
development. They have a degree of risk attached. The Leagues are littered
with promising young players who never lived up to their potential. Healeys
in his prime and proven to be able to score goals at a high level (when
played in position and given the support any striker needs) so he is being
bought to do a job now and the purchaser would be expecting o et their
moneys worth out of him while hes at the club rather than being too
concerned about a sell on windfall.
>What Bates "said" and what went on in negotiations with Fulham and Healy's
agent are totally different. Do you really think Ken Bates takes sh*t from
agents? The fact that he has no truck with football's leeches is his most
endearing characteristic, IMO.
[Nigel Holcroft] Are or may be? Were you there? Im inclined to believe
Ken doesnt take, willingly shit from anyone, even if his own lips stop
flapping long enough to hear the other persons point of view
Still without
the premise of your first point being certain, the second is, pretty much
irrelevant.
The third point makes me laugh with its irony
it brings to mind clichés,
such as it takes one to know one or better still, we see our own faults,
worst in others. Ken has proven himself over again to be one of the
greatest leeches, not only in football but in society as a whole.
>As for Nicholls, my guess is we didn't get much for him, but the receivers
used the proceeds to keep the club going. Bates probably used that to keep
KPMG happy, allowing him to hang on to Healy & Blake, from whom we'll
receive over £2m. As for Nicholls going back to Luton - that was when (a)
Newell was manager and (b) Luton were in the c'ship. What makes you think
he'd have gone there now? Or that Blackwell (who must have known he'd signed
a fat, disloyal knacker) would resign him now he's a luton? Nicholls has
actually done quite well for himself, going to a decent c'ship side. I'm
just glad we're rid of him.
>What rubbish. Healy will have told his agent to get him the best deal that
involved Lawrie Sanchez. I don't believe there was ever a rival enquiry for
Healy that Healy would have considered.
[Nigel Holcroft] More speculation and supposition.
.
>Oh, like they care. Healy knew what he wanted and he got it. And frankly we
got an OK deal for a player whose English league scoring record is hardly
stellar.
[Nigel Holcroft] I seem to remember it being pretty good, before he came
to us and got stuck out on the left wing for a couple of seasons.
>Who'd you be trying to kid? We're in Div 3, FFS. "Not needing to sell".
What a joke. Having no option but to sell, more like.
[Nigel Holcroft] Only after Uncle Ken managed to triple the debts and
bankrupt us, while, simultaneously charging record prices, selling off
players and getting us relegated
Prior to that hed assured us we were no
longer a selling club, wages were under tight control and the debts were a
manageable 9 million or so
>I'm saying he's playing the game very cannily. Get off your moral high
horse.
[Nigel Holcroft] See above
very canny.
>How would that have helped? Surely better from the club's PoV to get the
money after exiting receivership, rather than paying HMRC, Bob's disco et al
another 1p in the £?
[Nigel Holcroft] Did I say that? I dont believe so. Youll find that I
said the money would have been available to KPMG to fund the day to day
running of the club, while taking time to perform a more ethical, fair and
honest sale process. You may remember one of Kens scare tactics was to say
that no one would be prepared to fund the club before being given ownership
and so wed have to fold. He then backed it up with the repeated lie that
the club could not trade players without the golden Share.
>Assuming we get the golden share back (which I would say is likely - the
delay is probably paperwork-based. And does the FL really want the hassle of
chucking out the single biggest member club of its league?), has he not
pulled off a fantastically clever bit of business? Effectively clearing out
the residual debts and ending up with exactly the same assets as he had
before? And done it through the administration system, without breaking the
law?
[Nigel Holcroft] Once again some mighty big assumptions, in there. .. Time
will tell
but even if your assumptions, regarding the Golden Share and
legality of the scheme prove true, how does that make him a good, let alone
genius businessman when it comes to club finances. I refer you once again to
the above answer, regarding a man who somehow, oversaw a policy that tripled
our debt and saw us relegated to our lowest ever position, while raising
prices and selling off assets.? How long till he repeats the process?
_______________________________________________
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
