Leeds United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours

punk77

Yeeeeessssssssss! 2-2 Ross

Zaph

Becchiooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

punk77

Get in 3 - 2 Becchio. MOT :D:D

G.K.

Delighted.

punk77

Snodgrass scores equaliser against Spurs.

Zaph

Ah ffs, 3-3, backheeled into the net :mad:

championc

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

anyone with a radio link ?

EVERY Match on uStream channel "mighty-whites"

Trhiggy83

championc wrote: »

EVERY Match on uStream channel "mighty-whites"

Cheers for that

JokerD

Just vomit inducing stuff watching MOTD, how did it ever come to Norwich, a team that were well behind us in League One having most of our midfield?

Today Warnock said "Don't hold your breath" when Eddie Gray asked him about the possibility of emergency loans.

Mushy

JokerD wrote: »

Just vomit inducing stuff watching MOTD, how did it ever come to Norwich, a team that were well behind us in League One having most of our midfield?

Today Warnock said "Don't hold your breath" when Eddie Gray asked him about the possibility of emergency loans.

Ah now in all fairness they weren't behind us for long, or so it didn't feel. Its great testament that we had players capable of PL standard, not Norwichs fault they could exploit that due to us having a complete imbecile in charge of the club.

I never thought I'd feel sorry for Warnock, but now I do. Not gonna blame him for anything.

event

JokerD wrote: »

punk77 wrote: »

Easy road = Six pack of beer

Hard road = Six pack of muscle

No one said that being a 'Superstitious Soccer Supporter' was ever going to be easy. Just try saying those 3 words, 10 times, really fast while you're on the threadmill

I don't drink so it's always the hard road:pac:

You're a Leeds fan and don't drink?
Christ how do you get over the heartache

SarahBM

just saw the the Leeds goals. Mc Cormack's was a beaut.

Cardiff next. our boogie team????

JokerD

A guy on WACCOE and his brief encounter with Harvey......


Me - Hi Shaun, nice to see you! quite a time at the club at the moment, I thanked him for responding and acting on an email where the club had agreed to get involved with Forces serving overseas... (thats another story for another day)

SH - recalled our correspondence and was delighted to be involved

Me.. (Time to ask some direct question) times have changed shaun, seems like the fans are warming to you!

SH .. Yes, it makes a pleasant change, but I have honestly had the interest of the fans and club at heart since I got here.. but its a results business, and people will always judge you on that

Me.. Shaun, is it true you are writing the program notes, or editing them....

SH ... Again, don't believe everything you hear!

Me.. ... Tell me Shaun, have you and ken bates fallen out?

SH ... Not at all, we dont agree on everything, but kens a very astute businessman and knows what hes doing, again, we have a confidentiality clause we have to honour

Me.. Are you running the club single handed at the moment

SH.. Smile, another thing Ive heard people saying, but its not true, no

punk77

Good article in the Mail here :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2197335/On-road-A-big-deal-Rovers-Leeds-rich-fans.html

Note the comments from Leeds fans.


Update: The fans comments have now marked as currently unavailable. WTF.

Update on Update: Comments have been reinstated

JokerD

Update from Boozie:

Update:

All the parties are having a meeting this week (not sure which day) to thrash this out. This is make or break, they are trying to sort out the indemnity problem which will include negotiating a cap on liability if that will get an agreement. If they cannot sort it out this week the buyers will be pulling out.

It looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel, whether it will be light or dark remains to be seen but at least we will have some closure one way or another.

Will keep you posted.

MOT

Tarquin1970

JokerD wrote: »

Update from Boozie:

Update:

All the parties are having a meeting this week (not sure which day) to thrash this out. This is make or break, they are trying to sort out the indemnity problem which will include negotiating a cap on liability if that will get an agreement. If they cannot sort it out this week the buyers will be pulling out.

It looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel, whether it will be light or dark remains to be seen but at least we will have some closure one way or another.

Will keep you posted.

