If they're that skint that the creditors get tuppence a go, how come they are already paying fees for players?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 934534.stm

The world would be a lighter place without Ken Bates.

Can someone copy and paste the story please, for some reason I can't get onto the BBC site

Leeds have signed goalkeeper Casper Ankergren from Brondby for an undisclosed fee on a three-year deal.
The Danish international had been on loan at Elland Road since January and the League One side have taken up the option to buy the 27-year-old.

Ankergren made 14 appearances for Leeds last season and is Dennis Wise's first permanent signing of the summer.

He made more than 100 appearances for Brondby, with whom he won a Danish league and cup double in 2004-05.

Will they have been allowed to buy him because he was on loan with the option to buy seeing as it was all signed before they went into administration

Being allowed to and being able to afford to are a bit different though.

What about everybody getting pennies a go from old debts seeing them now paying for things in full?

What about HMRC? That is mine and your money that Bates has screwed with yet the dirty little shitlicker is allowed to carry on regardless.

So what,Leeds can do what the hell they like,the only activity that matters is ours.
It seems to me that everyone in league 1 is becoming more interested in Leeds than their own clubs.

It's through his 'phoenix' company, Leeds United 2007.They've got the season ticket money and the income from the transfers.

KPMG are as bad as Bates, they've helped him all the way. One of the bidders offered 30p in the pound. KPMG let Bates know and suddenly one of the offshore (no relation) companies said they'd let their 17.5m debt slide, but only if Bates got the club. No-one knows why Leeds owed them 17.5m.

How smelly is that??

I genuinely feel sorry for any fans which has that slippery, slimy, odious man in charge of their club. Anyway, the Penguin isn't in charge, and the've got an even worse chairman in the form of Ken Bates.

Now you're being a bit harsh here lads.

First things first - an undisclosed fee. Likely to be next to nowt!

The point of admin was to get out from under a debt we could not possibly service in Div 1 - had we managed to avoid the drop there would have been no admin. People only see a scam but to be fair admin was a legitimate business response to a terminal condition.

Now we have sold a fair bit of 'talent' since we dropped. Previously this money would have gone to service existing debt. You may say hear hear to that but the fact is that Bates has (hopefully) pulled us clear of that problem - result, we a have a couple of quid to spare.

Couple of final points:

I am embarrassed by our admin - not proud one bit
Don't let your hatred of Leeds/Bates obscure the fact that we have sold everything we own; we have tried everything to get out from under Risdale's largesse and it just hasn't been possible to do it.

Bates has tried (hopefully by fair means) to draw a line under the past. And remember, the taxman forced the admin and then cried foul when he didn't get the result he wanted!

As a fan of 40 years plus I have known only pain now for the last 5/6 years. I have no wish to see any club suffer and it always surprises me how many take great satisfaction from doing just that.

And how many people on here and elsewhere actually remember the so called Dirty Leeds? Not many I'll wager. I do and our biggest crime was to poke a finger in the eye of the ruling elite at the time. They didn't like it and the legend that is dirty Leeds was born. Interestingly our opponents at the time don't see it that way. mot

Kev I meant to post this a while back, I read the other week that the reason KPMG would only recommend Bates' offer is because the major credit (the offshore one) said they would only deal with Bates, ie drop their request for money if he offer was accept, but not for the other parties.

So with their money out of the equation KPMG told all the other creditors that Bates offer was by far the best.

It still stinks like, they are so bent I don't think the 15 points is enough of a penalty, I'd throw them out of the Football League to set an example to all the other dodgy club owners up and down the country.

On that note, how the hell as the Thai guy been allowed to buy Man City, two bob bit!

you might want to put an allegedly in there somewhere.
interesting theory that,throw all the dodgy dealing clubs out of the league,that should leave you with erm....something that looks like the league of wales.And would pools have survived in the garry gibson era with his imaginative accounting?

