Archive for everythingleeds.myfastforum.org 
 



       everythingleeds.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Leeds United Chat
HarryofOz

Bates screws up chance to buy back Thorp Arch

Ankles Bates, the tosser - screws Leeds again.

Quote:
Leeds United Football Club did not exercise the option to purchase Thorp Arch before the 23:59 deadline on the 15th October.

The club will remain a tenant of Barnaway Limited for the next 20 years under the terms of the current lease. The club's use of Thorp Arch during that period will remain unchanged from our current use.

Discussions continued with Leeds City Council until the deadline, however the Council were not able to provide the club with an unconditional letter of commitment to purchase Thorp Arch and then lease it back to the club. This meant that if the club was to have exercised the option the club would have been at risk of completing the transaction in 28 days time without the guarantee of funding. That was a £6m risk the club was not prepared to make.

It is the club's belief that the conditions that the Council sought to attach to the offer could all have been satisfied before the expiry of the 28 days, however as they were not all in the gift of the club therefore it was decided not to proceed.

The club would like to thank all those involved from the Council, and our solicitors Walker Morris and King Sturge for their efforts in assisting the club in trying to repurchase Thorp Arch.


Thorpe Arch
cardboardbox?Youwerelucky

Quote:
Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has revealed more about the club's decision not to exercise the buy-back clause on the Thorp Arch training ground.

The club confirmed on Friday morning that, following discussions with Leeds City Council, the buy-back option would not be exercised.

THORP ARCH STATEMENT

"We've been in negotiations for three months, but these have dragged on inevitably because of the way any Council works with checks, balances, and so many committees," the chairman told Yorkshire Radio.

"Things weren't being resolved as quickly as they might have been up to last week when obviously the deadline started coming up.

"We kept trying to put pressure on to get the outstanding matters resolved, but it was like dragon's teeth. As soon as one problem was solved up came two more, and some of them were a bit nonsenical to put it mildly, without going into details.

"I think it wasn't helped by the fact the Council employed a firm of outside lawyers who have to justify their existence. It didn't mean we were getting anywhere very fast.

"It came to a situation at 4pm on Thursday afternoon where we were faced with 13 demands, most of which could have been raised weeks or even months ago and we only had seven hours to solve them all.

"This wasn't helped by the fact that their lawyers weren't there on Thursday night and Paul Rogerson (Council CEO), the poor man, was left there until midnight tyring to cope on his own without any back-up or assistance from his side.

"The deal had moved as they inevitably do to a bit of extra protection here, extra cover there, community use which wasn't a problem, and use for the 2012 Olympics and the 2013 and 2015 Rugby World Cups, some of which was contrary to the convenant which was in the covenance when the land was bought from the Council in 2000 and we weren't prepared to take a risk.

"We had to sign unconditionally with Jacob Adler by 11.59 on Thursday night and the Council still wanted to give their agreement with a number of 'subject to...' We weren't prepared to take that risk.

"So, I sat down and evaluated the options of accepting the conditions or not, and unfortunately the financial requirements of the Council had grown so much it became very much touch and go whether it was really an advantage to the club.

"I decided at 11.40pm it wasn't up to the risk because we couldn't find Adler £5.8m in 28 days time and we would have been relying on the Council to keep their half of the bargain.

"It wasn't worth periling the club after all the hard work we have put in over the last five years and we decided to not to proceed.

"A lot of people in the Council worked very hard, but in the end it came down to red tape that no one could resolve, but that's beside us. We have the 2018 World Cup bid which we are working on."


As much as I don't like the man I find it hard to argue the reasons TBH. I wouldn't trust ANY council or council committee and we could have found ourselves being sued in a month for 5.8 million (and probably more) for not completing the transaction IF the council then backed out.
wewantourdarbyback

Shouldn't have needed to sponge off the council in he first place.
Garp

cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
I wouldn't trust ANY council or council committee


Pretty sure they felt the same way about dealing with our board.
raveydavey

Funnily enough, the council are laying the blame squarely at the door of the club, saying that certain assurance / information that were requested several times could not be provided before the deadline (on Radio Leeds).

