That's ignore as in, reply and point out the gaps in the facts I take it? Don't worry about it, I'm sure MKDons fans struggled with it all at first.
Sneaky bugger hiding your edit on the other page. If you care to check with companies house, you'll find leeds united were in deed liquidated. At least two people have posted links on this messageboard to the official documents showing this fact. All you're doing is making my point more robust every time you show your ignorance.
Leeds United FC were never liquidated, at least not in the manner other businesses are liquidated. Leeds United AFC Ltd entered administration in the control of KPMG Restructuring on 4 May 2007 and on the same day were sold to a new company Leeds United Football Club Ltd subject to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) being agreed. Both Leeds United AFC Ltd and Leeds United FC Ltd were controlled by Ken Bates. A CVA requires 75% of creditors (by value) to vote to accept a reduced percentage of the money they are owed. The company was forced to act as HMRC, who were owed in excess of £6m, had issued a winding up petition which was due to expire on 25 June 2007. Before creditors voted on the CVA several other bidders came forward with offers for the club, however, the vote, on 1 June 2007, returned 75.02% of creditors accepting the CVA offer (75.20% after a recount). Creditors can challenge a CVA within 28 days of the vote. On the 28th day, 3 July 2007, HMRC challenged. With the CVA subject to a challenge, KPMG asked for further offers for the company to be submitted by 9 July 2007. Despite the extended offer period, the administrators still accepted the offer from Ken Bates Leeds United FC Ltd. With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC’s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its “exceptional circumstances” provision. The League imposed a 15 point penalty on the club for the 2007-08 season for failing to satisfy the outstanding legal challenge in time, necessitating the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule. HMRC withdrew their objection to the CVA the following month. Leeds United subsequently appealed against their 15 point penalty citing a CVA had been agreed and that the league programme does not allow time for spurious challenges to be dealt with. The Football League refused the appeal. Believing Football League procedures were at fault, not their own behaviour, Leeds United served the League with a High Court writ to challenge the points deduction, however, both parties agreed to abide by the findings of an arbitration panel hearing. The arbitration panel found against Leeds United citing the following two reasons: A director of Leeds United FC signed an earlier agreement not to commence any proceedings against the League. Leeds United waited 7 months before commencing the action, which brought unnecessary sporting consequences on other promotion chasing clubs, specifically Doncaster Rovers, who would no longer be in an automatic promotion spot if Leeds’ 15 points were restored. In summary: Leeds United AFC Ltd’s administrators achieved the necessary 75% support for a CVA. They withstood the challenge from HMRC, paid creditors and concluded the transfer of assets, including League share, to Leeds United FC Ltd, according to the terms of the CVA before winding up the old company. No loose ends were left. This is not a Liquidator’s Charter. Provisions in football only exist to transfer a League share from one company to another if creditors are satisfied, either by being paid in full or, as with Leeds United, with 75% agreeing to accept a diminished amount.
Check companies house. i just had a quick skim through for the link posted on here by a Millwall fan when someone else was making the same mistake as you, but i couldn't see it. leeds United was liquidated. Here you go. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600
Again I give you facts and you ignore them are you American by any chance, you have shown me nothing, yet I give you facts in black and white, please don't use terms like ignorance when you are clearly the ignoramus in this debate, I hate arguing a point when you are clearly not up to the task of reading what is in front of you and still coming up short in the area of WE like to call FACTS, you have clearly lost the debate yet you continue to argue when you are unarmed it isn't fair to continue humiliating you in such a demeaning manner.
Very quickly I can tell you that this website is not accurate. If you want the real information you need to pay for it. However, the club was never in liquidation, the owners of the club (and it's other businesses were in liquidation). You can research all you like, the facts are that Leeds United FC were never in liquidation as a football club, as opposed to the old Leeds City FC. Many businesses change their ownership and liquidate one part of the business for another, usually for tax or development reasons. I'm not going to argue with you over this, but believe me the football club was never in liquidation. I would also suggest to you, that Leeds United FC was not the name of the company that owned the club, but simply the name of the football club. Check Leeds United 2007, Leeds United Centenary Pavilion etc, old businesses who owned the club at various times, but still owned by Ken Bates and not actually the football club. * Company Check like many online 'account' websites, is edited by people like Wikipedia is, it is not and can never be taken as legally correct.