MOT

Check out @JacobsBen on twitter....not sounding too positive re takeover

@JacobsBen: @carrics3 no there are a few loans and unclear who owns stadium. More losses than you think. That put off the new Forest lot.

JokerD

Tarquin1970 wrote: »

Check out @JacobsBen on twitter....not sounding too positive re takeover

@JacobsBen: @carrics3 no there are a few loans and unclear who owns stadium. More losses than you think. That put off the new Forest lot.

Boozie claiming the Forest owners were never in for us.

Tarquin1970

JokerD wrote: »

Boozie claiming the Forest owners were never in for us.

It's all smoke and mirrors at the moment, the only thing that's come out of those tweets is that there seems to be a deadline closing in finally!! This time next week all should be clearer!

punk77

Tarquin1970 wrote: »

It's all smoke and mirrors at the moment, the only thing that's come out of those tweets is that there seems to be a deadline closing in finally!! This time next week all should be clearer!

It's ALWAYS smoke and mirrors when it comes to the business dealings of the current owner. I ,for one, look forward to a resolution of this mess, one way or the other. It's been a long summer of frustration. If Bates goes, then it will have been worth it. If he stays, he'll be severely weakened and when all the details of what transpired over the summer are in the public domain then we'll have plenty of ammunition to continue the fight to end his reign. BATES OUT, one way or the other.

Q_Ball

Nunez suffered a cruciate ligament injury and is going to be out for a while. Always thought he could do a job for us, but if NW says no then who am I ot argue.

To be honest, on this whole takeover issue, I'm not so convinced. There hasn't been enough solid information on who they are, who they're backed by and what their plans are for the club. All we have is the information from LUST portraying them as saviours and giving us the easy answers.

I guess even venkys splashed out £8m for Jordan Rhodes so maybe my cynicism is misplaced but I can't help being a little skeptical about the whole situation.

JokerD

Boozie update:

Sorry for the late updates but i've not got regular access to the internet atm. A source of mine (very reliable) close to the club does not believe the meeting this week is make or break, believes both parties want/need this deal to happen and there is much to talk about. Impression club is getting is that the buyers will not walk away and nor will Bates so an agreement is on the table. This clearly contradicts what was said yesterday, but this is the first indication as to what the club are actually thinking themselves and doesn't mean the buyers will threaten to walk.

Sorry if that is not much of an update as nothing has really changed but just wanted to share what I was told.

MOT

event

Seriously folks id just forget about it.
no more update don't bother reading waccoe etc.
When we see it on the OS, then its done.

Tarquin1970

JokerD wrote: »

Boozie update:

Sorry for the late updates but i've not got regular access to the internet atm. A source of mine (very reliable) close to the club does not believe the meeting this week is make or break, believes both parties want/need this deal to happen and there is much to talk about. Impression club is getting is that the buyers will not walk away and nor will Bates so an agreement is on the table. This clearly contradicts what was said yesterday, but this is the first indication as to what the club are actually thinking themselves and doesn't mean the buyers will threaten to walk.

Sorry if that is not much of an update as nothing has really changed but just wanted to share what I was told.

MOT

A few bits and pieces....

@TSSLUFC: Did BBC Radio Leeds claim TOMA conclusion Thursday? All seemed highly speculative to me. #LUFC

@TSSLUFC: @LUFCTrust You guys been confirming showdown talks set for Thursday, or is this another rumour gone wild?

@lufctrust: @TSSLUFC No rumour, confirmed as Thursday. Not in a position to confirm venue or time nor when outcomes communicated, sorry

JokerD

Lees called up to England U-21's

punk77

JokerD wrote: »

Boozie update:

Sorry for the late updates but i've not got regular access to the internet atm. A source of mine (very reliable) close to the club does not believe the meeting this week is make or break, believes both parties want/need this deal to happen and there is much to talk about. Impression club is getting is that the buyers will not walk away and nor will Bates so an agreement is on the table. This clearly contradicts what was said yesterday, but this is the first indication as to what the club are actually thinking themselves and doesn't mean the buyers will threaten to walk.

Sorry if that is not much of an update as nothing has really changed but just wanted to share what I was told.

