Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to 606 Rebels. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Wealso allow junior members.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wonder Who? The Mystery Man?
Topic Started: 26th August 2008 - 10:45 AM (764 Views)
Exiled in the Black Country
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
Mr Bates

Wonder who this player is with the apparently large sell on clause?? :hmm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Milner seems to be the only one with a high enough value that springs to mind that hasn't already moved to another club.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Member Avatar
Technically backward twat.
Moderator
Milner? Lennon? I dunno???
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Rich
Aug 26 2008, 10:55 AM
Milner? Lennon? I dunno???

if it's lennon we'll be quids in cos he'll be worth at least £30m.... 10% of that would be superb...

© Jimbo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mugsey
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
probably Milner as Villa seem real interested in him but not too sure he'll be sold unless he pushes for the deal himself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Exiled in the Black Country
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
Not too sure cos didn't we sell these two before Mr "inserta-clause" Bates took over?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YB
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
Livermore?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lee D'su
Member Avatar
Funniest Poster and Getter of tickets
Admin
Wise?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Member Avatar
Technically backward twat.
Moderator
It must be Milner

Anything over 10% of the reported £9m transfer fee would be a very nice windfall indeed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mugsey
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
900k would be very nice indeed just as long as it is used wisely and not watsed on overhyped players or something else as foolish
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YB
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
Rich
Aug 27 2008, 12:46 PM
It must be Milner

Anything over 10% of the reported £9m transfer fee would be a very nice windfall indeed.

He could do a job in this division.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jamie_F
Member Avatar
Getting there...
The amount is apparently £25%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fitz
Member Avatar
Perfectly formed member
Moderator
Jamie_F
Aug 27 2008, 08:21 PM
The amount is apparently £25%

Which is it £ or %? :lolanimate:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
aksattee
Member Avatar
Most well behaved
Fitz
Aug 28 2008, 01:32 AM
Which is it £ or %? :lolanimate:

If it was previous management then 25 poundsdefinately.
If it was Bates then expect 25%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mugsey
Member Avatar
100% Leeds
25% would be superb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Son of chicken balti pie
Member Avatar
One and only original Creep
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill :rolleyes:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fitz
Member Avatar
Perfectly formed member
Moderator
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:


Nothing to do with the £140K per week losses though,eh?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.G.
Member Avatar
Gunslinger
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill :rolleyes:

Blah blah. Blah blah blah
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Son of chicken balti pie
Member Avatar
One and only original Creep
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.




Quote:
 
Blah blah. Blah blah blah


You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Member Avatar
Technically backward twat.
Moderator
From t'beeb....

Everton have made a £10m bid for Newcastle's James Milner in a bid to beat Aston Villa in the race for his signature. (Various)

So that's a possible £2.5m then!!! If we bid £10m for him we'd only have to pay £7.5m. Go for it Ken.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garlic bread
Member Avatar
SHIRT LIFTER!!!!!!!!!!
outside the box....love it (please reply with wit)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 08:56 AM
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.






You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.

Debt was £9m.

IR requested payments over and above what could be afforded.

£140k a week losses means that money goes down each month, that means it gets MORE difficult to pay any debts.

Let me explain clearly, we were losing money. On that basis ANY debt we had would have been difficult to pay. Even if you get an influx of money at the quoted £4m it still would not have made a dent as the £5m plus all other losses between the first quote of £9m and when the £4m was received.

The £140k was still being lost each week irrespective of the £9m tax bill. That would mean that every 2 months we would be another £1m+ down.

so....

£9m debt to IR plus £560k per month in other debts over say a season = £12.9m debt

take off the £4m compo and you're still at a debt of £9m give or take £100k

oh and i haven't even mentioned the outstanding VAT bill....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 10:02 AM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 08:56 AM
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.






You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.

Debt was £9m.

IR requested payments over and above what could be afforded.

£140k a week losses means that money goes down each month, that means it gets MORE difficult to pay any debts.

Let me explain clearly, we were losing money. On that basis ANY debt we had would have been difficult to pay. Even if you get an influx of money at the quoted £4m it still would not have made a dent as the £5m plus all other losses between the first quote of £9m and when the £4m was received.

