Gratulerer Bates

[Promotion 2010]

Gratulerer med 4-årsdagen for oppkjøpet Mr Bates!

Til sommeren spiller vi igjen i The Championship!

[Andreas-H]

Inlegget ditt ble lagt ut 21:21:21, mer imponert over det 

[Promotion 2010]

Inlegget ditt ble lagt ut 21:21:21, mer imponert over det 

Responsen din burde da vært 22:22:22 

[Promotion 2010]

Inlegget ditt ble lagt ut 21:21:21, mer imponert over det 

Responsen din burde da vært 22:22:22 

Sånn? 



Ken Bates intends staying at Leeds United for the "long haul" after revealing the club are looking for investors and not buyers.

Er det sånn fortsatt?

[Andreas-H]

Inlegget ditt ble lagt ut 21:21:21, mer imponert over det 

Responsen din burde da vært 22:22:22 

Tenkte jeg faktisk ikke på, men hadde vært mye kulere det ja

[SOL]

Hmm 21. januar kl. 21.21.21

[Hallgeir *]

Hmm 21. januar kl. 21.21.21

Spooky!!! Vær glad det ikke sammenfalt med 6. juni og en haug med 6-tall. 

[fjellhaugen]

den gjengen som diskuterer her inne er FOR overtroiske til å følge fotball

[Hallgeir *]

den gjengen som diskuterer her inne er FOR overtroiske til å følge fotball

Det kan godt hende. Jeg har sittet og sett inn i glasskula en time nå. For meg ser det ut som om Leeds møter Peterborough til helga.... 

[Promotion 2010]

Hmm 21. januar kl. 21.21.21

Spooky!!! Vær glad det ikke sammenfalt med 6. juni og en haug med 6-tall. 

Kan jeg legge til at den 21.januar er bursdagen min.... 

[Hallgeir *]

 Grattis med overstått bursdag, Promo !!! Og min er i dag....








...ja, får slenge på en gratulasjon til Bates med det samme, slik at topic er der. 

[Promotion 2010]

HAY: There's still lots for Ken to bite into at United

It passed quietly and without extraordinary recognition, but yesterday was the fourth anniversary of Ken Bates' appointment as chairman of Leeds United.
The years of service given by football club directors are not often deemed worthy of reflection in the way that those of managers and players are, but it is different with Bates.

Each annual milestone is a suitable point at which to assess where the tenure of a man with so many aims and intentions has come from, where it stands now and where it might be taking Leeds United.

His involvement in the takeover of Leeds at the start of 2005 was every bit as intriguing as the outside interest which has centred around several Premier League clubs in the four years since: as surprising as Roman Abramovich's beeline towards Chelsea and as potentially volatile as the arrival of the Glazer family at Manchester United.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph at the time, journalist David Miller asked whether, by engaging himself with a destitute Championship club, Bates was "biting off more than he can chew".

Considering the succession of extreme and unusual occurrences he has digested in his time as chairman, Miller's was a valid question. It continues to be so today.

More than Bates can chew? The 77-year-old would say no. The very fact that he is still in office and beginning a fifth year is proof positive of his longevity.

His ability to ride administration, relegation (twice) and a severe points deduction â€" four strikes under which the average footballing regime would be liable to crumble â€" suggests that extreme pressure finds Bates in his element.

When Miller pondered the marriage of Leeds and Bates, he was doubtless looking at the short-term. Like every commentator, supporter and interested neutral, analysis of Leeds United's prospects at the start of 2005 did not run anywhere near to 2009.

They dealt with a present which was sufficiently troubling without imagining the controversy that would consume the club two years later.

Bates' had the jaw for the bite he took out of Leeds and English football four years ago; were he lacking that trait, he would no longer be at the helm.

But if the question proffered by Miller was aimed at Bates' tenure as a whole â€" in other words, the condition of Leeds in both a financial and sporting sense on the day that Bates steps down â€" then a conclusive answer is still some way off.

One of Bates' first comments on becoming chairman at Elland Road was: "A couple of weeks ago Leeds had their head above water gasping for their next breath.

"Now they are on the surface swimming against the tide. The next job is to get them swimming with the tide."

To all intents and purposes, he has realised that aim by giving Leeds the chance to compete evenly without debts or constraints which vastly outweigh those of their competitors.