The whole things never been audited properly if KPMG claim that they have no details of debts totalling 20-odd million to two offshore companies. All they'd have to do is ask for copy invoices and proof of delivery and if they weren't forthcoming they just don't admit the debt.

Of course there is a technique whereby you bump your debt up and plead insolvency just to get rid of the nagging little inconvenient debts for a small premium but obviously Mr Bates would never consider that would he??

If the HMRC doesn't take this one through the courts, no-one should ever pay tax again.

A clean well ran group of football clubs who operate under rules and regulations provided by their governing body and the law of the land. Sounds good to me.

Read it and see what you think - truth be told I don't much care what anybody thinks but I reckon a bit of objectivity is in everyone's best interest. We all hate Leeds is all well and good but it's not as good as justice and I reckon Mawhinney has let his heart rule his mind.

"LEAGUE LETTER

The following is the copy of the letter sent by chairman Ken Bates to the respective chairman of all Football League clubs ahead of United's appeal against the 15-point deduction imposed by the league....


Aug 8, 2007

Dear Chairman,

Re: Leeds United

Lord Mawhinney was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter to you dated 3rd August.

As you know our appeal against the deduction of 15 points will be heard on Thursday and I felt compelled to write to all the Chairman of Football League Clubs to set out the true facts relating to the administration of Leeds United Association Football Club Limited and the subsequent purchase of its assets. I am disappointed but not surprised to have to say that the standard of reporting of the process has been appalling and in the main has been based on guesswork.

First of all let me confirm that the administration of the Club was not pre-planned. My staff at Leeds fought tooth and nail to get Leeds through to the start of the coming season when the last of the contracts that remained from the days of "living the dream" would have at last expired. We had procured external funding of approaching £25m in our attempts to keep the Club alive. We spent 9 months looking for external partners but as our playing fortunes declined during last season investors waited to see what would happen and this combined with falling gate receipts meant that by the end of the season funding had run out. We had paid HMRC some £25m during the period from January 2005 to April 2007 but the Revenue would not allow us more time to pay the outstanding arrears and whilst acknowledging our efforts issued a winding up petition due to be heard on 1st June 2007. Following the issue of the petition administration or liquidation was really the only option.

We approached one of the leading insolvency practices in the world, KPMG, to advise. They were concerned that with the close season upon us there would be no income to run the Club and advised that administration followed by a sale to a party willing to fund the Club during the Administration process was the best approach to adopt.

We have attracted some criticism for going into administration before the end of the 2006/07 season, and thus triggering the 10 point deduction during that season when we were almost certain of relegation. I think this criticism is unfair. Lord Mawhinney has stated publicly that the approach we took was completely within the rules. As directors of the Club we had a duty to act in the best interests of the Club and we believe that in taking the actions we did we discharged our obligations properly. The supporters of Leeds United would have rightly been appalled if we had been relegated and then have taken a ten point deduction that could have been taken during the 2006/07 season.

Lord Mawhinney's letter to you highlights the fact that the Football League have imposed, "a fifteen point sanction"

"sanction" is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as meaning "a penalty for breaking the rules". We believe that Leeds have broken no rules and have complied with the regulations of the Football League to the absolute extent it was in their power and control to do so. We have no reason to think that KPMG have acted other than in accordance with the law of the land in conducting the administration. In these circumstances we believe that no "sanction" is appropriate.

KPMG put a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to creditors of the Company on 14th May and this was approved more than 75% of the creditors of the Company as required by the Insolvency Act 1986, only just, but a win is a win.

Following approval there is a 28 day period during which creditors can appeal against the conduct of the CVA. During this period various parties made threatening noises but did not appeal. I think the reason for this was that KPMG had sought the advice of two independent counsels before admitting any claim to vote in the CVA. It is difficult in such circumstances to see how the Administrators could be said to have acted unreasonably.

The Revenue however were still making demands and in an attempt to placate them we increased the sum payable under the CVA. Creditors were now being offered circa 8.5 pence upfront with a further 30 pence if the Club attained Premier League status within the next 10 years.

