I’ve been playing away from home this week over on Clarke One Nil where I was pondering the future of Leeds United Football Club and what will happen when Ken Bates finally retires his ego. Link as follows;

http://clarkeonenil.co.uk/front-page/david-from-tss-on-what-happens-to-leeds-united-after-bates

  • timm

    You’ll find my response on the Clarke One Nil site, providing it gets past the moderator.

  • TSS

    Only 50% of the article was about my hatred for him? That’s not even a personal best. I’ve written articles about injury problems with a higher percentage of Bates-bashing than that!

    • timm

      I was going to say 70/30! But i thought i’d keep it fair & go 50/50! ;)

  • Dje

    I thought it was a good article too. The Harvey bit was interesting as I hadn’t thought of this period of LUFC as being part of a dynasty.

    I actually think any profit we are making is not going into Bates’s actual pocket – but into the bricks and masonry he’s putting up around Elland Road. Not that this is a ‘Bates is investing in our future’ argument – rather I reckon Bates is reliving his Chelsea days by building up the assets of his portfolio for future sale / kiddies inheritance.

    Mildly annoying as this may be if money is being diverted away from the transfer / wages kitty, I just wondered if anyone knew what was the predicted duration of Bates Elland Road construction plan? Essentially, at what date has he indicated that he will stop building.

    Only then will we might actually see if he does have ANY intention of putting money into the football element of our football club. Until then he has a ready bluff (which might not be a bluff, who knows?) about ‘investing’ in our club rather than our team.

    • timm

      I think it’s a fact of life that money which could be used for buying players etc.. will be taken out by directors/owners etc. What really matters is how much is taken out. Man Utd supporters feel their club is being ‘raped’ by the current owners. I certainly don’t think that’s what’s happening at our club. The nature of Bates personality suggests that he is a man who likes to stir up a hornets nest. I’m sure he’s still motivated by money, but i bet he’s even more motivated by the prospect of taking a club that was a laughing stock, & getting them back among footballs elite? & that can only be a good thing for us long suffering supporters.

  • Bill Fox

    If we get the World Cup bid and ER is chosen as a venue does Bates get any central/FA/FIFA funding to carry out the stadium and infrastructure improvements? Anyone know??

  • Dje

    @captaincrash

    I presume so. Elland Road would have to be expanded to 50,000. So I imagine central funds would ‘treat us’ to that – as opposed to us paying for the pleasure of being a venue.

    • Colin

      As I understand it, LUFC’s owners (FSF) would have to pay for the expansion to make it World Cup ready and there would be NO central funding.

      Therein lies the problem – Leeds don’t own ER or TA, but would have to own it, in order to expand it and make it FIFA compliant. LUFC don’t have the money and wouldn’t be able to borrow it. So it would seem all is lost. However, one organisation could get the loan and allow LUFC to make the improvements – Leeds City Council.

      If Leeds was a World Cup venue, it would generate millions in cash for both Leeds businesses and Leeds City Council. Sure, the money made by the council would be much less than the loan that the council would have to take. However, the profit to the City of Leeds goes direct to the council and not LUFC. Let’s say that the loan payments are £500k a year – they could charge LUFC £1m a year and LUFC would be happy with that as they’re currently paying double that. And LCC make a cool £500k a year for doing nothing.

      I think that would be the plan if Leeds got the bid. Everyone’s a winner! :)

  • stotty

    The worrying thing for me is the number of investments being made into other clubs like possibly Hull and certainly Leicester for example.
    On this basis I cannot believe that similar discussions have not taken place at Leeds which must represent the best investment potential apart from maybe six clubs in the Premiership. If I had the spare millions it would be a no brainer!!
    I have therefore to assume that a deal cannot be struck with Bates and his wife as at his age he is on an ego trip and doesn’t want to give up the reins and therefore our club has to suffer the consequencies.
    Any thoughts on this puzzling situation?

    • Bill Fox

      Good point Stotty and investors must find KB a hurdle too far, presumably because he wants the 51% share or mega bucks deemed OTT. At least thus far. Suzannah as Chairwoman, Lets be Having You!

    • lar

      no one with any sort of thinking will come near leeds afc as long as ken bates is there,if you look at ken bates taken footsteps it shows you every thing he touches sours.but like the wise man said old sins cast long shadows.the other item i worry about is that if he has a lie hidden it will be leeds who will pay the ferryman.then there is elland road and thorp arch…and there are people who say he is good for the club.stotty..would you buy a horse off ken bates…leeeeddddsss.

  • Colin

    @stotty @captaincrash

    Hull and Leicester are completely different beasts to LUFC in 2010:

    Firstly they own their assets – stadium and training grounds etc. We don’t, so not only do we have to pay rent, but if you were an investor you’d have to spend £20+ to get them back and that puts off anyone interested in a takeover.

    Secondly, let’s take Hull as an example – they’re in debt and it’s massive debt and they are struggling to pay it. If I was an investor or wanted to buy Hull and could afford to pay those debts, then all the aces are in my hand. I wouldn’t offer Hull anywhere near the real price for the club – I know (and the current Hull owners know) that eventually they will not be able to make the payments. If that happens, then admin comes along and they lose a huge amount of the money they invested. So in admin, let’s say they get 20p for every £1 they invested. If I was an honest and caring man I would offer them £1 for every £1 they’ve invested. But I’m not, so I’m going to offer them 50p for every £1 they’ve invested, knowing full well that they will sell the club to me. Basically, I get Hull City for half price, but inherit the debt.