The financial playing-field is, at the very least, level and arguably weighted in United's favour at this level of the Football League.

The club claims to be debt-free â€" a position reached through the uncomfortable process of administration, but reached nonetheless â€" and in November they posted a 14-month profit of £4.5m. Not at all bad for a club which, in the financial year leading up June 2003, recorded losses of £49.5m while residing in the Premiership.

Wiping the slate clean has been Bates' biggest step forward to date and were he to walk out of Elland Road today United's history would remember him most kindly for that.

Leeds were never likely to turn the corner until Peter Ridsdale's financial legacy was beaten down, rather than being juggled from hand to hand, as a number of boards did.

What Bates is lacking alongside the financial figures is comparative results on the field of play.

His involvement with Leeds over four years has been maddeningly eventful and permanently gripping, but the fact remains that those four years have passed without one significant footballing achievement at Elland Road.

On two occasions he has been a play-off final away from basking in promotion, but Leeds lost both games and lost them badly by failing to make a serious fist of either chance. I doubt whether Bates would clash those results as a success.

The effect of the defeats has been to entrench United in what is historically their lowest league position and it is depressing to think the club have been here for 18 months already.

The control and influence that Bates has on the team is, of course, limited.

The players and managers he employs are as responsible as he is, and there is no justification for blaming United's chairman for the mess that was made of the first half of this season.

Gary McAllister said publicly that he was happy with the strength of United's term before the campaign began and happy with the support given to him by Bates. Week-to-week results are not automatically the chairman's can to carry.

Yet the question still stands: is Bates capable of making more of Leeds United than a debt-free, League One club?

The absence of financial liabilities â€" a distraction which dominated his first two-and-a-half years â€" would be his most obvious reason for projecting successful years ahead, but Leeds could not have had a more settled summer than they did in 2008.

The result has been a season in which their promotion is no more certain than it was 12 months ago when a 15-point deduction was handicapping the club.

Supporters appreciate clean balance sheets and the importance of being debt-free; most also understand the need for sensible financial dealings at this level of the Football League, not least with transfers.

They would prefer lower ticket prices at Elland Road but have continued to pay towards the club's restoration from debts of £105m, and many can see a worthwhile commercial project in the plans that Bates promised and has drawn up for the redevelopment of Elland Road. On that front, there is no doubting his vision or ambition.

The most significant factor on which supporters judge a club, however, is and always has been the performance of their team. Ultimately, that is a competitive football club's reason for being and the reason why stabilising United was only part of the battle for Bates.

Through persistence and hard graft, he won his financial war.

The challenge upon him now is to show that Leeds can develop the teeth required to eat their way through the English leagues while he remains in charge.

****

[Promotion 2010]

Bates kommerterer den nye TV-avtalen med Sky som vil ligge på £ 1,7 MILLIARDER.

Internationale avtaler vil ligge i samme størrelsesorden, i tillegg blir det inntekter på de som sender i opptak.

Totalt £ 3,25 MILLIARDER

Dette er grunnen til at vi ønsker å være en del av Premiere League-sirkuset! fortsetter Bates!

[Dennis]

Bates kommerterer den nye TV-avtalen med Sky som vil ligge på £ 1,7 MILLIARDER.

Internationale avtaler vil ligge i samme størrelsesorden, i tillegg blir det inntekter på de som sender i opptak.

Totalt £ 3,25 MILLIARDER

Dette er grunnen til at vi ønsker å være en del av Premiere League-sirkuset! fortsetter Bates!

Ymtet han ikke også frampå at ansatte i klubben måtte kjøpe det nye Leeds-mastercardet for å beholde jobbene sine? 

Rart ingen har stupt inn på forumet og klaget på denne utalelsen(spøken) 

[raggen]

Har gitt en 5 års avtale med PL spill eller så er jeg dønn s... skuffa.
er desverrre nødt til og si meg fornøyd meg med playoff men det er det samme som og si ny sesong i leeds sammenheng.
leeds er ikke noe cup lag enten det er vanlig cup eller playoff eller vanlig cup så ser egentlig frem til neste sesong(UNNSKYLD MIN PESIMISME)



ANYWAY MOT

[kjelvi]

MP calls for inquiry into Leeds United
• Lib Dem's Phil Willis wants government investigation
• Court case shedding light on Bates' controversial deal


KPMG claim that Ken Bates gave a statutory declaration that 'there was no connection between Astor and Krato with Forward Sports Fund'.

The Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis has called on the government and the football authorities to launch an investigation into the ownership of Leeds United and the conduct of the club's 2007 administration by KPMG, following declarations made by the club in Jersey court proceedings. Leeds are suing a Jersey-based company, Admatch, for £190,400 the club say they are owed, while Admatch's owner, Robert Weston, is arguing that he was left with £1.43m unpaid when one of the Leeds United went bust in 2006.

The court ordered Leeds to disclose who owns Forward Sports Fund, the ­company registered in the Cayman Islands which ultimately owns Leeds, and other offshore companies involved when the club went into administration. These relationships were controversial at the time of administration, because one offshore company, Astor Investment Holdings, agreed to waive repayment of debts totalling £17.6m if Ken Bates' and Forward's bid to buy back the club was accepted. Other, larger bids had to include Astor and Krato as major creditors, so the overall return to creditors was lower and Bates won. KPMG told the Guardian this week that the firm relied at the time on statutory declarations (sworn statements) from Bates, his solicitor Mark Taylor who is also a Leeds director, and Shaun Harvey, Leeds' chief executive, that "there was no connection between Astor and Krato with Forward Sports Fund".

It was then pointed out that Leeds's 2006 accounts had stated that Astor "has an interest" in Forward, but Bates' solicitor Mark Taylor said the connection had been severed before the club went into administration.

At a Jersey court hearing on 29 January, a letter from Leeds' solicitors, replying to Weston's questions, was read out, stating of Forward's formation: "One share was initially held by Astor Investment Holdings Limited, a unit trust fund based in Guernsey. Astor Investments then instructed professional agents to incorporate Forward Sports Fund, and Astor Investments then proceeded to loan money to Forward Sports Fund to undertake its investment in Leeds."

Willis said he was shocked by that: "We were told there had been an interest but I am dismayed to find that Astor actually owned the club originally. I believe KPMG should have made further investigations at the time to find out who the owners were. The FA and Football League should investigate, as should the Treasury because so much tax was left unpaid." Taylor rejected that, saying: "There is nothing to investigate." At the time he said Astor had favoured the Bates bid, writing off millions of pounds, because Bates and Harvey had football experience. KPMG, which made £693,200 in fees as Leeds' as administrators, declined to comment.

guardian.co.uk

[kjelvi]

A complex web of Bates and Leeds is uncovered in Jersey

Links between Leeds United and an offshore holding company that were denied when the club was in administration are now coming to light


Ken Bates with former chairman Gerald Krasner just after he gained control of Leeds United in 2007.

There is a certain symmetry to the fact that light has been shone on the mystifying offshore ownership of Ken Bates' Leeds United in a court case brought by the club in a tax haven, Jersey. At a hearing on 29 January, Leeds declared that Bates and a long-term business associate, Patrick Murrin, jointly own "management shares" in Forward Sports Fund, the company registered in the Cayman Islands, administered in Switzerland, which ultimately owns Leeds United.

Murrin and Mark Taylor, Bates' solicitor, both explained that that means they own the company. Murrin, a now-retired financial consultant based in Guernsey, was a director and representative of a large offshore shareholding at Chelsea while Bates was in control at Stamford Bridge.

The January hearing also produced the declaration that Forward Sports Fund was itself originally owned and formed by Astor Investments, a trust fund based in Guernsey with an address in Tortola, the British Virgin Islands. In May 2007, after Bates and his fellow directors had put insolvent Leeds into administration with debts of £38m, Astor agreed to write off a huge sum it was owed by the club, £17.6m, as long as Forward Sports Fund bought the club back and Bates remained in charge.

That gave Bates an enormous advantage over other bidders, who had to include Astor's £17.6m in any offer they made. In July 2007 the administrators, KPMG, did sell the club back to Forward, for £1.8m. With Astor waiving its £17.6m, Leeds' other creditors, including HM Revenue and Customs which was owed £7.7m unpaid tax and VAT, were paid off at 10p in the pound. Bates stayed on as chairman of the club which, with its debts cleared, announced a profit last year of £4.5m and on Saturday moved into the League One play-off places with a 3-2 win over Scunthorpe United, watched by 24,000 fans at Elland Road.