I've only just got in from work so I'll find out more and update once I've had my tea!
raveydavey

Righty-oh. Warning - this is a longish post!

First, from t'YEP:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...ted-Council-Thorp-Arch.5740379.jp

Leeds City Council's deal to buy Leeds United's Thorp Arch training ground has dramatically collapsed.
The council agreed terms earlier this month for the £6m purchase of the complex from its current owner, Scumchester-based company Barnaway.

The flagship site, on prime development land near Wetherby, would then have been leased back to United.

Council bosses also warned, however, that the proposed deal was subject to the satisfactory completion of due diligence checks.

Those checks had to be done and dusted before midnight last night, when the club's exclusive option to buy Thorp Arch from Barnaway for a fixed price of £6m expired.

Yesterday it appeared the deal was set to go through, with the council's joint leader, Coun Andrew Carter, saying "most of the work" had been finished.

But, in a statement today, United revealed the midnight deadline had passed without the option being exercised.

Leeds also said the decision not to proceed had been taken because of conditions the council sought to attach to the deal.

The club will still be able to stay as tenants at Thorp Arch for the next 20 years, under the terms of the site's original sale to Scumchester businessman Jacob Adler.

But once the lease runs out, there would be nothing to stop the facility's owner of the time evicting United.
Barnaway could in theory agree to sell Thorp Arch to Leeds or a third party prior to the expiry of the lease.

The amount the buyer would have to pay, however, is no longer fixed at £6m.

Thorp Arch's current market value is estimated to be £11m.
Reacting to the collapse of the deal, Coun Carter said: "There were certain conditions that had to be met in the interests of protecting the council taxpayers' position.

"We would have very much liked to have moved ahead with this but protecting the council tax payers' position was always in our mind.
"The negotiations have been conducted professionally, and in a good spirit, and the council, like the club, wishes to thank all of those involved."

Leeds would have surrendered their exclusive option on Thorp Arch to the local authority to allow the proposed deal to be done.

The club, then under the chairmanship of Gerald Krasner, sold the site for £4m in 2004 as it tried to stave off financial collapse.

There are some things that make little sense in this.
Firstly, despite being a "distress" sale, TA was apparently worth just £4m at pretty much the height of a global property boom. We are now, 5 years later, in the depths of the worst recession since the 1920's and yet the value of TA has apparently increased nearly three-fold!

How?

And then "Leeds also said the decision not to proceed had been taken because of conditions the council sought to attach to the deal." Surely these would have been apparent from the start? Or are the club saying that the council changed their tune at the last minute, which if so, would appear at odds with everything else that is being reported?

Then we have the BBC reporting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/f.../teams/l/leeds_united/8309746.stm

Leeds United have failed to buy back their Thorp Arch training ground but will continue to rent the site for the next 20 years.

Leeds city council had planned to buy the training ground for £6m and lease it back to the club.

However that deal has fallen through because of what the council are describing as 'uncertainties'.

Leeds have exercised a clause in the current contract to remain a tenant of Barnaway Limited for another 20 years.

The original deadline for the club to buy back the facilities was last Saturday (10 October).

The owners extended that to Thursday (15 October) but, just hours before the midnight deadline, the council asked Leeds for clarification on a few final issues.

A statement on the Leeds United website read: "The council were not able to provide the club with an unconditional letter of commitment to purchase Thorp Arch and then lease it back to the club.

"This meant that, if the club was to have exercised the option, the club would have been at risk of completing the transaction in 28 days' time without the guarantee of funding. That was a £6m risk the club was not prepared to make.

"It is the club's belief that the conditions that the council sought to attach to the offer could all have been satisfied before the expiry of the 28 days. However, as they were not all in the gift of the club, therefore it was decided not to proceed."

As well as helping Leeds United, the council believed owning Thorp Arch would help in any bid to host the rugby union and league world cups and become a stronger candidate to become a host city in English football's bid for the 2018 World Cup.

Council leader Andrew Carter said: "We note with some regret that Leeds United felt unable to exercise its option to acquire Thorp Arch before the deadline.

"Both parties have worked hard to remove the uncertainties surrounding the deal and only a small number remained outstanding.

