Trust Statement: Leeds City Holdings The Leeds United Supporters’ Trust was both surprised and dismayed to learn of the winding up of Leeds City Holdings (LCH) yesterday (Thursday February 12, 2015). The former ‘parent’ company of the club and current 5 per cent shareholder was placed in the hands of the HM Official Receiver over an outstanding amount of £45,000 owed to Mark Taylor, former legal council and Leeds United Director. Our understanding is that the Receiver will assess all LCH debts and assets. If no further action is taken, the Receiver has the right to sell company assets to pay creditors, and to terminate the employment of both directors and employees of the company. While it is important to remember the above holds for LCH and not the club, Leeds United is a main asset of LCH – and so the Receiver could potentially sell the club from its current owners. Following expert consultation, the Trust understands there are three potential avenues to avoid this: 1. The company (or anyone else) can apply for the winding up order to be rescinded if the court did not have all the relevant facts when making its decision. Application should be made within seven days of the order being made. 2. The company can appeal against the winding-up order. As a result of an appeal, the court can rescind the winding-up order, or otherwise vary its decision. An appeal should be made within four weeks of the order being made. 3. Liquidation proceedings can be 'stayed' (ie. stopped), permanently or temporarily, on the application of the liquidator, the Official Receiver, a creditor or a shareholder. If liquidation proceedings are stayed permanently, the directors usually regain control of the company. An application to stay the liquidation proceedings can be made at any time after a winding-up order has been made. While option three would appear to have no time constraints, if four weeks pass and options 1 or 2 have not been exercised, it is unlikely that proceedings can be stayed. The Trust finds it disappointing that the situation has been allowed to get this far, providing further instability to the club. We encourage current Chairman Andrew Umbers to address the matter as soon as possible, so we can once again concentrate on the footballing side of Leeds United without further distraction. Chairman & the Board - Leeds United Supporters Trust
But lust introduced GFH ( LCH) to Bates. It must be true, cooper told us! the administrator can only force the sale of the 5% of the club that LCH own. Now those ****ers who want a fans seat on the board might have some opportunity. Failing that verity or Farnan might get to buy a stake.
Cellino has left and now Leeds can't afford to buy a packet of crisps - and some drunk paddy's have caused an alcohol ban in the South Stand
lol ... lawyers fees can't bring a winding up order, case will be dismissed Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wrong - Only "disputed" lawyers fees can't bring a winding up order unless a judgement has been served - In this case, a judgement WAS served (and uncontested by LUFC) ALSO - The unpaid £45k was for consultation and not legal
Also, it seems Mark Taylor has tried every avenue possible to get this bill paid, yet despite agreeing to take a reduced amount, it has still not been paid - unfortunately for Leeds, a 3rd party (Ken Bates) can witness this therefore they don't have a Roger Pistorus (leg to stand on). Although this is supposedly dormant, it still owns shares in LUFC, therefore is considered part of the set up - Leeds can and will try to get out of this via a CVA (by agreeing to pay the fee) but to do this, the FL have to be notified, and as you well know, it also carries a points deduction penalty!!
When Bates is involved you can bet something untoward is afoot however, you'd have to question why anyone would seek to wind up a football club for 45,000 nicker.
I suppose that if you are owed that amount of money and cannot get your money paid by negotiation then what other course of action do you have. Seems a bit silly of Cellino to agree to pay 40k (here and now) and then renege on the agreement
I agree to a point EIO, but trying to wind up a football club as big as LUFC for 45,000 quid is like trying to wind up Marks and Sparks cos they wouldn't exchange something.
Sorry, but not like that at all........ It is more like David fighting Goliath........ there is a trend in society today where the rich think that they can bully their way to get the outcome they want... supermarkets holding suppliers to ransom....telling them what they will be paid and when tax evaders preferring to take on the tax authorities by spending millions on lawyers and accountants rather than paying their fair due and football clubs not paying their way to suppliers (other than their fellow football clubs) IT STINKS...IT IS MORALLY WRONG.....AND MORE IMPORTANTLY it is a stupid way to run your business affairs after all the writ to liquidate LCH was lodged before Christmas.... LCH had every opportunity to contest the writ, but they decided, for whatever reason that they would not attend court.... so whose fault is it, the guy who did some work for LCH and quite rightly expected to be paid or LCH...who decided not to pay and ignore a High court writ forget for the moment the consequences to Leeds United.....and answer who you honestly think is in the right
EIO, It was written with slight tongue in cheek, but I still don't see how someone who is owed 45,000 quid thinks he can wind up a club like LUFC, he must want it to happen, and I'm willing to bet there's other optional legal avenues to pursue, even though he made attempts to retrieve his money. Where Bates is involved, nothing is honest. However, let's see how Umbers handles it after what he said in the article. Who's fault is it, why didn't Bates pay it, it was his responsibility back then, why didn't GFH pay it, and I can't tell you why Cellino didn't pay it. The article says it was for work carried out, doesn't specify consultation or legal.
