From LUST on Facebook: Leeds United Supporters Trust Takeover Update - Thursday 13/09/12 It has been suggested to us that the deal has moved closer to completion over night. The indemnity clause issue may be resolved by members of the buyers consortium offering to indemnify others against any losses incurred as a result of Mr Bates refusal to sign the indeminity. We have yet to confirm this with both of our contacts however if true it demonstrates the desire of the buyers to purchase Leeds United. More to come as we get it.
No idea, generally people don't reveal their sources in these situations. It could potentially involve someone's job being in endangered.
fair enough Simon thanks. Hope we just don't have another week on week , month on month scenario of "it will be resolved in the next 3 days" I was happy with much less any takeover talk over last few days.
Stepping out of character for just a moment, it took me three months to buy my current house between acceptance of offer and completion. So I'm optimistic that the club can still be sold, even if the old bastard does string it out until Christmas.
It took me nearly 8 months to buy my flat in 1995 due to disputes between the vendor and the leaseholder. But I'm buggered if I can find any link between the purchase of a two-bed flat in Croydon 17 years ago and the multi-million pound buy-out of a professional football club.
Football clubs are more complicated, so I was thinking they might take even longer. Moron. <BACKINCHARACTER>
Yes I was aware of that you crooked old git ! But I bought the flat in it's entirety in one transaction. There were no disputes over whether I would take ownership of the kitchen, the toilet and the shed at the back of the garden. Likewise the previous owner did not ask me to sign a contract saying I would be responsible for any bodies subsequently found buried under the patio.
The way i understand it would be an agreement from bates that he has revealed all assets/liabilities and any potential liabilities further down the line. That way Ken couldnt shaft the new buyers as i think they would be entitled to a percentage of the fee back if any liabilities did arise. But i could be totally wrong
The buyers wanted me to cover any future losses (above a certain threshold) which arise from nasty surprises showing up. Things which weren't made clear in the books and the statement of liabilities. It's quite normal in this kind of transaction, but I'm not getting involved because I happen to know that the books are full of fire breathing dragons and angry scorpions. So the breakthrough is that some of the investors have decided to not only cop for the risk (obviously a very small risk) that I've left the place full of financial booby traps, but also to cover any losses made by some of the more cautious investors. This makes them either fabulously wealthy or astronomically stupid. Or morons.
http://lufctrust.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/13/leeds-united-financial-analysis-2012.html I see LUST have back tracked on that financial statement, knew it was bollocks and EXACTLY why LUST do themselves no favours... If this latest rumour Proves to be false as well then I can see LUST having an almighty fight trying to retain members as the discontent is growing, like it or not supporters are starting to turn on them.
I can confirm the LUST statement to be accurate, received a text last night saying "T/O has moved closer to completion"...never thought I'd be backing a LUST statement again but there you go!!!
Has anyone else noticed this thread is a carbon copy of all the other threads on the subject,over the last three months ?
There has been further positivity today. Also said there would be nothing further over the weekend. Lawyers mustn't work weekends
Not on this "takeover" I don't. It's a game young fella-me-lad! Remember, I went 6 years as chairman without knowing who owned the club, but now it's essential that I know both the identities and intentions of the arab lot. Me? Senile? I'm playing everyone like a bloody fiddle!
