Can someone put chippie out? Please? He and white-rose sound remarkably similar. I guess that after many many many years of season ticket ownership and having ploughed in way over £15k so far into LUFC (cash terms, not real terms), plus £5k in shares that Ridsdale pissed away, I should be continuing to bend over and let Bates and his cronies stick a ****ing hot poker up my arse, while I thank them for twisting it. I'm just so glad I didn't get a Granby education.
The positive I take from this is they appear to have driven ken bates out of the driving seat and the club is now a separate entity, working towards a deal independently of ken bates. Essentially, the club has taken on a life of its own and wants rid of bates as much as we do. I'd like to extend my thanks to the new prospective owners for making this situation possible.
Marko - I hope they are really talking about just controlling the football interests of the club, and leaving Bates and his cronies with the other failing businesses
I am aware of a larger group of Leeds fans. The ones who turn up each home game at ER. BTW why do you assume that we as in effect customers of LUFC have a right to know on an ongoing basis about take overs and the like? Can you immagine walking into Walmart and wwanting to know if JP Penney were trying to take them over?
So you gave Ridsdale £5k for shares and you want me to take you seriously on how a take over should be done. You are going have to stop now, my sides are aching.
Anyway for those interested boozie on waccoe, those interested will know who he is, has stated new prospective owners have spent close to two million on due diligence and invested four million to keep wages paid and transfers. Interesting considering a couple seem to think Bates has the perfect business model. Before knocking every anti bates post maybe a couple might like to do a little more research. A very large number of those attending Elland Road also want rid of bates so are on the same side as LUST if not already members
This larger group that you speak of, is not an organized group. Rather they are a group (different each game) that come together not to be together but out of a common destination. So not really a valid alternative to what I offered. To compare suporting a football club with being a shopper at a shop is not at all comparable. In one situtation you have viable alternatives. Sorry.
If true and accurate, no reason to believe it is not, then an interesting question comes up. If the takeover is not completed, are these monies a loan? What are their terms of repayment? Very brave people to have done that with the current chairman!
Hopefully we will soon see a change at the top, If I had to guess what was causing the hold up I would assume there are some issues... At a guess I would expect issues like: One. Various questions will be surrounding the loan taken out against future season ticket sales, the source of these loans will be unknown (off shore in the British Virgin Islands no doubt) and the new owners will have no choice but to keep paying inflated interest etc, with penalties for early repayment. Two. The identify of Teak Trading and its owners, plus any additional clauses agreed by Mr Bates and Mr Harvey over our repurchasing options, forcing the new owners to keep paying ever increasing rents to an unknown company based in the British Virgin Islands. Three. Liability for unpaid tax on player sales that were not declared. HMRC will surely be interested to see the books once Ken has left. Four. Possible complex player ownership structures, where the contracts are not held by Leeds United, but by a shell company (based in the British Virgin Islands). Five. Over ambitious plans to rebuild the North, South and West stands, with contracts signed with Caddicks for the work to be undertaken, to be paid by the new owners etc. These are all just my sceptical guesses as to what lies beneath at Leeds. But would you trust Ken Bates in a business deal...? I for one would rather see LUST pressuring The FA, local MP's, the HRMC & Police over the serious gaps they have found in the accounts. This is the only safe way to get rid of Ken Bates and keep him a exile for his last few miserable years wasting oxygen on this planet.
I am on the same side as LUST but believe they are not helping. If anything their leks are making things more protracted as both sides play to the gallery.
That is VERY different to your earlier tone. No one is perfect, but on the whole, I believe LUST has been instrumental in getting a takeover to the stage it is in. Keeping the visibility (pressure) up is a positive, IMHO. They have been quite patient and have maintained silence for good stretches of time, again IMHO. Lets hope we can be MOT, without Bates & Mates, soon.
I'd say you can be bloody sure they'll have to be repaid and with interest. Positive thing though, we would clearly have to face administration and I think these people would have made sure they'd be preferred creditors. Thus giving them a strong position to take over anyway or influence who the next owner could be. Either way, bates is ****ed and it is purely a matter of time.
If they are as savy as we think they are, then I agree with you. C'MON, YOU INVESTORS!!!!! (Good chant for Saturday?)
I find this so hard to believe on so many levels. Why would they need to plough £4M into the squad - Warnock is operating on a shoestring budget, I have no idea who boozie is but I just can't believe this story even for a second.
Boozie is 100% credible according to BIG and sometimes discloses things BIG cant & its always been validated by BIG himself
See http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/163572-Lust-gone-very-quiet-good-news-or-bad/page2 Too many contradictions