MOT

Tarquin1970 wrote: »

A few bits and pieces....

@TSSLUFC: Did BBC Radio Leeds claim TOMA conclusion Thursday? All seemed highly speculative to me. #LUFC

@TSSLUFC: @LUFCTrust You guys been confirming showdown talks set for Thursday, or is this another rumour gone wild?

@lufctrust: @TSSLUFC No rumour, confirmed as Thursday. Not in a position to confirm venue or time nor when outcomes communicated, sorry

'Just when you think you're out, they pull you back in' (Michael Corleone, Godfather III). LOL.

JokerD

Norris is out for 4 weeks, we'll need more midfield cover in now too, Norris and Green out. Pity QPR blocked the move for Derry, would've been a good addition.

For those still interested in takeover news, I'll whisper......

*They're working on indemnities. No agreement reached so far today but also no party has walked away. More positive than negative.

fanzhiyidan

JokerD wrote: »

Norris is out for 4 weeks, we'll need more midfield cover in now too, Norris and Green out. Pity QPR blocked the move for Derry, would've been a good addition.

For those still interested in takeover news, I'll whisper......

*They're working on indemnities. No agreement reached so far today but also no party has walked away. More positive than negative.

don't know how he played against blackburn but i haven't been blown away by his performances.

who do we have to cover him? Pugh or one of the lads from the youth team?

need cover for the cover

punk77

Latest statement from LUST on the club finances:

http://lufctrust.squarespace.com/blog/month/september-2012

JokerD

fanzhiyidan wrote: »

don't know how he played against blackburn but i haven't been blown away by his performances.

who do we have to cover him? Pugh or one of the lads from the youth team?

need cover for the cover

Brown and Thompson I'd say.

punk77

JokerD wrote: »

Brown and Thompson I'd say.

Brown is also an injury doubt. Reportedly a tight hamstring. Could play Diouf in there with White/Byram on the right. Atm I'm sweating on Austin coming through Jamaica's second game on Tuesday injury free. Losing him as well would be a disaster. He scored last night from a free kick.

JokerD

So Jermaine Jenas is the latest linked on loan.

punk77

Apologies to those who don't want to hear anymore about the T/O until confirmation that the deal is either signed or dead but here's the latest from boozie on WACCOE:

* Ok, there is good news and bad news:

Bad News- There has been little progress in the negotiating. The issue still remains the indemnities and there is “no end in sight” according to someone involved.

Good News- Neither Party has walked away(and there is no indication they will) and both believe a deal can be done, talks ongoing.

I personally do not understand how both parties feel a deal can be done when they have been negotiating the same point for weeks without resolution. The buyers are concerned about some information that came out during DD and are quite rightly taking the advice received (from various people) not to sign the deal without the indemnities or at least a capped indemnity.

The saga does On and On, On and On, On and On, On and On. *




'There is something rotten in the state of Denmark' (Hamlet)

championc

Would be interesting to know which side is leaking info to Boozie. One side must be doing it deliberately to try and get the upper hand on the other. I wonder who has more to gain or who is getting a psycological upper hand by talking dragging on ?

A guy in work explained the how's and why's of indemnities and somewhat lost me half way along. However, it confirms that there must be a right tangled web of ownership and other stuff there right now.

JokerD

I remember when Krasner sold the club to Bates in 4 days, coming up on 4 months here.




Also Sky saying Warnock expects to sign midfielders on loan this week....
Derry? Jenas? Tonge?.....these are the linked ones.

JokerD

Very concerning times at the club if what Boozie has been saying today is true, a cilvil war looks like it could break out within the club with Warnock potentially walking.

SarahBM

I hate to be the one to say it but I really dont think this take over thing is going to happen at all. I think we should all stop kidding our selves and just forget about it.

Lets look forward (if that's even possible) to the game against Cardiff. Our traditional bogey team. I for one will be delighted if we come away with a point.

JokerD

Tonge looking likely on a 93 day loan.

championc

JokerD wrote: »

Very concerning times at the club if what Boozie has been saying today is true, a cilvil war looks like it could break out within the club with Warnock potentially walking.

