| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cockney White
Boobmeister
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 3277
Location: So far from Leeds it's not funny..
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Baldy wrote: | But correct me if im wrong, if we are no longer members of the FA, they hold no juridiction over us and therfore would be unable to rule on the points deduction..
This just goes from bad to bloody worse,  |
The thing is, we are still playing in a competition which the FA have ultimate sanction over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tanhilltimmy
Jack Charlton
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Posts: 160
Location: miles from nowhere
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The important points are a) getting a definitive answer to BillH's question about which debts are the issue and b) not letting Bates's bluster blind us to the mess he generated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Baldy
Site Admin
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 2168
Location: Ballina NSW
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another report, this one on SkySports
Leeds confirm FA snub
Not a great deal clearer than the rest, but more hints that these are payments we've defaulted on after buying the club back from the admins, and so they are current debts that remain unpaid. If that is the case, the silver lining is that we'll get full membership back as soon as Bates coughs up. The dark cloud is that we're back to racking up debts and not paying our dues - again!
Nevertheless, I could be reading this all wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
NE1
Neither Shallow Nor Sexist
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1553
|
|
| Back to top |
|
wewantourdarbyback
Lucas Radebe
Joined: 11 May 2007
Posts: 2100
Location: Leeds University
|
|
| Back to top |
|
NE1
Neither Shallow Nor Sexist
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1553
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Hair
Nigel Martyn
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 495
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would be nice to have a statement from the club advising what they are doing to rectify the situation, rather than saying "it is also comfortable that not being a member will not prevent us from doing anything we need to do."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
NE1
Neither Shallow Nor Sexist
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1553
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Billy04MyHero
Jack Charlton
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read somewhere in last couple of days but can't remember where unfortunately. Said something about the old club had to go into liquidation and then the new club would take over and we would ask for our full share back. Don't know if there is any truth in this or whether I've understood it correctly but I suppose time will tell. If I find the link will put it on here.
I have found this bit on another site
Shaun Harvey
Leeds United today confirmed their involvement in League One is not under threat despite their failure to regain membership of the Football Association.
United's application for membership was rejected at an FA council meeting yesterday after the club failed to satisfy Soho Square officials that their non-football debts have been paid in full.
Leeds agreed to pay around 11p in the £ to unsecured creditors under the agreement which saw the club exit administration last month, but United revealed today that administrators KPMG are still to complete final payments.
The current United board headed by chairman Ken Bates bought Leeds United Association Football Club Limited – the old company (oldco) which entered administration on May 4 – from KPMG using Leeds United 2007 Ltd, the firm which is now in charge of Elland Road.
Leeds expect their FA membership to be transferred once KPMG pass the funds on to unsecured creditors, and the club have denied claims that they still owe money to other professional clubs and players.
United were required to settle all football-related debts in full in return for their share in the Football League, which came at the cost of a 15-point penalty last month after Leeds ended their spell in administration without successfully implementing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
The club's membership in both the Football League and the FA was suspended when the administrators were first called into Elland Road four months ago, but the effect of United's failure to reclaim their FA membership yesterday will be negligible.
Leeds are still entitled to play in league and cup competitions, but will be prevented from voting at the FA's annual general meeting. They will also lose their entitlement to tickets for matches in FA competitions which do not involved United.
Club director Shaun Harvey told the YEP: "We applied to transfer the full membership of Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd to Leeds United 2007 Ltd.
"The application has not yet been approved and was referred to at the full council meeting of the FA yesterday, as Leeds United have been unable to satisfy non-football creditors to the satisfaction of the FA. The reason that they have not been satisfied is that the club was unable to complete a CVA.
"The matter is still ongoing with the FA but we would reiterate that not having membership of the FA does not stop the club from playing football.
"Leeds United 2007 Ltd purchased oldco from the administrators, and this money has been paid. The administrators still need to distribute these funds as soon as the appropriate mechanism for doing so is established. Leeds United do not owe any other football clubs money."
Dennis Wise's side are chasing a fifth straight league win but the club are beset by absentees, and assistant boss Gus Poyet admitted United considered applying for a postponement after seeing midfielder Jonathan Douglas and goalkeeper Alan Martin called up.
Poyet said: "We were thinking about that. We were looking at all possibilities because we're going to miss two good players."
Leeds are awaiting international clearance for Portuguese winger Filipe Da Costa, who is involved in a contractual dispute with Greek side Ionikos.
Last Updated: 07 September 2007 9:58 AM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Benlufc
Jack Charlton
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 95
Location: Leeds
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benlufc wrote: | | all administration processes were done by the book. so doubt that would be why. if kpmg had done an illegal deal then they would have had their practicing license taken off them. |
There a difference between having done it "by the book" in a legal sense and "according to regulations" as far as the football authorities are concerned. The rules of the latter were well known and the administrators were reminded of them during the process, yet they still chose - with Bates' compliance - to completely ignore them.
As for how legal the KPMG administration was... well, that depends on what evidence is available. They said they were satisfied that Bates and Astor were unconnected, but what evidence would they have had? A declaration from Bates and some ducuments supplied to them by Astor? No independent verification surely, as no one, including KPMG, knows who Astor are. Bates could well be the owner, and no one would know. In the absence of verifiable evidence, KPMG will have had to accept declarations by Bates to that effect - and we all know just how much those are worth.
| Quote: | | i think that because the -15pts has been caught up so quickly the fa have kicked us out so we cannot get the points back putting us 2pts clear at the top. their is no real punishment that will affect us. |
It's fashionable to adopt the paranoid view these days, but IMHO it's utter bollox. Neither the FA nor the FL are actually in the least bit bothered by us doing well. In fact, I'm quite certain they welcome it.
P.S. I note in the statement reproduced above that Harvey is effectively blaming KPMG for not having completed all payments to the creditors. He doesn't say whether Leeds United 2007 have completed all payments to KPMG though...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Baldy
Site Admin
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 2168
Location: Ballina NSW
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prior to last game, Bates was on LUTV radio, he advised that all the money to unsecured creditors had been passed to the Administrators, it was now up to them to distribute it.
Surely if this was'nt the case, we would have heard some sort of denial from KPMG..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
weasel
Nigel Martyn
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| From what I gather we couldn't pay the money to creditors (apart from the football ones) whilst the tax were still taking us to court. After this was dropped we were then able to give KPMG the monies (presumably the 11p in the £ or whatever was finally agreed). KPMG would have to wait for the money to get into their accounts before settling the debts so it would take a few days.
_________________
The league and the FA are fecking idiots
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| weasel wrote: | | From what I gather we couldn't pay the money to creditors (apart from the football ones) whilst the tax were still taking us to court. After this was dropped we were then able to give KPMG the monies (presumably the 11p in the £ or whatever was finally agreed). KPMG would have to wait for the money to get into their accounts before settling the debts so it would take a few days. |
Absolute bollox. Why couldn't they pay the creditors?
If it was just a matter of a few days then Harvey could have said so. Neither his statement nor the club's on the officious site gave any hint that a resolution was imminent and the club would be getting full membership back shortly. Just "we can operate perfectly well without full membership".
I think it's quite simply standard Bates operational practice, and I expect he'll do what he can to delay paying the money indefinitely - or at least until he can pass the debt on to someone else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
weasel
Nigel Martyn
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The footballing debts had to be paid in full which is why they were paid (plus we had to do it).
The other debts, Bill, were sort of in limbo because although we had agreed to pay something around 11p in the £ the fact that the tax were taking us to court meant that a creditor was unhappy with the proposal and as such no agreement (along the lines of the CVA) could be carried out basically cos if we paid 1 creditor 11p in the £ and then the court ruled we had to pay more (or less although unlikely) then the other creditors would also want more. After the case had gone to court the judge would have had the final decision. Until that point there was no point in paying the debts apart from the footballing debts which had to be paid in full.
The club is under no obligation (legally) to pay the debts in a lump sum. We can spread the payments as we like (according to what we agreed in the takeover). We could be paying the debts off for years.
_________________
The league and the FA are fecking idiots
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weasel wrote: | The footballing debts had to be paid in full which is why they were paid (plus we had to do it).
The other debts, Bill, were sort of in limbo because although we had agreed to pay something around 11p in the £ the fact that the tax were taking us to court meant that a creditor was unhappy with the proposal and as such no agreement (along the lines of the CVA) could be carried out basically cos if we paid 1 creditor 11p in the £ and then the court ruled we had to pay more (or less although unlikely) then the other creditors would also want more. After the case had gone to court the judge would have had the final decision. Until that point there was no point in paying the debts apart from the footballing debts which had to be paid in full.
The club is under no obligation (legally) to pay the debts in a lump sum. We can spread the payments as we like (according to what we agreed in the takeover). We could be paying the debts off for years. |
So what you are saying is that it's OK for Bates not to pay up for as long as he likes. I don't believe the creitors had any say in the takeover whatsoever, so they have NOT agreed to extended payments terms of any sort - thus any delays Bates makes in payments mean that the club cannot be returned to full membership of the FA in the foreseeable future, and are completely one sided.
Besides, Bates' MO is to not pay his debts. He's has done the same thing all his life and it is how he makes his monwy. He is not a creator of wealth, just a charlatan who uses fringe legalities to take money due to others and put it into his own pocket. It appears to be exactly what he is doing now - nowonder he could increase his original bid "on tap", since he never had any intention of paying up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
weasel
Nigel Martyn
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BillH wrote: |
So what you are saying is that it's OK for Bates not to pay up for as long as he likes. I don't believe the creitors had any say in the takeover whatsoever, so they have NOT agreed to extended payments terms of any sort - thus any delays Bates makes in payments mean that the club cannot be returned to full membership of the FA in the foreseeable future, and are completely one sided.
Besides, Bates' MO is to not pay his debts. He's has done the same thing all his life and it is how he makes his monwy. He is not a creator of wealth, just a charlatan who uses fringe legalities to take money due to others and put it into his own pocket. It appears to be exactly what he is doing now - nowonder he could increase his original bid "on tap", since he never had any intention of paying up. |
Yeah legally Bates can pay over any length he wants, as long as he is paying the money.
The creditors indeed did have no say in the takeover but KPMG were obliged to accept the package that offered them most, which seems to be the 11p in the £. The creditors as such could all take KPMG to court if they felt the offer (Bates's) wasn't the best one for them. I don't know if there is a timescale for the creditors to reject the offer and go to court. What they cannot do though is demand the money immediately unless Bates's offer included that.
_________________
The league and the FA are fecking idiots
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BillH
Allan Clarke
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weasel wrote: | Yeah legally Bates can pay over any length he wants, as long as he is paying the money.
The creditors indeed did have no say in the takeover but KPMG were obliged to accept the package that offered them most, which seems to be the 11p in the £. The creditors as such could all take KPMG to court if they felt the offer (Bates's) wasn't the best one for them. I don't know if there is a timescale for the creditors to reject the offer and go to court. What they cannot do though is demand the money immediately unless Bates's offer included that. |
So you're saying Bates can legally put off paying them for 30 years if he feels like it? Somehow I seriously doubt you've got that right. Anybody could have bid whatever they liked if they didn't have to pay up, so I suspect there's a legal limitation for how long he can take - and I doubt it's that long.
I think I'll wait until a real administration expert gives his opinion rather than a Bates excusenik, no offense intended.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