The £140k was still being lost each week irrespective of the £9m tax bill. That would mean that every 2 months we would be another £1m+ down.

so....

£9m debt to IR plus £560k per month in other debts over say a season = £12.9m debt

take off the £4m compo and you're still at a debt of £9m give or take £100k

oh and i haven't even mentioned the outstanding VAT bill....

P.S.

We were debt free by going into admin, it's not Bates fault that the FL picked us as the first test case with the points deduction. Whatever you may think of Bates he can not have known they would start to do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.G.
Member Avatar
Gunslinger
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 08:56 AM
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.






You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.

Bates owns the business. Like it or not, it IS a business. Name me one business owner who doesn't pocket (at least some of) the profit?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Son of chicken balti pie
Member Avatar
One and only original Creep
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 10:03 AM
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 10:02 AM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 08:56 AM
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.






You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.

Debt was £9m.

IR requested payments over and above what could be afforded.

£140k a week losses means that money goes down each month, that means it gets MORE difficult to pay any debts.

Let me explain clearly, we were losing money. On that basis ANY debt we had would have been difficult to pay. Even if you get an influx of money at the quoted £4m it still would not have made a dent as the £5m plus all other losses between the first quote of £9m and when the £4m was received.

The £140k was still being lost each week irrespective of the £9m tax bill. That would mean that every 2 months we would be another £1m+ down.

so....

£9m debt to IR plus £560k per month in other debts over say a season = £12.9m debt

take off the £4m compo and you're still at a debt of £9m give or take £100k

oh and i haven't even mentioned the outstanding VAT bill....

P.S.

We were debt free by going into admin, it's not Bates fault that the FL picked us as the first test case with the points deduction. Whatever you may think of Bates he can not have known they would start to do that.

Fine - you may well be correct. I dont dispute your facts in all of this.

All I would point out is that Bates is saying exactly the same now as he did 2 years ago.

The debt has nearly gone, we will be making profits now the big earners have gone etc etc.

Turned out to be a crock of shit.

Why should his comments and actions be any different now. Money has gone into, and gone out of the club with no explanation. Where did the 12M "investment" from Astor go. The player sales - the compensation. According to the Administrator, our chief creditors waived any debt if Bates won the auction. Too many unanswered questions.

Give me one good reason how anyone can believe a word the old scroat comes out with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 10:53 AM
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 10:03 AM
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 10:02 AM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 08:56 AM
Matt
Aug 28 2008, 11:34 PM
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 28 2008, 08:06 PM
Lets just hope it doesnt go to the same place that the £4M Chaelsea compo went.

To pay a tax bill wasnt it?

Hand on, didnt we go into admin 4 months later for not paying a tax bill  :rolleyes:

Make sure you get the figures right before you spout rubbish balti.

tax bill was £9m so the £4m "Chelsea compo" didn't make a dent, add in the day to day losses Fitz has mentioned and then you get close to why admin was entered.

But don't let facts get in the way of a "good" argument....

The admin was over a failure to maintain monthly agreed payments - not the entire amount. The Chelsea £4M more than covered what was outstanding. Anyway, if I recall correctly, no payment was made, according to the IR, which begs the question exactly where did the money received for the 2 junior players go. This has yet to be explained.

As for the £140K per week losses, I take it you are claiming Bates lied then. Week after week, prior to Admin, Bates claimed we would be DEBT FREE at the end of that season, and that all the big earners would finally be off the books.

You choose to close your eyes at the way our club is being run into the ground if you wish. I await the new published accounts with interest. It should answer a lot of questions. Then again, knowing Bates, they will simply create a whole new raft of them.






You stick your head in the sand, why don't you. It might just go away.

Debt was £9m.

IR requested payments over and above what could be afforded.

£140k a week losses means that money goes down each month, that means it gets MORE difficult to pay any debts.

Let me explain clearly, we were losing money. On that basis ANY debt we had would have been difficult to pay. Even if you get an influx of money at the quoted £4m it still would not have made a dent as the £5m plus all other losses between the first quote of £9m and when the £4m was received.

The £140k was still being lost each week irrespective of the £9m tax bill. That would mean that every 2 months we would be another £1m+ down.

so....

