Leeds United accounts

[Vausey]

I completely agree with that. That's what puzzles me! Central to Bates entire business model being successful is for Leeds United to be playing premier league football. Not only would that generate massive revenue itself but the corporate boxes would sell in no time and probably for a higher price.

I'll go back to my risk theory again. You can either spend money on a team and risk not getting promotion or spend money or corporate boxes and risk no-one uisng them. You'd just like to think that, as a football club, the former would be the appropriate path to take. Unfortunately that's clearly not the case with this old twat in charge!

[AndyPaul]

I guess all this is about "what ifs"

I simply look at it like this - let's say for arguments sake Bates saved us, everything he did to make us profitable was right. Now does this give him the right to do what he wants, treat people how he wants and blatently lie with no consequence? Does this mean he is allowed to run LUFC as a dictatorship? Well apparently it does

[welshwhite]

we were fucked without him and we are fucked with him-c'est la vie.

[Disco Dan]

I suspect the admin was as much about fucking over Levi and gaining absolute control of the club's shareholding as anything else. Adulant Force (Levi et al) didn't release the remaining 50% of shares if you recall. Levi in particular still had directors loans tied up in the club, and the liquidation of OldCo meant he and other members of Adulant Force lost out. That's often overlooked when thinking about the pursuit of the £190k Levi/Weston money.

Bates and Taylor did a share issue that diluted Adulant's shareholding down to a tiny percentage, but I'd wager that the admin was a useful mechanism through which full control was gained, Adulant were fucked over, and, in the face of plummeting revenues due to the relegation to L1, debt was shed so the business could simply start afresh.

[jackos]

Personally, I reckon admin was definitely avoidable. I also can't help thinking that Bates' hatred for the taxman and the former directors lead to him sticking us into admin to just so he didn't have to give either of them a penny (or at least the bare minimum). Admin screwed us over, especially the 15 points which meant three seasons in League One instead of just one. Bates may have won against the taxman/directors but it cost us dear. Cutting off the nose to spite the face... or bombing a city centre to spark urban regeneration as Moscow put it!

Didn't Bates issues loads of new shares to dilute the value of the former boards shares? Isn't that one of the reasons for the court cases with Levi which have cost us over 1.5M quid?

[jackos]

I suspect the admin was as much about fucking over Levi and gaining absolute control of the club's shareholding as anything else. Adulant Force (Levi et al) didn't release the remaining 50% of shares if you recall. Levi in particular still had directors loans tied up in the club, and the liquidation of OldCo meant he and other members of Adulant Force lost out. That's often overlooked when thinking about the pursuit of the £190k Levi/Weston money.

Bates and Taylor did a share issue that diluted Adulant's shareholding down to a tiny percentage, but I'd wager that the admin was a useful mechanism through which full control was gained, Adulant were fucked over, and, in the face of plummeting revenues due to the relegation to L1, debt was shed so the business could simply start afresh.

Exactly, that's it, so he avoided a messy court case about the share issue by going into admin - otherwise he risked loosing half the club? The former board where scum, and they did try pull a fast one one on Bates - but the fans and the club have suffered because of their little games. Levi is no better than Bates is no better than Levi. Though Levi would be part of or history is Bates stopped acting like a jilted school boy lover n moved the fuck on.

[Mr Reality]

I completely agree with that. That's what puzzles me! Central to Bates entire business model being successful is for Leeds United to be playing premier league football. Not only would that generate massive revenue itself but the corporate boxes would sell in no time and probably for a higher price.

I'll go back to my risk theory again. You can either spend money on a team and risk not getting promotion or spend money or corporate boxes and risk no-one uisng them. You'd just like to think that, as a football club, the former would be the appropriate path to take. Unfortunately that's clearly not the case with this old twat in charge!

I agree it's all about risk with ken

[Phil LUFC]

I suspect the admin was as much about fucking over Levi and gaining absolute control of the club's shareholding as anything else. Adulant Force (Levi et al) didn't release the remaining 50% of shares if you recall. Levi in particular still had directors loans tied up in the club, and the liquidation of OldCo meant he and other members of Adulant Force lost out. That's often overlooked when thinking about the pursuit of the £190k Levi/Weston money.

Bates and Taylor did a share issue that diluted Adulant's shareholding down to a tiny percentage, but I'd wager that the admin was a useful mechanism through which full control was gained, Adulant were fucked over, and, in the face of plummeting revenues due to the relegation to L1, debt was shed so the business could simply start afresh.