"We concur with the club that given more time these uncertainties could have been removed. Unfortunately, the two parties didn't have that time."

Now this seems to suggest that the club could have exercised the option, but chose not to as the council refused to guarantee to underwrite the deal, apparently because some matters were not resolved?

At this point some people might query how far into a deal with someone with the track record of, for example Ken Bates, someone might want to get without having everything tied up watertight and the nod from the legal people?

I can only assume that this one is going to run and run.
BillH

An entirely predictable if unsatisfactory outcome. The finger-pointing is also predictable but the bottom line is that the club is now committed to paying 20 years of rent and eventually having to find the money for a new training facility on top of that (or to repurchase TA at market prices - which I expect will only increase with inflation and en eventually resurgent property market)

I can't imagine how anyone can honestly say this is a positive outcome for the club. You have to wonder what sort of project is more important that it would have taken priority claim over the money the club is supposed to have instead of securing the training facility at an acceptable cost.

As for the rise in value of TA, the market did continue to rise after 2004 and many people (me included) believe that the 2004 deal was not done anywhere near the property value at the time since the sale was carried out in a private deal without any other offers being sought. Put those together and the current estimate of £11m no longer seems so far-fetched.

But hey, "we're top of the league, let's not worry about anything else", right?
raveydavey

BillH wrote:
An entirely predictable if unsatisfactory outcome. The finger-pointing is also predictable but the bottom line is that the club is now committed to paying 20 years of rent and eventually having to find the money for a new training facility on top of that (or to repurchase TA at market prices - which I expect will only increase with inflation and en eventually resurgent property market)

I can't imagine how anyone can honestly say this is a positive outcome for the club. You have to wonder what sort of project is more important that it would have taken priority claim over the money the club is supposed to have instead of securing the training facility at an acceptable cost.

As for the rise in value of TA, the market did continue to rise after 2004 and many people (me included) believe that the 2004 deal was not done anywhere near the property value at the time since the sale was carried out in a private deal without any other offers being sought. Put those together and the current estimate of £11m no longer seems so far-fetched.

But hey, "we're top of the league, let's not worry about anything else", right?


Of course, as has been alluded to elsewhere, if Bates (and his investors) are behind both the company that owns Leeds and the company that owns TA, does it matter to them at all?
In fact if the same people own both, wouldn't it be in their interests for the club NOT to exercise the buyback clause thus providing them with many years of guaranteed rent?
BillH

raveydavey wrote:
Of course, as has been alluded to elsewhere, if Bates (and his investors) are behind both the company that owns Leeds and the company that owns TA, does it matter to them at all?
In fact if the same people own both, wouldn't it be in their interests for the club NOT to exercise the buyback clause thus providing them with many years of guaranteed rent?

I've never really believed this to be the case. It's always seemed to me more likely that the owners are associates of the club's former board and try as I might I don't see Bates and his own associates falling into that category.

Of course, even if the above speculation were true, it's not exactly in the club's interests. In all honesty, I don't see how the decision not to exercise the buy-back at this time is in the club's long term interests. The owners of TA are laughing all the way to the bank of course, which presumably was their plan from the start. To them, TA is currently worth about £25m* at least, meaning this decision has made them a nice £19m out of thin air.

As to what Bates' motivation might be... I'm probably best off not speculating, but I think it is safe to assume any money currently available to him is earmarked for other projects.


* - 20 years rent, plus the ability to sell/develop the site at full market prices at the end of that period. They could even sell the whole thing to someone else for this amount right now, which is why I don't see the club ever purchasing this site back.