£9m debt to IR plus £560k per month in other debts over say a season = £12.9m debt

take off the £4m compo and you're still at a debt of £9m give or take £100k

oh and i haven't even mentioned the outstanding VAT bill....

P.S.

We were debt free by going into admin, it's not Bates fault that the FL picked us as the first test case with the points deduction. Whatever you may think of Bates he can not have known they would start to do that.

Fine - you may well be correct. I dont dispute your facts in all of this.

All I would point out is that Bates is saying exactly the same now as he did 2 years ago.

The debt has nearly gone, we will be making profits now the big earners have gone etc etc.

Turned out to be a crock of shit.

Why should his comments and actions be any different now. Money has gone into, and gone out of the club with no explanation. Where did the 12M "investment" from Astor go. The player sales - the compensation. According to the Administrator, our chief creditors waived any debt if Bates won the auction. Too many unanswered questions.

Give me one good reason how anyone can believe a word the old scroat comes out with.

As far as i'm aware we are now debt free. As much as you don't like Bates, he didn't say how he was going to get debt free.

By the end of that 2 year period quoted by you, we are not paying the big earners, agreed?

We seem to be making a profit as we are now in a position to pay transfer fees again, agreed?

The £12m investment has nothing to do with the fans unfortunately, they invested on the basis they will make money, i would guess that when the club is sold they will get their share plus whatever profit they make or don't make. The money was used to buy the club and it was used to take away some of the debt. You may not believe it but Bates cut down the debt by a good £40m or so in the first season. One question that i would like answered is if Bates is such a crock, why didn't he put the club in admin - when the clubs had much more favourable conditions to fulfil when exiting admin too - straight away? He could have wiped off nearly £60m of debt in one go.

Player sales - running costs? the club still needed money to function, maybe also trying to reduce the wage bill?

Compensation - did you read what i put earlier? £4m compo went towards the £140k a week loss that i mentioned earlier..... and i was being conservative by using 4 week months instead of actuals.

Lots of unanswered questions, but who's to say they need answering?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
well back on topic, Milner's gone to villa. How much, if any, we gonna get?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Son of chicken balti pie
Member Avatar
One and only original Creep
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 11:35 AM
As far as i'm aware we are now debt free. As much as you don't like Bates, he didn't say how he was going to get debt free.

By the end of that 2 year period quoted by you, we are not paying the big earners, agreed?

We seem to be making a profit as we are now in a position to pay transfer fees again, agreed?

The £12m investment has nothing to do with the fans unfortunately, they invested on the basis they will make money, i would guess that when the club is sold they will get their share plus whatever profit they make or don't make. The money was used to buy the club and it was used to take away some of the debt. You may not believe it but Bates cut down the debt by a good £40m or so in the first season. One question that i would like answered is if Bates is such a crock, why didn't he put the club in admin - when the clubs had much more favourable conditions to fulfil when exiting admin too - straight away? He could have wiped off nearly £60m of debt in one go.

Player sales - running costs? the club still needed money to function, maybe also trying to reduce the wage bill?

Compensation - did you read what i put earlier? £4m compo went towards the £140k a week loss that i mentioned earlier..... and i was being conservative by using 4 week months instead of actuals.

Lots of unanswered questions, but who's to say they need answering?

But the club were achieving gates above the much vaunted 22,000 break even figure. Break even means attendance required to meet all our outgoings. We were achieving that, according to Bates own words before the admin. Then the story changed.

As for Bates clearing 40M in his first season, sorry, but complete hogwash.

When Bates took over, the debt - total debt was £18M - that figure again came from Bates mouth at his first "Lorimers Bar" event. Krasners consortium sold everything not nailed down. Bates detailed the debt down to IR, ex employees etc etc.

He then, in 18 months managed to increase that debt to nearly double, based chiefly on the supposed money paid in by the off shore comapanies, and in spite of continued player sales, and an appearance at cardiff, and above break even crowds. I did indeed read what you put - to be blunt I find it hard to accept the premise of £140K weekly losses set against the above facts

Oh, and dont forget the odd half million to our own Radio Station!!!

He risked the very future of our club in some selfish ego trip, or worse, to clear the decks for his Leeds village project.

He has lied and lied and lied again, and I fail to see how anyone can take his utterances with an ounce of credibility.