At the time the club entered administration, questions were asked about whether Astor was in fact connected to Forward. KPMG said then it had made "extensive inquiries", and been satisfied that Astor did not own any interest in the club or Forward Sports Fund. More recently KPMG told the Guardian thatit had relied on sworn statements from Bates and the other Leeds directors.

At the time, the former chairman Gerald Krasner pointed out in a creditors' meeting that the club's 2006 accounts had stated the opposite, that Astor "has an interest in Forward Sports Fund". Taylor, who is a Leeds director as well as Bates' solicitor, clarified then that there had previously been an ownership connection between Astor and Forward, but they had been disconnected before the club went into administration.

Further detail about the network of offshore companies controlling Leeds emerged in the 29 January hearing. In the Jersey Royal Court, a letter from Leeds' solicitors was read out, which said of Forward: "One share was initially held by Astor Investment Holdings Limited, a unit trust fund based in Guernsey. Astor Investments then instructed professional agents to incorporate Forward Sports Fund, and Astor Investments then proceeded to loan money to Forward Sports Fund to undertake its investment in Leeds."

That revelation has provoked the Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis to call for a government investigation into KPMG's conduct of the administration, and into the ownership of Leeds. "We were told there had been a connection but I am dismayed to find that Astor actually owned the club originally," Willis said.

"I believe KPMG should have made further investigations at the time to find out who the owners were. As so much tax was left unpaid, the Treasury should investigate. Football supporters also have the right to know who owns their clubs, and the Premier and Football Leagues should make sure that all their clubs have to fully disclose who is behind them."

Taylor told the Guardian this week that "the vast majority" of this had already been made public during the administration although he did not indicate where it had been disclosed. He said that Astor had indeed originally owned Forward, but between June 2006 and May 2007, when the club went into administration, the connection was severed because Astor sold Forward to Bates and Murrin. Taylor said he still does not know who Astor's owners are, but he knew one of the directors in Guernsey; at the time he said they supported Bates in the administration, even at great cost, because Bates and the Leeds chief executive, Shaun Harvey, have football experience.

In Jersey Leeds are suing for £190,400 that they claim a company, Admatch, based on the island, owes the club. Admatch's owner, the Jersey resident Robert Weston, argues he does not have to pay it because he is owed £1.43m by another Leeds United company, which went bust in 2006. Weston has succeeded in obtaining orders for £263,500 "security for costs" â€" money Leeds have paid into the Jersey court to cover Weston's costs if he wins.

Taylor said Leeds' own costs were "not as much as that" but still, in a promotion-chasing season, Leeds have already committed potentially more in costs than the £190,400 they will win if they are successful. Taylor maintained they were fighting the case "on a point of principle" because they were owed money; he was confident the club would win and have their costs paid by Weston. Weston declined to comment except to say: "We are in the middle of the case and we are quietly confident of ultimate success."

In the course of the case, Weston secured orders from the court that Leeds should disclose the ultimate owners of several of the offshore companies. Leeds' solicitors replied in writing on 5 December, but Weston complained the detail was inadequate, and at the 29 January hearing the judge, deputy bailiff Michael Birt, ordered Leeds to provide further detail.

"The court made an order and your client has not complied with it," Birt said to Leeds' solicitors. "You are not compliant with who the beneficial owner is. We will go through the chain of companies and see who is the beneficial owner," he ordered. "If it gets to the stage where some percentage of the company up the chain is owned by another company where you do not know who the owners are, then someone must go on oath and say so."

Leeds were given 21 days from 29 January to comply with this court order. That expired on 19 February, but Weston says he has still not received any further detail from Leeds. Taylor said Leeds complied with the order, by the due date. He said the facts are already clear: Leeds is owned by the Forward Sports Fund, incorporated in the Cayman Islands and administered from Geneva in Switzerland. It has two "management shares", he said, owned one each by Bates and Murrin. After Astor Investments sold Forward to Bates and Murrin, Astor had no remaining connection with Leeds or Forward.