Edit: There is however one scenario in which the theory that Bates and/or associates own TA is plausible, and that would be if they bought out Adler's original backers in the interval since Bates too charge of the club. This is a possibility but it's questionable given the state of relations between Bates and his immediate predecessors. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to prove anything at all, which is hardly surprising given all the parties involved.
Garp

So........That is done and history. TA will be a housing estate or similar within the next 30 years. A little focus on the buy back option on ER would probably help to put some fan's minds at rest.
30 Mill

Not the best option was it  Rolling Eyes

BUT

All this Bates speculation is laughable - all this "we must pay 20 years rent" is complete bollox (its blatantly untrue) and all the conspiracy theories yaddah yaddah yaddah are laughable as none of us have any clue whatsoever as to what took place, why or by whom, but dont let that stop us

In all the ranting, remember two things

1. Bates for all his faults is not in the business of losing money

2. We are top of the league - getting promoted even with Bates as Chairperson will make this club more money than not getting promoted - and thats all that matters when its all said and done
BillH

30 Mill wrote:
Not the best option was it  Rolling Eyes

BUT

All this Bates speculation is laughable - all this "we must pay 20 years rent" is complete bollox (its blatantly untrue) and all the conspiracy theories yaddah yaddah yaddah are laughable as none of us have any clue whatsoever as to what took place, why or by whom, but dont let that stop us.

We don't know because we aren't told. That doesn't mean we should not wish to know, even if that is exactly what you'd have us do.

Quote:

In all the ranting, remember two things

1. Bates for all his faults is not in the business of losing money

True. On the other hand not all of Ken Bates' businesses have been successful on the one hand, and on the other Ken Bates is not Leeds United. Just because he may make decisions that suit his interests does not mean those decisions are in the best interests of the club.

Quote:
2. We are top of the league - getting promoted even with Bates as Chairperson will make this club more money than not getting promoted - and thats all that matters when its all said and done

And how is any of this remotely relevant? It's not like the decision has anything to do with what is going on in playing terms, nor is it likely to affect the results one way or another.

Besides, the last time fans ignored the long term future of the club just because we were doing well in terms of results at the time was when?...

But hey, the Bates worship wagon just keeps rollin' along!
30 Mill

Bill H - How can one man be so completely off the ball. You Im talking about in case you missed it



Quote:
We don't know because we aren't told. That doesn't mean we should not wish to know, even if that is exactly what you'd have us do.

As I said, and you even quoted me, so I'll para-phrase for you.. "Dont let the ignorance of the facts prevent you from posting your own ramblings" In other words, dont let the facts, or rather the lack of them in this case, ruin your arguement



Quote:
Just because he may make decisions that suit his interests does not mean those decisions are in the best interests of the club.

Just show me ONE, just ONE, proven example where he has made a decision that was knowingly not in the interestes of Leeds Utd. Not you opinion on one of his decision, but an actual decision HE made that HE thought was against Leeds's best interests



Quote:
And how is any of this remotely relevant? It's not like the decision has anything to do with what is going on in playing terms, nor is it likely to affect the results one way or another.

You do get lost in all this Bates hate dont you. It is COMPLETELY RELEVANT. The whole "thing" about a club and supporting it, is to WIN the league, get promoted, improve ourselves. Under Bates atm we are currently TOTL - Thats the enjoyment I get from Leeds



Quote:
Besides, the last time fans ignored the long term future of the club just because we were doing well in terms of results at the time was when?...

And you in your Dorothy Doright shoes and your rose tinted 20/20 hindsight gallses, did exactly what last time it happened?

Quote:
But hey, the Bates worship wagon just keeps rollin' along!

Ive seen Muppets with more idea than you - I'll type this slowly for you Bates is not a God, hes not even a great chairman, BUT he is overseeing the re-building of my beloved club and he is doing a reasonable job of it. Neither you nor I know the details of TA, but whereas I understand that if I dont know whats going on, i will keep schtum, you on the other hand are a vendetta waving, fact ignoring drama queen / conspiracy theorist
cardboardbox?Youwerelucky

I'm going to be controversial here (or just look a bit thick  Rolling Eyes )

I can't get my head around the desperate need to own Thorpe Arch again. Potentially (as we know no different), the club didn't have the funds to buy the thing (and the last thing we want to do is destabilise the finances for a second time).

If there was a true investment opportunity then surely Bates would have bought it himself (or in a way that looked like the club owned it but really he did) as the man very rarely misses a trick.

