Agreed - but nice and logical is what stands up in court
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'thecasses'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Paul Cundell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'LUList'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [LU] Update on Progress and comments on other bids from YP That's all nice and logical... BUT, it's also the main reason the FL and Others are holding out. This connivance is so bloody obvious and stinks to hell and could in the end be what kills Leeds United. If Dr Evil gets away with it and continues on his Master Plan to make money and Mini Me can go build a team and buy players then its fine, but if the Blindingly Obvious makes the FL say no, Leeds cannot be in the League, then it's a bloody huge problem. This all depends upon the FL being prepared to accept what is corrupt practice to enable Leeds to Survive. Good Job we are one of the FL's favourite clubs then.. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of thecasses Sent: 30 July 2007 07:45 To: Paul Cundell; 'LUList' Subject: Re: [LU] Update on Progress and comments on other bids from YP Paul - your bias know no bounds "Pete, sweetie, Bates' offer was half that of Redbus' offer - most had an inkling that this was the case, which is why there was such consternation. It only became a better deal, initially, for the creditors when that totally unconnected company that Mark Taylor (a luafc director) represents wiped off £17M for no other reason than they like cuddly ken. Even then Bates' offer is only 0.9p in the £1 better than Redbus'. " In your own words: "it became a better deal" "Bates' offer is...better than Redbus'" So QUITE CLEARLY Bates had the better offer, KPMG did their job - AGAIN Time to let go Paul - just let it go........ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cundell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'LUList'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [LU] Update on Progress and comments on other bids from YP Pete, sweetie, Bates' offer was half that of Redbus' offer - most had an inkling that this was the case, which is why there was such consternation. It only became a better deal, initially, for the creditors when that totally unconnected company that Mark Taylor (a luafc director) represents wiped off £17M for no other reason than they like cuddly ken. Even then Bates' offer is only 0.9p in the £1 better than Redbus'. Secondly, The FL have a rule - that rule states that the golden share will ONLY be transferred to a new company on the back of a successful CVA unless under exceptional circumstances. No club has ever invoked the exceptional circumstances clause so no one knows what the circumstances have to be to be circumstantial. As LUFCL have not followed this rule so the FL are not in a corner as you describe, LUFCL are. You have to admit that some money for team strengthening would be nice but you are right in suggesting that this had no bearing whatsoever on what the administrators considered the 'best' deal. You are also absolutely correct that every body would have had to pay the legal fees - I think the consternation here is that KPMG are probably taking a large chunk of this money and to us laymen, at least, don't appear to have completed the job i.e. selling a football club without the golden share is like selling a car without an engine. I doubt that Bates' would have a leg to stand on under any restraint of trade challenge, the FL haven't stopped him trading and have only restricted his membership of THEIR league. Just like any members club, membership is to be given not a given. Cheers Paul > > So Bates DID have the highest offer to creditors!!!! My God > that should see > a few folks on here putting their hands up and saying they > were wrong (as if > thats going to happen!!) > > Well thats cleared that area up, untill there were two > complaints already > raised by listers > 1. Wheres the money for team strengthening? Someone had > rumoured to give us > 200 thousand millions pounds or some such twaddle. I thought > everyone here > was bitching about what the poor creditors got - Oops Bates > had the best > offer after all > > 2. Now bates will only give the creditors X cos of the 800K > from Lawyers and > Administrators. Well D'uh, and do you think only bates's crew > would have had > to pay those costs??? > > So in summary, the way its come about is: > A. Bates' has an approved CVA from the 75% voting > OR > B. Bates has the best offer to creditors based on the > "tendering" process > > Either way Bates wins, and either way its all above board > (still smells of 5 > day old fish thats true) but what other option do the FL have > now? They have > backed themselves into a corner as there is no legal way out > for them. They > can challenge the original CVA for sure, but it is most > likely to come out > in bates' favour, or they can challenge the second effort > which has Bates > giving the creditors more money than anyone else > > Time for the FL to suck it up, admit quiety to themselves > they got fupped > over by Bates, issue some face-saving decision and let > Leeds/Bates get the > GS back > > The we only have 12 months to go till the "Anti-embarrasment" > clause runs > out and someone else can buy Bates out > > ----------------------- > On a separate note, any chance in the UK that Bates could > take the FL to > court for "restraint of trade" where Leeds as an entity are > being restricted > as a company performing at its peak to maximise its returns > to shareholders > by the dealing of the FL in not returning the GS??? Just > asking as I dont > know if UK has a "restaint of trade" law > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'LUList'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:20 PM > Subject: [LU] Update on Progress and comments on other bids from YP > > > This from the YP. Fair bit of info in here. > > The main question from my point of view is the waived debt > from the company > that has nowt to do with Bates because he sent a letter to > KPMG saying so, > even though he had a financial interest right up and until he > decided to go > CVA... Im worried that this looks so dodgy that either the > FL or Tax Man > are going to stop it so as to cover their arses in case it > comes back on > them > > > David Parkin: The final score on what the Bates deal means for Leeds > > By David Parkin > LEEDS United's creditors could receive almost 53p for every > pound they are > owed following the club's financial collapse - but only if it > returns to the > Premership within 10 years. > > > The figures emerged as full