Despite the improved offer the Revenue appealed at approximately 15:00pm on the last day for appeals. Their appeal was based on the acceptance by the Administrator of three debts upon which the Administrator had taken independent advice.

In our view the appeal was a sham. The Revenue could have appealed against the admission of the debts on day one but it chose to wait until the 28th day to do so. It is our view that the decision of the Revenue was vexatious, and I think that this is confirmed by what happened next.

At a directions hearing for their appeal on the 6th July a representative of the Revenue told the Administrator's lawyer that they would withdraw what they described as a protective appeal provided Leeds put all sums into the CVA immediately and instead of paying "Football Creditors" paid the sum set aside for "Football Creditors" into the CVA for the benefit of the unsecured creditors generally. At last the true motive of the Revenue had been revealed. Their appeal was yet another attack on the "Football Creditor Rules" something the Revenue had sought to attack since their preferred status had been withdrawn in September 2003.

The Revenue knew we could not and indeed would not want to break the Football Creditors Rules, but I think they were surprised when we agreed to do the next best thing. We met their demands by increasing our payment into the CVA by an additional sum equal to the sum being set aside for Football Creditors. We put the unsecured creditors of the Company in the position that the Revenue had required, but we were still paying the Football Creditors, which was unacceptable to the Revenue.

The question of the Football Creditors Rules has been litigated to the Court of Appeal in the Wimbledon case. For the Revenue to over turn that position the case would have to go to the House of Lords and whilst the Revenue have our taxes to pay for that litigation, the Club could simply not afford it.

In these circumstances we approached the Administrator and offered to purchase the Club unconditionally and take our chances with the Football League, we felt that the Revenues position represented an attack on football generally and on Leeds in particular. The circumstances seemed to us to be the "exceptional circumstances" referred to in the Football League Insolvency Rules.

On Tuesday last week Leeds meet with the Administrators and the League. Initially the League expressed the view that "exceptional circumstances" did not exist, a position that frankly we found unbelievable.

The League did not dispute that the offer we had made was the best offer on the table but wanted it put to a new creditors meeting. Because we had paid the players wages and some players had moved on during the close season the "football debts" had reduced meaning the Revenues votes as a proportion of the whole had increased. The Administrators were of the view that the Revenue now represented 24.4% of the debt and this would enable them to block any CVA.

It was agreed to approach the Revenue to seek to persuade them to withdraw their objection. Their response was catagoric. They stated on the record that if a revised CVA was presented "as a matter of policy, HMRC would vote against any CVA that resulted in Football Creditors being paid in full". If the CVA was passed they would appeal again and would litigate all the way. Their position means that unsecured creditors generally including themselves will get a lower payment than they would have done under the CVA.

In the face of this intransigence by the Revenue the Administrators said a further meeting was futile and the League eventually agreed that "exceptional circumstances" existed and agreed to transfer the League share subject to the sanction now under the appeal.

So exactly what rules have been broken?

1. Lord Mawhinney has acknowledged that going into administration as and when we did, broke no rules.

2. The League press release states:

"notwithstanding the manner in which this administration has been conducted the Club should be permitted to continue in the Football League"

If that is a criticism of Leeds then it is misplaced. The Administration has been carried out by KPMG if the League have complaints about the process they should be addressing them to the Administrators not the Club. The Club could have had no influence over the Administrator who was independent.

3. Finally the CVA was approved by the requisite number of creditors but completion of it has been blocked by the Revenue for what can only be described as political reasons. Leeds should not be punished because the Revenue are intransigent.

We have broken no rules. The "exceptional circumstances" rules were introduced to cover exactly the situation that exists today. We can only speculate as to the reasoning behind the imposition of a sanction when no rules have been broken. We believe such a sanction is wholly unfair and a breach of natural justice. On Thursday we will be asking you to overturn its imposition.