Could it turn out that Warnock will be the one to crank up enough pressure on Bates to finally sign off ? Everyone (Bates and Buyers) shares the belief that Colin is the likeliest to guide us back to the Prem. I still think investors will be interested if Prem looked unlikely but Bates would be looking at a greater loss on his potential windfall from a sale.

JokerD

For those asking about the part-Bahraini consortium's failure to meet payment terms for a takeover of Leeds. #LUFC
Am told that there has been no change to the position reported here at the end of August. A price was agreed for Ken Bates' majority shareholding in Leeds United in July, only for the consortium to fail to complete the transaction. The Leeds chairman is understood to have been unhappy with an attempt to redirect funds the group had used to secure a period of exclusivity into Neil Warnock's transfer budget.
on the full purchase price for the club. They then attempted to dictate to the seller how that deposit should be used before they had paid for full control of Leeds. This led to doubts over the bidders' ability to fully fund the takeover, and the club itself after the takeover.

Sources close to the consortium say there are no issues with their finances
Essentially, the money paid by the consortium was perceived as a deposit and that the failure to complete the deal was simply due to Bates' refusal to sign “standard” indemnity documents. (These documents would have enabled the buyers to claw back some of the purchase price if additional legal or financial liabilities surfaced post-takeover.)

Warnock was allowed to discuss transfer plans with the consortium's brokers before the proposed July handover date. Problems have followed.


Which led to the fall out with Harvey


This is from Duncan Castles, who it's been claimed gets his info from Bates/Williams.



Boozie's response:
The buyers put £4m into the club and were going to put in a further £2m. They understood this was going to be going to Warnock/club. Bates believed this money was for him in return for granting the buyers exclusivity! Bates took the £4m, as a result the buyers said they were not putting in a further £2m until the club was actually theirs.

There was a dispute about the £4m, buyers wanted it knocked off asking price, Bates wanted to keep the asking price and keep the £4m. This was one of the major disputes that nearly de-railed the whole deal. The parties lawyers spoke and came to an agreement to the satisfaction of everyone. I do not know in whose favour it was resolved (if any) or if they just split the difference. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE PARTIES ARE CONCERNED THIS PAYEMENT IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED, THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT*.

punk77

'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive ' (Scott)

Think Sir Walter must have had dealings with Bates in a previous incarnation.

maximoose

JokerD wrote: »

Boozie's response:
The buyers put £4m into the club and were going to put in a further £2m. They understood this was going to be going to Warnock/club. Bates believed this money was for him in return for granting the buyers exclusivity! Bates took the £4m, as a result the buyers said they were not putting in a further £2m until the club was actually theirs.

Jesus H Christ. If this takeover doesn't go through I'll cry, we have to get rid of this man.

JokerD

maximoose wrote: »

Jesus H Christ. If this takeover doesn't go through I'll cry, we have to get rid of this man.

I read that yer man Ben Jacobs said that the buyers insist they've put nothing in towards transfers.

It's all one big mess.

punk77

YEP reporting that Neil Danns could be a possible loan signing from Leicester. IMO, he'd be a better addition than Tonge and he's a good mate of Peltier.

punk77

For anyone who's interested here's a summary of the last couple of days on waccoe:

Yesterday,a member had a phone call from Bates and this is the summary of it:

When you try to speak to him it is impossible to get a word in edgeways.
But he did say that Leeds fans HAD NO RIGHT TO EXPECT PREMIERSHIP FOOTBALL.
He said there had been two bidders, both of whom he had no time for.
The arabs were on a road to no-where. This is my interpretation, can’t officially quote him on this.
He is planning on staying as Owner of Leeds.
He wanted me to go on LUST forums and spread the word of supporters, like me, combat the BATES OUT and LUST campaigns, which he sees as being a MINORITY of fans.
It was all very depressing (though Susannah seemed nice).