details of Ken Bates's offer to > buy the club > back out of administration arrive through creditors' letterboxes this > morning. > > Administrators KPMG have written to those owed around £33m by > the club, > detailing the successful offer by former Chelsea chairman Mr Bates. > > He has paid £1.8m up front for the club, which will give creditors a > dividend of 11.2p in the pound after fees of £885,000 for professional > advisers including KPMG and solicitors Walker Morris have > been deducted. > > Mr Bates's offer also includes a "conditional element" of £5m > which will be > paid if the club, which starts next season in the third tier > of English > football for the first time in its history, is promoted to > the Premiership > within 10 seasons. > > The deal also includes an "anti-embarrassment" clause which > prevents Mr > Bates selling the club before June 30 next year. However > administrators have > confirmed that even if the club is sold within 10 years then > the new owner > must honour the £5m commitment to creditors if Leeds United > are promoted to > the top division of English football. > > The document sent to creditors reveals the financial details > - but not the > identity - of three other offers received by the administrators. > > One included an upfront payment of £3.5m - almost twice that > of the Bates > offer - with another £5m guaranteed if the club return to the > Premiership. > > Another offered just £1 upfront but £7m once the Football > League transferred > its share back to Leeds United and another £3m if the club > was promoted to > the Championship and then the Premiership. > > However, while both offers represented sums substantially > more than the > successful bid, creditors would have received lower dividends, because > Astor, the offshore fund which was the club's largest > creditor, offered to > waive its £17.6m debt only if the Bates bid was accepted. > > But hopes that the club can now concentrate on on-the-field > affairs are > bleak, as it still needs to secure the return of its so-called "golden > share" from the Football League to allow it to compete during > the new season > in League One which starts in just a fortnight's time. > > The administrators KPMG sold the troubled Elland Road club to > Mr Bates on > July 11 and it was expected that the League's board meeting > would rubber > stamp the deal 24 hours later. > > This would have involved United's share in the League, > suspended when the > club went into administration on May 4, being transferred to the new > company, Leeds United 2007 Ltd. > > However, the League instead withheld the share and requested > documentation > regarding the sale from KPMG, while also revealing they would > be taking > legal advice. > > That has led to a public spat between the League and KPMG, > but last night, > the League said it has invited representatives of the club > and KPMG to a > meeting early next week to try to resolve the situation. > > Last night, Mr Bates refused to comment on the details of his > successful > offer to creditors. However, he criticised Her Majesty's > Revenue & Customs > (HMRC) for opposing his offer and the Football League for > failing to return > the club's share. > > "We are piggy in the middle," he said. > > "We have paid them everything we were supposed to have paid > them and we have > paid them in cash," he said of his offer. > > Mr Bates said that he had satisfied all the demands > of HMRC but > it had continued to challenge his offer. He said that HMRC > had challenged > the club's right to reclaim VAT on football agents' fees even > though a High > Court case involving Newcastle United had established that it > should be > reclaimed. > > "Part of their claim is fraudulent and I use that word > advisedly. They have > no right to refuse the refund of the VAT. All the way along they have > behaved appallingly." > > He said that the Revenue's action was not aimed at Leeds > United but more a > result of its unhappiness that it had lost its preferential > creditor status > while football creditors are paid all their debts ahead of > other creditors. > > "The League say that > you have to pay all your football creditors in full so we can't win." > > Asked about the delay in the return of Leeds United's share > by the Football > League, Mr Bates said: "I'm not commenting at all on the League while > negotiations are taking place. > > "The fact they have taken eight weeks to do it is > disappointing. Somebody in > in the Football League doesn't understand the law properly. > As far as I am > concerned, everything the Football League has asked us to do > we have done." > > Asked whether the delay in the return of the share had > hampered the club's > preparations for the new season in League One, Mr Bates said: > "We have done > the best we can. I'm told we have had the best pre-season we > have had for > years. Dennis Wise is a winner and we are looking forward to > the first game > of the season against Tranmere in two weeks time." > > Meanwhile, KPMG have sent a letter to Leeds United fans who > have questioned > their handling of the club's administration. > > The letter answers 15 questions posed by fans who queried the > role of the > offshore fund Astor, which was the club's largest creditor, > and information > provided by KPMG to both creditors and potential bidders. > > Joint administrator Richard Fleming said: "The administrators > have worked > throughout the administration to ensure the club was sold as > a going concern > and I am hopeful that the football share issue will be > resolved shortly." > > The club's long-suffering fans may have questioned KPMG's > handling of the > administration, but they will share his hope that it can soon > concentrate on > the future rather than on dealing with its troubled legacy. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > __________ NOD32 2427 (20070728) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.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 > Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org > _______________________________________________ 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 __________ NOD32 2428 (20070730) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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 Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org _______________________________________________ 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 __________ NOD32 2428 (20070730) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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 Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