Exactly, that's it, so he avoided a messy court case about the share issue by going into admin - otherwise he risked loosing half the club? The former board where scum, and they did try pull a fast one one on Bates - but the fans and the club have suffered because of their little games. Levi is no better than Bates is no better than Levi. Though Levi would be part of or history is Bates stopped acting like a jilted school boy lover n moved the fuck on.

Not quite, as far as I can see, Bates pulled the fast one, all Levi did was attempt to resist the arse rape.

I'm convinced administration was completely avoidable, but regardless of how we got here, it's a fact that we are commercially better off now than we were 7 years ago. It's marginal, mainly because we let the TA option lapse.

[jackos]

Not quite, as far as I can see, Bates pulled the fast one, all Levi did was attempt to resist the arse rape.

Suppose it depends which side of the fence yr on, Weston admitted during the trial that they tried to take advantage of the late repayment their loan ... (The wording is typical of Conn's bias against Bates, so I'm trying to understand Bates reaction when they asked for 10% of the club .. )

Instead, Levi had approached Taylor in early September to seek a settlement, and he was most concerned not with the money but getting his tickets for Elland Road reinstated. Weston was keener to make sure their loans would definitely be repaid, and he took over the negotiations with Taylor, acknowledging in court that he also looked to take "modest financial advantage" of the situation. Weston put to Taylor that as the "call option" had lapsed, they would still transfer the shares over in return for Levi having his tickets reinstated, their loans being repaid immediately, and for 10% of Leeds United being given to them. Taylor rejected that, telling Weston he was being greedy. Weston said in his evidence that the conversation, on 9 September 2005, was "amicable," he told Taylor he was open to a counter offer – making it clear, in other words, that this was a negotiation – and Taylor had said he would talk it through with Bates and come back to Weston.

Bates makes his move

He never did. Instead, Bates made his move a week later, on 16 September 2005. Bates and Taylor had considered raising new money for Leeds by holding a rights issue – issuing new shares to existing shareholders – in the Bates company which owned 50% of Leeds and owed Levi and Weston the £1.4m. However, they decided to abandon it – for which Bates blamed Levi's refusal to transfer the shares. Instead, they decided to issue 2.5m new shares in Leeds United, the club itself, directly to FSF. FSF would also convert £2m of their loans into shares in the club.

[Fax Man]

Accounts for all companies under Leeds City Holdings below (and on the next post)...

[Fax Man]

Two more...

[Quiffy]

interesting to note that everton have just said they've made a £9.1m loss this year.

this is arguably a team we could emulate all things going well over the next few years - and even with a decent fanbase, a cautious transfer policy and all of the TV money that premiership teams get they still make a loss.

so why have GFH just bought us out?

[gazurtoids]

Does that include the sale of Arteta?

GFH are on record as saying that they plan to "flip" us, aren't they? Promotion, sale, profit.

[Quiffy]

Does that include the sale of Arteta?

GFH are on record as saying that they plan to "flip" us, aren't they? Promotion, sale, profit.

not sure about arteta. the info was simply from the sky sports news ticker, so i can'r be sure if it's operational profit.

nobody seems to want to buy everton so the prospects of GFH flipping us for a profit seem slim and that slim chance is dependent on us getting promoted first.

anyway my interpretation of their intentions was not so much about a quick sell on, just having an asset on their books that has an increased value (that they could sell for a profit)

[gazurtoids]

Does that include the sale of Arteta?

GFH are on record as saying that they plan to "flip" us, aren't they? Promotion, sale, profit.

not sure about arteta. the info was simply from the sky sports news ticker, so i can'r be sure if it's operational profit.

nobody seems to want to buy everton so the prospects of GFH flipping us for a profit seem slim and that slim chance is dependent on us getting promoted first.

anyway my interpretation of their intentions was not so much about a quick sell on, just having an asset on their books that has an increased value (that they could sell for a profit)

But if a PL club is a loss-maker, you'd want to sell ASAP, wouldn't you? The most relevant figures are probably Wigan's or West Brom's or someone like that: how much would it cost to just about keep a club in the PL and will it be less than the new TV deal?

[eric olthwaite]

interesting to note that everton have just said they've made a £9.1m loss this year.

this is arguably a team we could emulate all things going well over the next few years - and even with a decent fanbase, a cautious transfer policy and all of the TV money that premiership teams get they still make a loss.