The ownership of the ground is FAR more concerning to me (and we will see how Bates progresses this in the future)

TA is a fantastic training facility for a premiership team - we are currently lounging about in Division 1, we are not looking like we are flush with money or ever likely to be in the near future (at least until we get back into the premiership and that is sadly a long long way off - and may never realistically happen unless some sheik comes in and buys us as his new toy) - if we lose the facility in 20 years time, don't we just go and set one up somewhere else??

I don't particularly like the way Bates does business at all (which is usually his way or no way) however I can't argue the fact that a) We are currently top of the league with minimal investment in the squad recently and b) we "appear" to have no financial worries that are going to come and bite us in the arse in the near future.

Bates seems to get every penny out of every chance he can to make money including dogged pursuit of compensation for any loss of academy players and usually with very successful results

I don't like the man at all, arrogant, abrupt, self centred and I always have a distrust that "something" will come out of the woodwork as everything he "appears" to do has a "shadiness" to it - BUT at this precise moment in time it is the happiest I have been as a Leeds United fan for years.

And in 20 years time I will be 57 years old and I won't give a fly fuck about Thorpe Arch becoming a new tesco!
wewantourdarbyback

cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
I'm going to be controversial here (or just look a bit thick  Rolling Eyes )

I can't get my head around the desperate need to own Thorpe Arch again. Potentially (as we know no different), the club didn't have the funds to buy the thing (and the last thing we want to do is destabilise the finances for a second time).


It's simple, we were promised by Bates that we had the funds and would buy it back. Now we have to pay rent on it for the next 20 years and face the probability of it being built on when that agreement comes to an end.
cardboardbox?Youwerelucky

cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
I'm going to be controversial here (or just look a bit thick  Rolling Eyes )

I can't get my head around the desperate need to own Thorpe Arch again. Potentially (as we know no different), the club didn't have the funds to buy the thing (and the last thing we want to do is destabilise the finances for a second time).


wewantourdarbyback wrote:
It's simple, we were promised by Bates that we had the funds and would buy it back.


Have we been "promised" or was it just Bates bluster, showing a "desire" to buy back TA? When push came to shove did we have enough money to buy it or did we need the Council to help out? If we had £6m in the bank would it have been worth it to have a zero balance (especially at the moment?). When it came down to it did we simply not have enough  money despite what Bates had "promised" - it is one thing to have set a goal, it is an entirely different one to achieve it.

wewantourdarbyback wrote:
Now we have to pay rent on it for the next 20 years and face the probability of it being built on when that agreement comes to an end.


But I still struggle to see how this affects the club. OK so we owe rent for the next 20 years (or we could have taken out a loan for the next 20 years for 6 million to buy it now and pay 9 million back in total?). How much is the rent per year? I assume it is cheaper than getting out a loan for 6m plus interest? Plus what is our credit rating like  Rolling Eyes - no director is going to offer a guarantee that spans 20 years (even if a bank would lend us the money). In 20 years time it becomes a tesco - so what??? It is a training facility - in 20 years time we could be back in the prem or in the blue square so it might not even matter (and I still don't see the problem with getting a training facility somewhere else in 20 years time (or sharing a facility with another club)

Maybe it is just how I am at the moment but I am struggling to see the point to the arguments (and check my avatar for my continued thoughts on Bates)  Twisted Evil
wewantourdarbyback

cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
I'm going to be controversial here (or just look a bit thick  Rolling Eyes )

I can't get my head around the desperate need to own Thorpe Arch again. Potentially (as we know no different), the club didn't have the funds to buy the thing (and the last thing we want to do is destabilise the finances for a second time).


wewantourdarbyback wrote:
It's simple, we were promised by Bates that we had the funds and would buy it back.


Have we been "promised" or was it just Bates bluster, showing a "desire" to buy back TA? When push came to shove did we have enough money to buy it or did we need the Council to help out? If we had £6m in the bank would it have been worth it to have a zero balance (especially at the moment?). When it came down to it did we simply not have enough  money despite what Bates had "promised" - it is one thing to have set a goal, it is an entirely different one to achieve it.

wewantourdarbyback wrote:
Now we have to pay rent on it for the next 20 years and face the probability of it being built on when that agreement comes to an end.