    Let’s say Hull City is worth £10m and the debt is £2m. I get Hull for £5m, and I have £2m in the bank so I pay off the debt and I’ve got £10m of assets for £7m. Investors are taking Hull City for a ride.

    If someone came to Bates and said I’ll offer you 50p for every £1 FSF (Leeds’ owners) have invested, he’ll quite rightly laugh in their face. Bates got Leeds for about £35m (not sure). To buy Leeds, I reckon you’d want at least double that. And if Leeds get to the Prem, the quadruple it. That’s why we don’t have anyone wanting to buy us. If you were the owner of Leeds, you wouldn’t sell now, when your value will double if you get to the Prem.

    Final score: Leeds are not for sale.

  • Colin

    @TSS

    Hmmm. There was a poster who made a comment that said he couldn’t stand Bates and Bates also isn’t a Leeds man. What’s a Leeds man? Is a Leeds man someone has their Yorkshire Water (owned by US company) and banks only with Yorkshire Bank (owned by Japanese company)?

    Maybe I took that too literally, but what has Bates ever done that isn’t based in the best interest of Leeds?

    Now if you’re saying that he’s a little unsavoury because he’s perhaps not ‘done the right thing’ on the taxman, the British government, Mawhinney, the football league, Melvyn Levi, David Conn, etc. etc. then BING! you’re spot on there. But they’re not LUFC.

    And finally, I don’t trust that snake Shaun Harvey as far as I could throw him. Is he Mr. Leeds? Or is he Mr Farsley Celtic, Mr Scarborough, Mr Bradford City or Mr Postman – all of which have been his previous roles.

    If David Gill ever retires from Man United, Harvey’s application will be in the post straight away.

    And Ken Bates doesn’t own Leeds – we know that. Okay, he might, just might own one of the entities that make up FSF, but he’s nowhere near the real major owner of Leeds.

    • Colin

      Colin lights the blue touchpaper and waits for the TSS fireworks :)

      • TSS

        @colin

        I can’t believe I’m being baited on my own site! :)

        Does anyone truly believe Leeds United is owned by anyone other than Bates? That’s a whole new league of blinkered vision if so…

        As for ER and TA. I’m still unsure as to who owns them, but wouldn’t bet against it being Bates somewhere along the line. Strange that they’re both held by offshore companies – just like Leeds – where the real owners are untraceable… more deja vu!

  • TheReaper08

    @TSS Thing is you can’t prove anything so Colin’s argument stacks up just as well as your own.

    • Colin

      @TSS @TheReaper08

      TSS – I think Reaper alluded to it earlier in another post and hit the nail on the head – Bates gets others to invest and he leads the way. Bates WOULD NOT put any money into anything where he wouldn’t get a return and for that reason I don’t think he has much to do with FSF, which as far as I can see makes pretty much zero profit.

      Now as for ER and TA – then they do make a handsome profit, so I could see Bates involved in that someway, which sort of makes sense with the Football League fair and proper test and what came out of that – ie. Bates holds no shares in Leeds, because they only look at the owners of the club and not the ones who charge a football club rent for ER and TA. But of course he has an interest. For me the ER and TA route seem a better option for Bates. But it’s all conjecture and I don’t really think it matters that much. I can’t see anyone making any real money out of Leeds at the moment.

  • TSS

    @Colin Bates initially bought Leeds United for £10m (pre-admin), you don’t seriously believe he happily let it go and accepted the loss, do you?

    The reason I’m 99.99999% sure he owns Leeds United comes from a property developer I know (who uses offshore shell companies to dodge tax) that explained how you can pay companies abroad to list themselves as the owners of the company, thereby removing any trace of your own involvement. Apparently, it’s a commonly used practice in trying to buy-up the opposition and beating competition rulings. It’s one of those things where people in the know, know about it, but the authorities have no real way of proving it – and technically, no ones actually doing anything illegal, because you don’t own the club (but do).

    Did alarm bells not start ringing for you when major creditors chose only to deal with Bates? And how the club was eventually sold, despite him having no real involvement? Even the creditors shares could have been fictional. If Bates knew Leeds’ administration was an inevitability beforehand, then he could have acted to artificially create creditors with a majority share – which explains why Yorkshire Radio had such a big involvement. A company, that should be paying us – not vice versa.

    Bates is no fool, and there’s no way he lost Leeds United during that administration process. In a lot of ways, you have to admire his business acumen. He was forced into a corner and came out smelling of roses, whilst ridding the club of debt in the process.

    • TheReaper08

      @TSS As it happens I think your right but come on, you are 99.9999999% sure because your mate told you it can be done. I have heard so many tenuous links to back up arguments before but you have just shot straight in at number 1 !

      • TSS

        @TheReaper08

        Haha, to be fair, I never believed Bates had lost control of the club. It just took a while for someone to explain to me how he’d managed to keep it and slip through the iron-clad (rolls-eyes) rules of the FA