Everton are in fairly deep shit with longstanding loan and overdraft payments.

[moscowhite]

Things I've spotted as a laying layman:

Leeds City Holdings: lost £3m
Leeds United Football Club: lost £2.2m before player trading
Centenary Pavilion: lost £233k
Leeds United Media: lost £22k
Yorkshire Radio: lost £100k
“The group loss for the year was £536,000 (2011 £2,988,000 profit)”
LCH’s ‘closing net debt’ increased from £1.3m to £5.2m
“The highest paid director was paid £226,000 (2011 £212,737)”

“On the 7th July 2011 the company entered into an agreement with Ticketus 2 LLP whereby it sold a total of £5 0 m of season tickets in respect of the 2012/13 season and the 2013/14 season”

Remember the preference shares? Issued for £3.2m to "Lutonville Holdings", redeemable at £4m upon "change in control." Well:

The usual lack of attention to detail seems to be present again:

“On the 21st December 2011 the company issued 32 preference shares to Lutonville Holdings Limited. The shares had a nominal value of £1 each and were issued at a premium of £99,999 each. The total consideration received, net of fees, in respect of this transaction was £3,092,894.”

“Preference shares were issued by Leeds United Football Club Limited on the 21st November 2011 to Lutonville Holdings Limited. The shares have no fixed repayment date but are redeemable upon a change of control in Leeds City Holdings Limited. Lutonville Holdings Limited is a related party by virtue of its connection to Outro Limited which is wholly owned by Mr K W Bates.”

November/December - what’s the difference, right? The Square Ball can help: it was 21st December 2011. It’s quite a coincidence that “Lutonville Holdings Limited” took out £3.2m of preference shares - worth £4m upon a “change in control” - a year to the day before just such a “change in control” resulted in a ringing ker-chinging Christmas for whoever that lucky Lutonville owner might be.

(I'm twattily quoting my own blog there which is why it reads weird towards the end.)

[moscowhite]

The most relevant figures are probably Wigan's or West Brom's or someone like that: how much would it cost to just about keep a club in the PL and will it be less than the new TV deal?

Don't know about West Brom, but Wigan just reported a £4.3m profit.

[mackie]

In the Yorkshire Radio numbers:

4. Ultimate Controlling Party

The directors consider that the ultimate controlling party is Ms K W Bates by virtue of his 100% holding in Outro Limited, a company registered in Nevis

Ms? Has Ken not told us something? Cheeky Baker Tilly...

[gazurtoids]

Things I've spotted as a laying layman:

Leeds City Holdings: lost £3m
Leeds United Football Club: lost £2.2m before player trading
Centenary Pavilion: lost £233k
Leeds United Media: lost £22k
Yorkshire Radio: lost £100k
“The group loss for the year was £536,000 (2011 £2,988,000 profit)”
LCH’s ‘closing net debt’ increased from £1.3m to £5.2m
“The highest paid director was paid £226,000 (2011 £212,737)”

“On the 7th July 2011 the company entered into an agreement with Ticketus 2 LLP whereby it sold a total of £5 0 m of season tickets in respect of the 2012/13 season and the 2013/14 season”

Remember the preference shares? Issued for £3.2m to "Lutonville Holdings", redeemable at £4m upon "change in control." Well:

The usual lack of attention to detail seems to be present again:

“On the 21st December 2011 the company issued 32 preference shares to Lutonville Holdings Limited. The shares had a nominal value of £1 each and were issued at a premium of £99,999 each. The total consideration received, net of fees, in respect of this transaction was £3,092,894.”

“Preference shares were issued by Leeds United Football Club Limited on the 21st November 2011 to Lutonville Holdings Limited. The shares have no fixed repayment date but are redeemable upon a change of control in Leeds City Holdings Limited. Lutonville Holdings Limited is a related party by virtue of its connection to Outro Limited which is wholly owned by Mr K W Bates.”

November/December - what’s the difference, right? The Square Ball can help: it was 21st December 2011. It’s quite a coincidence that “Lutonville Holdings Limited” took out £3.2m of preference shares - worth £4m upon a “change in control” - a year to the day before just such a “change in control” resulted in a ringing ker-chinging Christmas for whoever that lucky Lutonville owner might be.

(I'm twattily quoting my own blog there which is why it reads weird towards the end.)

Two things:

1. I might be getting confused but weren't Ticketus involved in the Rangers farrago?

2. How long has it been known that Lutonville Holdings was connected to Outro, and therefore Bates?