The views expressed in comments published on companycheck.co.uk are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of Company Check Ltd or its staff, nor do they effect the credit scoring or any other data we hold on a company. again no facts............ The Hull City Association Football Club (tigers) Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 12th July 2000. Their business activity is recorded as Operation Of Sports Facilities. The Hull City Association Football Club (tigers) Limited is run by 2 current directors. 1 Shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is also part of a group. The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/07/2011 reported 'cash at bank' of £520,567, 'liabilities' worth £51,175,334, 'net worth' of £-43,918,702 and 'assets' worth £7,483,482. The Hull City Association Football Club (tigers) Limited's Risk Score was amended on 14/11/2012. 43 mil in debt, your tucked when the new rules kick in pal lol.
You're half right, but the report IS accurate as can be confirmed by looking on Companies House. Leeds United AFC was without a doubt liquidated in February 2008. Yes, the Leeds United in liquidation is the name of the Company that owns the Club BUT as shown on other links, the Club that company owned was left unable to meet its obligations under league rules and, abandoned by the Company that owned it, effectively ceased to be. There's no getting away from it, in every way you look at it, Leeds are six years old.
Try companies house. They confirm what the report says. PS, your replies show you haven't actually grasped the issue too well. Little wonder you're looking dafter by the post.
Do you understand what 'facts' and 'ignore' actually mean, because so far you seem to be saying replies with supporting facts demonstrate someone ignoring you and having no facts.
well played sir, still no facts, back to the point we started this with Hull have no history at all to speak of I'm glad you continued arguing with nothing to back you up apart from lies and more lies oh and livid friends you amaze me with your lack of intelligence are all hull fans like you ?.
Well I guess if you ignore the fact leeds united were liquidated and that a check with companies house supports it could explain your confusion. You fans of these new clubs crack me up, you really do. It'll be a shame when you lose your naivety
I think you need to read the thread correctly, maybe you will see how Much of an arse you have been, you have preached but not listened and that is far worse than being a dumb ignorant hull fan, I cannot make any more excuses for you I clearly have to accept the facts placed in front of me you are an idiot and I'm sure everyone else can see this except yourself,I'm sorry it came to this but I think you should seek help with your obsession of Leeds United. good luck M.O.T pal
Keeping it simple, you seem to be saying that regarding the issue of the old Leeds United being in liquidation, your bottom lip poking and foot stomping are more credible than Companies House. Righto cock bod, righto. PS a rather simple question, but in your scenario, why would the other company still exist?
listen my little arsehole I'm saying Leeds United were never liquidated they are not a new club please grasp this fact we are still the same club as we always have been so please try and understand this it's nit that difficult even for someone of your obviously low intellectual prowess .
So when Companies House show Leeds United as liquidated, they're just tugging your leg? I'm intrigued though. As you see to know more than the experts, can you tell me what the Company that preceded Leeds United 2007 is doing at the moment? They should be easy to find, they're the Company that had nothing apart from the right to play in the football league and first dibs on the player registrations the FL had withheld.
I obviously waste my typing on you, you don't get it do you, I'm all out of explanations for you, you really are thick as **** and no mistake.everyone on the thread has tried in vain to explain to you but your not getting it at all are you my 4 year old son understands it, but then he is a leeds fan and not hull fan, so maybe that's it good luck with future debates ie is the world round, do shark really have teeth, just a couple there for you to get started with my little thicko.
Perhaps you should let your four year old son at the keyboard, he's perhaps able to answer questions. i only asked them in the hope the penny would drop as to why you're looking a pillock. Your argument seems to be that the facts I've posted (with supporting links) can't be true because you don't want them to be. Have a look at boabs post and the reply. He's at least grasped the nub of that part of the issue.