If he does indeed start to take the club forward on the pitch, then all I can say is about bloody time, because to date, Bates tenure has been marked with crisis after crisis, downsizing and the sight of the club disintegrating before our eyes.

One bad season, and we will be lost in the wastelands for years to come, IMO.

The worrying thing is, many feel that is exactly what Bates requires for his Property interests to truly reap dividends.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Dee's a liar....
Son of chicken balti pie
Aug 29 2008, 02:00 PM
Matt
Aug 29 2008, 11:35 AM
As far as i'm aware we are now debt free. As much as you don't like Bates, he didn't say how he was going to get debt free.

By the end of that 2 year period quoted by you, we are not paying the big earners, agreed?

We seem to be making a profit as we are now in a position to pay transfer fees again, agreed?

The £12m investment has nothing to do with the fans unfortunately, they invested on the basis they will make money, i would guess that when the club is sold they will get their share plus whatever profit they make or don't make. The money was used to buy the club and it was used to take away some of the debt. You may not believe it but Bates cut down the debt by a good £40m or so in the first season. One question that i would like answered is if Bates is such a crock, why didn't he put the club in admin - when the clubs had much more favourable conditions to fulfil when exiting admin too - straight away? He could have wiped off nearly £60m of debt in one go.

Player sales - running costs? the club still needed money to function, maybe also trying to reduce the wage bill?

Compensation - did you read what i put earlier? £4m compo went towards the £140k a week loss that i mentioned earlier..... and i was being conservative by using 4 week months instead of actuals.

Lots of unanswered questions, but who's to say they need answering?

But the club were achieving gates above the much vaunted 22,000 break even figure. Break even means attendance required to meet all our outgoings. We were achieving that, according to Bates own words before the admin. Then the story changed.

As for Bates clearing 40M in his first season, sorry, but complete hogwash.

When Bates took over, the debt - total debt was £18M - that figure again came from Bates mouth at his first "Lorimers Bar" event. Krasners consortium sold everything not nailed down. Bates detailed the debt down to IR, ex employees etc etc.

He then, in 18 months managed to increase that debt to nearly double, based chiefly on the supposed money paid in by the off shore comapanies, and in spite of continued player sales, and an appearance at cardiff, and above break even crowds. I did indeed read what you put - to be blunt I find it hard to accept the premise of £140K weekly losses set against the above facts

Oh, and dont forget the odd half million to our own Radio Station!!!

He risked the very future of our club in some selfish ego trip, or worse, to clear the decks for his Leeds village project.

He has lied and lied and lied again, and I fail to see how anyone can take his utterances with an ounce of credibility.

If he does indeed start to take the club forward on the pitch, then all I can say is about bloody time, because to date, Bates tenure has been marked with crisis after crisis, downsizing and the sight of the club disintegrating before our eyes.

One bad season, and we will be lost in the wastelands for years to come, IMO.

The worrying thing is, many feel that is exactly what Bates requires for his Property interests to truly reap dividends.

£40m is the figure i had quoted to me, not connected to the club, believe it or not that's your wish.

22,000 was/is the break even figure for running costs, but that was day to day running costs i believe. Not the figure needed to break even taking into things such as the rent payments, interest payments on debts etc etc. The debts and sales of the ground being Krasner/Ridsdale/Previous board members fault.

Total debt could well have been £18m but does debt stay in the same place all the time? If it does i need to speak to my bank.

I feel that Bates engineered extra debt to other places to help himself, yes you read it right, i don't particularly like the way he did it but he did it to keep control so he didn't lose lots of cash. Most people would do the same.

I've asked it before but i don't really expect it answered, if the debt was at the £40m+ i think it was or even the £18m you heard why did Bates not take it into admin straight away? It would surely have saved himself money and would also make Leeds more financially attractive to buyers.

And as for Bates' property interests, in order to make the arse end of Beeston attractive property wise, their needs to be a good football club there, because whatever people say that area of Leeds isn't worth as much without the ground there as the amount of visitors to that area would be nil if the ground disappeared.

Bates may tell lies, but the club is in a better financial position now then when Krasner was around. Football wise, obviously not, but we're getting back to it slowly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Rebels Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply