The Scratching Shed

Going nowhere!

Out of nowhere this morning came a story in the Daily Mail that Leeds United striker, Luciano Becchio was set to part ways with the club after contract talks broke down.

Without Jermaine Beckford’s contract talks to fill the column inches, the Daily Mail obviously had to invent some new story to worry the Leeds United fans. Unfortunately for them, they picked the wrong player as I suspect very few Leeds United fans actually bought into it.

Within hours, Leeds United replied to the story with Shaun Harvey telling the YEP that the story was “completely untrue” and that Leeds United were committed to keeping Luci at Elland Road.

The Daily Mail meanwhile realised they had egg on their face and have since removed the story from their website. Lazy journalism at it’s most vicious. No change for the Daily Mail then…

UPDATE: The story has since returned to the Daily Mail website and is viewable here. (For now at least)

Once the club had responded to yesterdays revelation that Jermaine Beckford had handed a transfer request in, one thing struck me as unusual – the date.

"That" Jermaine Beckford goal

It’s not so much the fact that the transfer request had already been handed in before the Manchester United game, that didn’t surprise me at all as I expected him to leave as soon as Newcastle announced their interest, and besides, we’d been hearing them particular rumours for a week. No, the thing that surprised me was the fact that Leeds United published the date.

For a club that likes to keep the fans in the dark as much as possible, and for a club that has kept this transfer request secret for a week, was there really any need for them to reveal the date the transfer request was handed in? What could they possibly be hoping to achieve by doing so?

It makes me wonder if Newcastle United’s unsettling of Beckford through the media has caused a rift between Leeds United and Beckford – or more precisely, Bates and Beckford.

Ken Bates, Shaun Harvey or whoever was responsible for publishing that date aren’t stupid. The reaction to the Leeds United fans discovering the date of the transfer request, as you can imagine, was hardly a positive one. Leeds United (by which I mean the people running the club) will have known exactly how the fans would react, so for me; this seems to be a parting gift to Beckford as he leaves Leeds United FC.

Of course, I’m only speculating here, but the thing I’d guess caused this particular rift is the ‘take it or leave it’ offer Newcastle United issued shortly before the request was announced. If Leeds United are short on offers, then Newcastle United’s offer of £1.5m may be the only option they have. It’s a clever game Newcastle have played, ensuring they get Beckford for the cheapest possible price, but Bates has to cover his bases and by turning the fans against Beckford, when he does leave for less than we expected, we’ll be glad to see the back of him.

For me, I hate the way this whole thing has been carried out, but I refuse to hold anything against Jermaine Beckford. If someone was offering me three times the money I’m on now to do the same job elsewhere, I’d be off in a flash. Loyalty and emotion are rare traits in footballers, and Beckford has no reason to offer either to Leeds United.

He’s scored a lot of goals for Leeds United, provided us with a lot of good memories and will leave on the back of his famous goal at Old Trafford, which knocked Scum out of the cup. Leeds United will move on. We’ll find a replacement and we’ll still be crowned champions in May regardless of what Beckford does, because it’s Simon Grayson leading the team and in Grayson, we trust.

I use the internet and more specifically, search engines quite a lot for researching things I write on TSS, and whilst trying to find anything at all on Forward Sports Fund, I came across a post on a site called Commercial Law International.

The site is essentially a blog written by four people whose background is in law. The writer of the article I’m going to refer to – Charles Wanguhu – has a Masters in Law from the university of Westminister and currently works for AfriCOG which is (and I quote from their website)

The Africa Centre for Open Governance (AfriCOG) is an independent, non-profit making organisation with a mandate to provide cutting edge research on governance and public ethics issues and, monitor governance fundamentals in both the government and the private sector. AfriCOG’s governance and anti-corruption reform initiative are aimed at addressing the structural causes of Kenya’s governance crisis by a knowledgeable citizenry.

What interested me in his post is that the writer has far more knowledge of the ins and outs of international law than I do personally. We’ve all made our thoughts well known about the handling of Leeds United’s ownership, but few of us really have an in-depth understanding of how it’s been allowed to remain so mysterious.

His post starts with the following;

In the current financial crisis the role of offshore havens have been placed in the spotlight and quite rightly so. The lack of transparency in their dealings has meant that these centres have not only been used for tax evasion, money laundering, but also as bases for special purpose entities. The role of British offshore havens has of late been highlighted with regards to the ownership of football clubs.

The Riddle of Leeds Football Club ownership has played out quite interestingly in the Royal Court of Jersey.  In January this year the Leeds Chairman Ken Bates told the court that he jointly owned the club’s holding company, Forward Sports Fund. However in an affidavit sworn for the same court in May, Bates states that he did not own any shares in Forward and that the previous statement was “incorrect” and “an error” on his part.

So as you’ve just read, he cuts straight to the chase highlighting the part that brought Forward Sports Fund’s ownership into disrepute to start with – the fact Bates lied to a court.

For me, the lack of transparency and willingness to lie with such ease to anyone from supporters, to the Football League to an actual court leaves me in no doubt that he’s hiding something. Lying to a court is a criminal offence afterall and not something you’d do unless desperate.

Although Charles never directly accuses Bates or FSF of money laundering, the lack of transparency is consistant with those that have used companies for such a purpose. Even if it’s not that, there’s something clearly awry with Leeds United’s ownership and the continued secrecy will only serve to fuel speculation.

An interesting point to note is that Forward Sports Fund is a Cayman Islands-registered outfit, with its administrators in the very transparent capital of Switzerland. Château Fiduciaire the administrators/trustees on being pushed to reveal the beneficial owners of Forward indicated that;

“Understandably, it is not the policy of this company, a fully regulated Swiss fiduciaire, to release information on ultimate ownership without an appropriate court order, valid in Switzerland.”

The ownership of Leeds United has been routed via a network of offshore companies ever since Ken Bates arrived at Elland Road club in 2005. Bates in his affidavit states that:

“Neither I, Mark Taylor or Shaun Harvey are able to confirm who the ultimate beneficial owners of Forward are.”

The above not only makes a mockery of the Football associations “fit and proper test” of Club owners but just goes to show the lack of transparency in football administration.

There’s been such an effort made to keep the clubs ownership secret when it would be so much easier to simply reveal who the true beneficators are, that no one, no matter how naive could possibly believe there isn’t something suspicious about all this.

Whether it’s the men that ultimately own the football club that couldn’t possibly pass the ‘fit and proper’ test for one reason or another, or whether it’s that money is being laundered through it or it’s simply a case of tax evasion, I fail to see how this can continue if the Football League wish to get a stranglehold on club ownership issues.

A lot has been said about the ownership issues at Leeds United, but the fact that lawyers are starting to take an interest suggests they have a reason to. The Football League have said very little about whether or not they’ll continue to investigate Leeds, but with such attention being put on them, I can’t see them doing otherwise.

Unless FSF and Bates cut their ties quickly and sell the club to someone else, the truth is inevitably going to come out eventually. What that truth is, and whether there’ll be any consequences for Leeds United FC continues to worry me. I think we’ve been through enough in the last decade and deserve a transparent regime with the clubs best interests at heart. FSF clearly isn’t that.

Charles Wanguhu’s full post can be read here: Will the real Leeds United owners please stand up?

D-Day for Thorp Arch

The fate of Thorp Arch rests in the hands of Leeds City Council as the deadline for it’s buy-back expires this evening. The original deadline of the 10th of October was extended due to a religious holiday since which LCC have continued to carry out the necessary due diligence.

LCC also require the nod from the Football League who could stick their nose in and complicate matters once again for the Whites. The FL are still believed to be investigating the ownership of Leeds United although Shaun Harvey claims this shouldn’t stop the deal with LCC being finalised.

If the deal does go through, the money Leeds will pay for the lease will be secured by us agreeing to pay a portion of the money we receive for our Football League membership every year. The deal also includes the option for Leeds United to repurchase the property in fourteen years time, or sooner if financial circumstances allow. Should the deal be unsuccessful, Leeds will still maintain use of the training facilities until 2029, although the current lease agreement will increase in price by 3% every year.

Becchio injury latest

Contrary to rumours circulating that suggested Lucciano Becchio had broken his ankle, Simon Grayson insists he hasn’t. After needing assistance to get off the pitch during the 0-0 draw with Charlton, Leeds fans nervously anticipated the worst, but Grayson insists the striker is receiving treatment and will be back soon enough.

…and we’re back!

After a much needed break from the busy League One fixture schedule, Leeds United return to action this Monday night against Norwich City. The game will be live on Sky Sports, so fans attending Elland Road should expect a lower than average attendance.

Norwich have not lost since the 14th of September when a late penalty secured all three points for MK Dons. They’ve also won their last four including a 4-0 hammering over Leyton Orient followed by another demolition job on Bristol Rovers who they beat 5-1 both at home. Away from home, they’ve also won their last two games with 1-0 victories over Gillingham and Carlisle.

Since Chelsea were banned from signing any players for the next two transfer windows, everyone seems to have thrown their opinion into the mix regarding the tapping up of youth players, so I figure it’s only fair I have mine.  

Every lower league club has been a victim of the higher clubs tactics. I bet there’s not a single club outside the Premiership that’s never trained a youngster upto the age of 16, only to see him snatched from their grip just as he turns old enough to sign a professional contract.

Since our relegation, we’ve been a constant target for the Premier League clubs. The reputation we have for developing youth talent is recognised throughout the country and there’s always a scout on hand waiting to move in and steal our latest development. Perhaps it’s divine retribution. Leeds will have snatched plenty of players from the smaller clubs back when we were a major force in this country, but it’s not until you’re sitting on the other side of the fence that you realise how frustrating it can be.

The FA brought in the transfer tribunal so clubs would be compensated for the money spent on developing young players. Leeds have done well from this netting millions over the past few years with the most recent award being £600,000 (plus possible add-ons) for Garbutt just a few days ago. It’s a good first step, but not really enough.

UEFA have now started to act on this suggesting that players should be tied to the club that trained them ’til the age of 18. This again is a positive, but I personally feel it should be older. 21 for me is a good age. Afterall, the player is highly unlikely to make the starting XI until he reaches this age and will most probably spend his time out on loan at lower clubs. Bringing this in will be tough though as it’s unlikely to meet the European Union’s working laws.

Shaun Harvey’s raised a good point saying that compensation is no longer adequate punishment for clubs that breach the rules and tap up young players. The compensation rule has been in place a while now but has failed to deter the major clubs. Harvey suggests it may be time to start docking teams points for breaking the rules and I couldn’t agree more. If clubs that are struggling financially and are forced into administration are to be docked points then this should apply to the Premier League clubs that are causing the problems too.

Fabian Delph is a prime example of the kind of money clubs should be getting for their talent. Most clubs are paid off so cheaply that it makes little difference to the bottom line of Premier League clubs finances. However, when the clubs have the player tied down and he’s unable to leave without both parties agreeing, the lower clubs get a decent sum of money for their talent. There’s a major difference bewteen £600,000 and £6,000,000! The kind of difference that could stop lower clubs from going into administration in the first place and give them the chance to compete in the Sky Sports savaged football leagues.

For me, the Sky Sports funded Premier League is destroying football with it’s uneven distribution of money. When the lower clubs develop a player capable of earning them some money (or helping them achieve promotion) he’s snatched away from them for pittance. If a rule was brought in whereby young players could only leave through mutual consent, it would go a long way to levelling the uphill playing field.

The ban imposed on Chelsea is an excellent move from UEFA. It’s taken a while for them to get into gear, but they have to start playing hard ball for the long term benefit of the game. If they were to follow this with bans (or points deductions) on Manchester City, Manchester United and anyone else found guilty of tapping up then it would bring an end to this ridiculous and totally unfair culture once and for all.  More of the same please UEFA!