But I still struggle to see how this affects the club. OK so we owe rent for the next 20 years (or we could have taken out a loan for the next 20 years for 6 million to buy it now and pay 9 million back in total?). How much is the rent per year? I assume it is cheaper than getting out a loan for 6m plus interest? Plus what is our credit rating like  Rolling Eyes - no director is going to offer a guarantee that spans 20 years (even if a bank would lend us the money). In 20 years time it becomes a tesco - so what??? It is a training facility - in 20 years time we could be back in the prem or in the blue square so it might not even matter (and I still don't see the problem with getting a training facility somewhere else in 20 years time (or sharing a facility with another club)

Maybe it is just how I am at the moment but I am struggling to see the point to the arguments (and check my avatar for my continued thoughts on Bates)  Twisted Evil


No, he said we would buy it back and that we had the funds to do it. We also made 4.5million PROFIT, not just turnover and then add the funds from Delph and Garbutt etc.

It was our training ground and we need one, we had the chance to buy it back at an agreed much reduced price which is now gone. We'd be set up with one of the best training facilities in the world and wouldn't have to buy a new on in 20 years. What if we don't have the money then? How much are we now spending a year on this, cause I'd put money on the fact that we'll spend more than 6million on it before we could even think about buying it back again. It cost us a huge amount to build that in the first place and buying a new training facility, in Leeds to anything like the standard of TA will cost at least triple the cost of buying it back this year.

Bates has broken another promise which in the long run costs the club and allows him to pocket our profits.
raveydavey

It has been widely reported in the last few weeks that the annual rent on TA is currently just under £500,000 a year.
Under the terms of the lease this increases at a rate of 3% per year throughout the lease period.

I'm glad we appear to be on a sounder financial footing and that we have a squad that is playing well and for each other.

I do have serious concerns though that we are not a good prospect for a future investor (and Ken is no spring chicken), partly due to Ken Bates reputation and partly due to the fact that we have no ground and no facilities and it would appear that no-one appears to know who owns them should "Mustapha Million" decide to buy the club.
30 Mill

wewantourdarbyback wrote:
cardboardbox?Youwerelucky wrote:
I'm going to be controversial here (or just look a bit thick  Rolling Eyes )

I can't get my head around the desperate need to own Thorpe Arch again. Potentially (as we know no different), the club didn't have the funds to buy the thing (and the last thing we want to do is destabilise the finances for a second time).


It's simple, we were promised by Bates that we had the funds and would buy it back. Now we have to pay rent on it for the next 20 years and face the probability of it being built on when that agreement comes to an end.


Thats actually incorrect

We  can still buy TA at anytime

What has changed is that we no longer have first "dibs" on it at a reduced rate. I believe we still have first dibs on it (could be wrong tho) but TA can be sold to us at any time as long as we come up with a suitable financial arrangement ie - market value

Would it have been better (simplistically) to buy TA before the honeymoon period ended? Certainly
But we dont know the ins and outs so we are where we are

And we can still buy it back at any time - as long as we are prepared to pay the going rate
raveydavey

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...-United-Thorp-Arch-was.5783254.jp

Thorp Arch was deal too far

Leeds United have restated their claim that they were unable to independently finance the repurchase of Thorp Arch, citing the cost involved in running the League One club.
In an interview with the Yorkshire Evening Post, chairman Ken Bates moved to address concern among supporters over why United's income in recent months and years was insufficient to secure ownership of the club's training ground near Wetherby.

An exclusive buy-back option negotiated by Leeds when they sold Thorp Arch to private owners in 2004 – a deal completed in an effort to fight rising debts at Elland Road – expired on October 15 after a plan for Leeds City Council to acquire the site and lease it back to United collapsed in the final hours before the deadline.

Bates said the club considered the council's plan a "done deal" and criticised the local authority for setting at late notice 13 conditions which Leeds claimed they were unable to answer before the deadline and would have left the club facing a £5.8million buy-back bill without a guarantee that the council would provide the necessary funding.

The failed deal, however, raised questions about United's inability to fund the repurchase cost themselves. The club posted a £4.5million profit in the financial year leading up to June 2008 – including an operating profit of more than £900,000 – and sold Fabian Delph to Aston Villa in August for a fee which was widely reported to be in the region of £6million.