If we can clarify any aspect of the matter for you, please feel free to contact my fellow directors Shaun Harvey or Mark Taylor.

With Kind Regards

Yours sincerely,


K. W. BATES "


Just out of interest - the more everyone hates us the more we love it. You would be the same, trust me. mot

there's a fair old contradiction in there.the fact that the revenue appealed on the last day for appealing is criticised by bates,yet he took leeds into administration on the very last day that the points could be deducted from last season. both were within the rules but bates describes the inland revenue's actions as a sham but seems to absolve him and his directors as acting in the best interests of the club.
All pigs at the same trough for me like.

All that says to me is that Ken Bates doesn't like it when anyone tries to stop him getting his own way. Maybe HMRC are being 'intransigent' with Leeds, but I still don't see any reason that they shouldn't be. In a lot of ways football clubs have been let off lightly over the years, any other business would probably have been closed down by them. Maybe they have decided enough is enough!!

Dawlish - we folded when we knew we were doomed. We had a chance until the penultimate match. Bit like catchphrase - say what you see not what you want to see.

Point is we had run our course, have broke no rules but have been given the kind of penalty hammers should have got.

Any way there's clearly no point - I hope I can be more objective if you 'walk this way' again.

What?

Dibble exaggerating?

Gerraway

In a Dragon's den stylee, can I tell you were I'm at here....

I have no problem with Leeds, it's not the club that matters, it's the actions that have been taken. I would take my stance with any club in the country.

If Leeds is such a great club with loyal honest fans, demotion to the conference (if they'd have you), would be just a scratch on your proud history.

So what about Rotherham then? Or Chesterfield?

Lack of 'punishment' against both those clubs affected the divisions Pools were in the following season. Were you standing side by side with fans of Rotherham and Chesterfield when the FA were dishing out point deductions.



Bollocks.

If they end up robbing the inland revenue you'll pay the price.

Oh yes you will...

You're meant to say,

"Oh no I won't"



And then I could say,

"Oh yes you will"



And then you could say

"Oh no I won't"




Bloody killjoy.

Oh yes you will

[quote="whitelight.whiteheat"]Dawlish - we folded when we knew we were doomed. We had a chance until the penultimate match. Bit like catchphrase - say what you see not what you want to see.
Point is we had run our course, have broke no rules but have been given the kind of penalty hammers should have got.
Any way there's clearly no point - I hope I can be more objective if you 'walk this way' again.[/quot
I don't think you are objective,but neither would I be.I don't want to see Leeds or any other club fold.And I remember how it felt last time the tax man took us to court and we went to sheffield in the cup and had to put up with supporters of other clubs waving tenners at us from their cars as we travelled up the motorway, but the reality is that pools along with most of league 1 and 2 sides have been in this sort of hand to mouth existence for years and years whilst Leeds and the prem sides have lived the dream,and turned their backs on the football league clubs.Now we're expected to be concerned about the state of football because it's Leeds that are suffering.
Like I said I hope Leeds get through it,for the fans but not for the Ken Bates of this world

Oh yes you will

Will

YOU WILL YOU WILL YOU WILL YOU WILL YOU WILL

Shut up you pair of twats.

The one shining beacon in there is thus:

HMRC are saying 'we are the taxman, it is not our money, it is public money, if anyone is paid a greater share than the public we will battle until dead.' As it should be, the taxpayer should not fund football clubs. There appears to be some good brains fighting for HMRC. Bates 'Due to the intransigence of HMRC.....' yes you fcuker, it's public money and you owe it to the public, it was never yours, get it paid. Arrogant self important twat.

Bates 'we matched the amount due to the Football Creditors with an offer to KPMG.' Oh aye, where was that from then?? Behind the sofa??

If I was the taxman, I would have Mr Bates on the witness stand and I'd be asking why these offshore companies are owed so much and what they provided and on what footing. Anyone find the fact that he secured JUST enough vote to accept the CVA suspicious??

I reckon Mr Bates is about to be caught with his trousers down.