Boozie responded with:

I just logged in to share some news and saw pogs post. I think this proves Ken has lost the plot because I was told today that negotiations have been positive and taken a massive step in the right direction. This comes from someone close to the deal and I'm trying to get some more info from another source.
This clearly contradicts what Bates has said on the call but I believe it is now all a show from him.


Boozie updated today:

My other contacts view on what I was told yesterday “ I wouldn’t use the word massive but certainly movement in the right direction, will keep you posted”


BIG responded with:

I think thats the fairest assesment yet.
I am hoping to be able to confirm last nights news shortly.

punk77

LUST

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.

punk77

From LUST:

LEEDS UNITED - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 2012
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 AT 1:08PM
Further to comments from Ken Bates that the club “will continue to be run along proper lines,” we have undertaken a review of the financial situation at Leeds United. Following on from the latest cash analysis last week, the report below is based upon the views of independent football expert Rob Wilson and our own finance experts. The subjects covered are by no means exhaustive, but help to highlight the overall state of the financial situation at the club.

2011 Audited Accounts

Further to our discovery of errors in the audited accounts Rob Wilson commented that, “I found your findings concerning,” and, “Your claims expose some, to be frank, poor attention to detail on behalf of the auditors and do not fill me with confidence in the firm.” Both ourselves and Rob welcomed the news that the accounts are to be revised by the auditors and resubmitted, and look forward to seeing the restated accounts once the errors have been investigated.

Nevertheless Rob Wilson stood by his original comments upon first reading these accounts, which was that they indicated “good news from a business point of view.”

While he believes the club was running well financially he made it clear that investment in playing staff is vital if Leeds are to progress in the coming years. He commented that, “There is a degree of balance that is needed and while it is good that the financial position is good I do believe that there is flexibility now to be more aggressive in the transfer market.” He expressed disappointment at the lack of any significant activity in the transfer market as he believes Leeds United have the resources to achieve this. Echoing our own Vision Statement he stated that, “I would expect the breakdown of expenditure to be more heavily focused on the football and first team squad side of the business as opposed to other things,” adding further that, “Leeds is one of the most well and actively supported clubs in English football and while a degree of concentration on mainstream opportunities, e.g. real estate etc, is helpful to diversify a portfolio your core business activity must be that of football and achieving on the field of play.” Both Rob and ourselves feel that the concentration should be on football as our main business activity, the core of the club.

Wages and Wage Ratios

Getting into the detail, Rob Wilson commented that the club’s wages to turnover ratio of 51% is outstanding and the club have an enviable position throughout the league system with very few clubs in a better position than this. The positivity of the ratio is not something that we disagree with, but for it to truly be envied as a business performance measure, success on the field must be coupled with it.

Unfortunately this great financial achievement meant that we only finished 14th last season, so it is unlikely that Reading and Southampton, while only managing to attain ratios of 90% & 100%, looked down on us from their promotion spots with much envy; nor would Norwich the season before with an 80% ratio. We do not advocate spending beyond our means to achieve the goal of promotion like these clubs have done; we are not in the fortunate position of having owners such as they do that have kept them afloat with cash injections.

However, what we have that no other club in the Championship has, is a huge and loyal supporter base, which means we are among the top (if not the top) income generators in the division. Unlike the majority of clubs, we could compete with the top six spenders on wages without having to jeopardise good business practices and while maintaining wages ratios that would continue to be the envy of all around us. Rob Wilson agreed with our analysis that a 60% ratio is sustainable.

On our current turnover, this would allow the club to spend up to £20m on wages (we spent £16m in 2011), which would put us firmly in the top six for this division. The importance of this statistic is that Deloitte’s analysis of the Championship (as part of their widely regarded annual football review) has demonstrated that to be in with the best chance of promotion from the Championship to the Premier League, a team has to be among the top wage six spenders in the league. Of course there are other factors involved, as the spending has to be on the right players, but in Neil Warnock we have a tried and trusted campaigner with years of experience, so if he were given a top six budget we are sure our odds for promotion would be even better than Deloitte’s suggest.

Profits

Rob Wilson suggested to us that the 3% profit before tax margin shown in the last set of accounts fairs really well in the context of the league. He stated that, “I am certain that Leeds supporters will be one of the few to see their club make a positive return.” We agree with this view, however, we also feel that it masks the reality of our situation.

Obviously the above return was made as a result of the very prudent staff costs and we agree that very few clubs make a profit. Therefore, the immediate thought is that increasing the staff costs will result in losses. However, when we look into the detail once more what we see is a club that manages its staff costs very tightly, but allows other areas of cost to spiral out of control. Back in April this year Shaun Harvey admitted under oath at Leeds County Court that, “we are spending a fortune on legal fees”; our own analysis confirmed that R M Taylor alone received in the region of £1.5m for legal fees over a three year period between 2007-2010, and we can only imagine how much more has been paid to other legal firms. We believe that these costs were unnecessary and would have allowed the club to increase its staff cost budgets if they did not exist.

When looking at profits the other major influence is revenue. Based on the drop in average attendances and what we are being told by our 8,000 members, we conservatively estimate that the club is losing around £2.5m in lost ticket and merchandise sales due to supporters staying away or refusing to spend money on club products until they know that this money will be spent on the team. At a 60% turnover ratio, this would equate to a further £1.5m available in the staff cost budget.

Building / Investment in Non Core Activities

As a recurring theme throughout both Rob Wilson’s and our own analysis we can see that investment in building work has taken priority over the football team. We both agree that, while investment in assets is important, it should not happen to the detriment of the first team squad. Our analysis showed that from the exit of Administration up to the date of the last audited accounts (30 June 2011) the club has committed to spending £16.1m on building and improvements to facilities, while spending £7m on acquiring players, having received £13m on the sale of players. So, it would appear that the profits from player sales are being reinvested in building work with the argument being that we are building future revenue streams. We have had no indication of when these streams will start to benefit the first team, but we do know that the club has had to take out a loan of £5m to be paid off over the next two seasons, and to sell preference shares for £3.2m in order to pay for these future streams. From this we can conclude that it is unlikely that any benefit will be seen for at least two more seasons. While trying to regain our top flight status, this decision seems a little premature at best.

Cash

Cash is king in any business, as businesses that do fail or get into trouble often do so as a result of lack of cash; this is why we felt it was important to produce the special cash report first.

Having shared our report with Rob Wilson before publication he admitted after reading the results that, “The cash analysis that you've done concerns me.” Commenting that, “the assumptions seem sound,” he further agreed with our own conclusions that Leeds United would either have to sell players, obtain further loans or find outside investment if the club were to continue as a going concern. Wilson added that, “based on business principles, to survive a business needs to ensure that a) the selling price is higher than the cost and b) it can pay its debts as they fall due.” He stated that, “The club needs to sell more tickets and attract better sponsorship. To do this you need some more team investment and, in my opinion, a better more associated relationship with the fans.” Wilson heeded the warning of Southampton as an example, where Rupert Lowe fell out of favour for similar reasons to those that exist at Leeds United and the fans started to turn. “The new board has done things differently, won the favour of the fans and they are now in the EPL.”

As a final comment Wilson warned, “I'm not a fan of borrowing against future season ticket sales. The method has been proven to fail in the wrong hands - look at Rangers. Let's hope that the arrangements at Leeds are more supportive and do not destabilise the financial position.”

We did not ask Wilson to comment on this, but the reported cash from the Snodgrass transfer being paid to Close Leasing Limited would further support the concern that we raised about where our money is going in the cash analysis. According to our contacts, the club sold part of the Snodgrass fee to Close Leasing in return for immediately available funds. This would suggest that no funds were immediately available (as there is obviously a cost associated with this transaction, it would not make business sense to assign the debt if it was) and that this cash was required in order to fulfil the transfer activities that have taken place over the summer. As we mentioned the club is likely to have received nearly half their usual annual budget by the end of August, therefore having to sell off future transfer income on top of this is very concerning.

To further support the cash concerns we have also learnt that Neil Warnock has been refused permission to sign two top loan targets that he had lined up; our understanding is that he was told there is insufficient cash available for him to get the players he wanted.

With all the loans and share sales we are hearing about, it is even more concerning to discover that our sister companies have all received financial assistance from the club that we believe are still outstanding at this time. As at the end of the accounting period 30 June 2011, these amounts were reported as follows:

£1.6m loaned to Yorkshire Radio Limited
£2.7m Loaned to Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited
£255k Loaned to Leeds United Media Limited
This totals nearly £4.6m, which makes us wonder whether, if it had been repaid, we would still have needed to borrow £5m from future season ticket sales. We are unsure if further assistance has been provided to any of these companies since this date.

The Takeover?

As we all know this process has appeared to drag on forever, however when you look at a few facts it is not too difficult to understand why it might take longer than other clubs to complete.

Due Diligence

Due Diligence is a complex process and delays often occur as a result of the findings. The situation at Leeds United makes it more complex than at most other football clubs due to the sheer volume of entities that need to be researched. Below is the list of organisations that would need to be investigated and are registered at Companies House as having some form of connection to the club. Listed alphabetically:

Adulant Force Limited
Charmed Garden Limited
Donald Manasse
Elland Road Limited
Fan Radio Limited
FSF Limited
Halton Sports Limited
Homer Trust
Leeds City Holdings Limited
Leeds City Limited
Leeds First Limited
Leeds United 2007 Limited
Leeds United Association Football Club Limited
Leeds United Centenary Pavilion Limited
Leeds United Financial Services Limited
Leeds United Investment Limited
Leeds United Media Limited
Leeds United Retail Limited
Leeds United Stadium Limited
Lutonville Holdings Limited
Outro Limited
Roman Heavies Limited
Sporting Consulting Group Limited
The Leeds United Foundation
Treliss Designs Limited
Yorkshire First Limited
Yorkshire Radio Limited
There are 27 firms on this list and it is likely that, given we know a number are based offshore, there could be even more. By comparison, the new owners of Nottingham Forest would only have had to look into the details of 4 entities. The above list might also help to explain why an indemnity is so important to any buyer of the club. While assurances on the selling side should make the buyer comfortable that no major unknown issues exist and the due diligence process should further support this, looking at the volume of entities involved above, it would not be difficult to imagine how either party could have missed something and would want indemnities to protect them.

Conclusion

As per our Vision Statement we have always shared Ken Bates’ stated aim that the club should be run based upon good business management principles, but when looking at whether the club is being run along proper business lines, there are many factors that we have to take into account. If Mr Bates believes proper lines involves managing staff costs tightly in order to make a profit then he will be satisfied with our findings, however our views of good business management are more extensive.

We believe that a properly managed Leeds United would concentrate the majority of its investment on the core business - the team; maximise all its revenue streams by positively engaging with its greatest revenue source – the fans; manage other costs just as tightly as staff related expenses, and ensure that any investments did not leave the club short of cash and in need of expensive loans. Running a business is not complex when these good business management principles are followed.

From our analysis the current situation at Leeds appears to have faltered in terms of these guiding principles and is therefore in need of corrective measures. Further loans or player sales might prevent the club from falling victim to another catastrophic administration process in the short (or even medium) term, but the only long term business solution in our opinion is fresh investment and a new focus.

It’s time for change.

Lamper.sffc

Tonge in confirmed on Leeds website. Loan till january

punk77

It's possible we could have a Brown Tong(u)e midfield. LOL.

Lamper.sffc

punk77 wrote: »

It's possible we could have a Brown Tong(u)e midfield. LOL.

oops fixed now

Tarquin1970

This evenings twitter updates.....

@PhilHayYEP: Brief takeover update: contact of mine says tonight that "significant progress" on #lufc takeover expected next week.

@PhilHayYEP: Contact optimistic but won't speculate that takeover might complete next week. Says situation "is too unpredictable to assume that." #lufc

@PhilHayYEP: If nothing else, it's clear enough that certain people are still trying to push this deal forward.