So, at the time of Leeds' administration, Astor waved goodbye to millions to see the club still owned and run by Bates, even though they had no connection to him. Taylor added that Bates, 77, himself now resident on Avenue Princess Grace in the tax haven of Monaco, has no current intention of selling Leeds and ceding control at Elland Road. "I think he's quite enjoying it at the moment," said Taylor.



The Murrin connection
The involvement at Leeds of Patrick Murrin, the Guernsey-based accountant, was disclosed in the club's 2006 accounts, which noted they had paid Murrin's company, Rivoli, £186,000 for consultancy, and that Murrin "has an interest" in Forward Sports Fund.

In the Jersey court case, that interest has been described: that Murrin, jointly with Bates, owns "management shares" in Forward, the Cayman Islands company that owns Leeds. At Chelsea, Murrin was the director-representative of Swan Management, a Guernsey company whose backers were never disclosed, which owned a large stake in the club. After Bates sold Chelsea to Roman Abramovich in 2003, the Financial Services Authority here and Financial Services Commission in Guernsey launched an investigation, which ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing, into the offshore ownership of 14% of Chelsea which Murrin's company, Harbour Trustees, was then administering.

Murrin retired soon afterwards, but said this week he had not been forced to do so. "The FSC are still happy to have me working as a director of regulated companies," he said. "But I decided to retire. If you are trying to sell yourself as the honest face of the serious overseas trustee, it is difficult if you are in the public eye." Although he holds the share in Forward, Murrin said he is not involved in running Leeds.

Guardian.co.uk

[Sydhagen]

hva faen er dette da??

[4ever arcticwhite]

Ja, da er vi i gang igjen......

Rettssaker, bøter, poengtrekk..... Say no more

[h.b]

lalalalalalalalalalalalalala skrivekrampen forlanger å komme frem

[Sydhagen]

lalalalalalalalalalalalalala skrivekrampen forlanger å komme frem

dette er din arena h.b...bring it on!!   

[h.b]

For å si dette enkelt og kortfattet hvis mulig.
Jeg har hele tiden hevdet dette her på forumet. Fått kraftig kritikk av dere meddebatanter. Enkelte har også sendt meg hatmail for å  vise sin avsky til at jeg ifølge dem har lagt frem indisier på en sak ingen har noe som helst bevis på.
Det som nå antagelig vil skje er at det nå blir tatt ut stevning mot Leeds/Bates. Blir Bates dømt, så blir klubben pånytt satt under administrasjon hvis det ikke er noen som kjøper opp klubben. All gjeld som ble slettet under administrasjonen kommer nå frem igjen.Men om dette vil bli en gjeld til Bates, eller om evt nye eiere av Leeds United vil måtte ta over disse er ytterst uklart. Så jeg håper dere her inne virkelig setter dere inn i Bates sin historikk og grunnene til at jeg mener at Bates er en kreftsvulst som  tapper Leeds for aktiva. Det som nå skjer er grunnen til at jeg mener at Bates må presses ut av klubben uansett om dette betyr at vi rykker ned til League 2

[pedro]

Tror ikke Bates legger seg like lett på rygg som flere av dere forumdeltakere...heldigvis

[ollan]

For å si dette enkelt og kortfattet hvis mulig.
Jeg har hele tiden hevdet dette her på forumet. Fått kraftig kritikk av dere meddebatanter. Enkelte har også sendt meg hatmail for å  vise sin avsky til at jeg ifølge dem har lagt frem indisier på en sak ingen har noe som helst bevis på.
Det som nå antagelig vil skje er at det nå blir tatt ut stevning mot Leeds/Bates. Blir Bates dømt, så blir klubben pånytt satt under administrasjon hvis det ikke er noen som kjøper opp klubben. All gjeld som ble slettet under administrasjonen kommer nå frem igjen.Men om dette vil bli en gjeld til Bates, eller om evt nye eiere av Leeds United vil måtte ta over disse er ytterst uklart. Så jeg håper dere her inne virkelig setter dere inn i Bates sin historikk og grunnene til at jeg mener at Bates er en kreftsvulst som  tapper Leeds for aktiva. Det som nå skjer er grunnen til at jeg mener at Bates må presses ut av klubben uansett om dette betyr at vi rykker ned til League 2

h.b. blablablabla......................ikke noe nytt i dette her vist du har fulgt litt med siden sommeren 2007. KPMG er jo like seriøs og troverdig som BATES og DU h.b
Herregud,get a life.........