United confirmed that the undisclosed fee for Delph was being paid to them in instalments and said further income – generated by the likes of tribunals involving a number of United's former academy players – were being used to meet running costs and other expenses including managerial appointments and sackings.

Among the liabilities listed by Bates were:

An annual wage bill in excess of £6million, described by him as "on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs".

A yearly rental bill of around £2million for Elland Road and Thorp Arch, on top of £600,000 paid in rates and utility costs for the two properties.

Pay-outs which are currently being made to former manager Gary McAllister and former assistant manager Steve Staunton, both of whom had their contracts terminated in December of last year

Compensation owed to Blackpool Football Club after Leeds appointed Simon Grayson as their new manager 10 months ago.

Investment of more than £500,000 in securing planning permission from Leeds City Council to redevelop the East Stand at Elland Road.

Bates said: "This is an expensive football club to run and we didn't have the money (to conclude the Thorp Arch deal without the council's help).

"The wage bill is on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs.

"We've had to pay money to McAllister and Staunton and to pay for bringing in Grayson. We've also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that's completed, it's something the club will benefit from for years to come. Buying Thorp Arch with our own money wasn't an option because we didn't have the money to do it. A lot of clubs are in trouble at the moment but we're run sensibly.

"Our objective at the moment is to get promoted from League One and we're well on the way to doing that. Leeds United is run efficiently and properly. Never again will this club be put in a position where it does not live within its means. It's in safe hands."

Pressed on the subject of Delph's transfer fee, a portion of which is being paid to the midfielder's former club Bradford City, chief executive Shaun Harvey said: "You don't receive 100 per cent of the fee up front.

"People see a headline figure of £6million but that's not what we actually receive straight away. Bradford got their share and still have some to come."

Bates revealed that Leeds would shortly be required to pay an appearance-related sum to Barnet as part of the deal which brought Tresor Kandol to Leeds from Underhill in 2007, and he also said that the club were budgeting for additional bonus payments which would be due to players signed on loan in the event that the club are promoted from League One this season.

The profit of £4.5million recorded during the financial year leading up to June 2008 arrived around the same time as Leeds incurred heavy costs through their fight against a 15-point penalty, imposed on them by the Football League following the club's exit from administration. Bates confirmed that the bill for that fight ran to seven figures.

United's chairman said the accumulation of these costs explained why the club were unable to raise the £5.8million needed to buy back Thorp Arch from Barnaway Ltd, the company which holds the freehold on the training ground and currently rents it to Leeds for around £500,000 a year.

He insisted that every one of the council's conditions would have been met by the club had the local authority not raised them on the last day before the October 15 deadline.

Bates expressed his disappointment with the council's failure to conclude the sale, saying: "As far as we were concerned, it was a done deal.

"The conditions raised by the council at the last minute were all capable of being resolved if it had given us enough time to do so but we couldn't commit to a deal without the guarantee that the council would come up with the money 28 days later (the point at which the sale would have been officially completed). We didn't have the money to afford it."

Leeds no longer have the exclusive right to purchase Thorp Arch, though the club's lease agreement runs for 20 years and they could still attempt to negotiate a private sale with Barnaway Ltd at a future date.

In response, the council's joint leader, councillor Andrew Carter, told the YEP: "The timescale for this wasn't set by us and we did our best to meet it.

"Both parties worked in good faith to achieve a deal and, when it fell through, we seemed to agree that everyone had done their best to make it happen. But the conditions we stipulated existed all along."

Well, that clears all that up then.
BillH

Quote:
We've also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that's completed, it's something the club will benefit from for years to come.

Funny how we have money to spend on plans to develop a property the club doesn't even own.
raveydavey

BillH wrote:
Quote:
We've also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that's completed, it's something the club will benefit from for years to come.


Funny how we have money to spend on plans to develop a property the club doesn't even own.


You're quite right.
I also raised this point months ago when the "artists impressions" were first published in the paper
wewantourdarbyback

and on a development that will put us in £60million+ of debt when it's done.

       everythingleeds.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Leeds United Chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Powered by WebRing.