[Sydhagen]

etter å ha lest nøye gjennom teksten, så tror jeg ikke at dette her får noen som helst betydning for Leeds sportslig sett.

er jo bare en krangel om det var en sammenheng mellom Astor og Forward under admin + et lite søksmål på noen usle pund.
dette var vel også en diskusjon mens admin pågikk?

[ollan]

etter å ha lest nøye gjennom teksten, så tror jeg ikke at dette her får noen som helst betydning for Leeds sportslig sett.

er jo bare en krangel om det var en sammenheng mellom Astor og Forward under admin + et lite søksmål på noen usle pund.
dette var vel også en diskusjon mens admin pågikk?

Riktig..........

[h.b]

Dette vil nok få dypere konsekvenser enn dere vil tro. Det at Bates har direkte forbindelse til Astor og Forward som er disse bakmennene, gjør at hele denne overtakelsen kan få dype konsekvenser. Bates vil bli fradømt klubben hvis dette blir bevist i retten. Bates har brutt alle spilleregler når det gjelder klubber som er i administrasjon. Vi snakker ikke om noen usle pund, men snarere et sted mellom 20 og 30 millioner pund

[mari]

Dersom det bevises at Bates hadde "kontroll" over den største kreditoren i konkursboet på det tidspunkt Leeds gikk konkurs (til tross for at han avla ed om at dette ikke var tilfelle) og at bakgrunnen for det ytterst merkelige ultimatumet fra Astor om at de bare avskrev gjelden på 17 millioner pund dersom Bates fikk fortsette som eier av klubben (lang setning) kan dette skape problemer for Bates eierskap.......

Personlig er jeg ganske sikker på at dette ikke kan bevises. Og at ringreven Bates har dette "covered"

Artikkelen inneholder forøvrig 0,0 nyheter - annet enn at en MP fra Harrogate som vistnok er Burnley supporter ønsker å benytte denne saken for å skape blest rundt sin egen person...

Spekulasjonene rundt Astor/Forward Trust har vært der hele veien......

[Promotion 2010]

Så gøy med en Burnley-supporter som er interessert i Leeds-saken. Han har nok vært snurt for kommentarer fra Bates rundt administrasjonen og klubbenen avstemning om tilbakeføring av klubblisensen. Som Mari sier: Dette kan nok aldri bevises!

Rettsaken på Jersey blir nok vunnet av Bates hvis han gidder å gå videre. For alt hva vi vet så jobber nok advokatene i kulissene allerede.

Denne setningen sier vel alt: Taylor added that Bates, 77, himself now resident on Avenue Princess Grace in the tax haven of Monaco, has no current intention of selling Leeds and ceding control at Elland Road. "I think he's quite enjoying it at the moment, ..."

Så der brast det håpet, h.b..... 

[Dennis]

For å si dette enkelt og kortfattet hvis mulig.
1 Jeg har hele tiden hevdet dette her på forumet. Fått kraftig kritikk av dere meddebatanter. Enkelte har også sendt meg hatmail for å  vise sin avsky til at jeg ifølge dem har lagt frem indisier på en sak ingen har noe som helst bevis på.
Det som nå antagelig vil skje er at det nå blir tatt ut stevning mot Leeds/Bates. 2 - Blir Bates dømt, så blir klubben pånytt satt under administrasjon hvis det ikke er noen som kjøper opp klubben. All gjeld som ble slettet under administrasjonen kommer nå frem igjen.Men om dette vil bli en gjeld til Bates, eller om evt nye eiere av Leeds United vil måtte ta over disse er ytterst uklart. 3 - Så jeg håper dere her inne virkelig setter dere inn i Bates sin historikk og grunnene til at jeg mener at Bates er en kreftsvulst som  tapper Leeds for aktiva. Det som nå skjer er grunnen til at jeg mener at Bates må presses ut av klubben uansett om dette betyr at vi rykker ned til League 2

4 - Dette vil nok få dypere konsekvenser enn dere vil tro. Det at Bates har direkte forbindelse til Astor og Forward som er disse bakmennene, gjør at hele denne overtakelsen kan få dype konsekvenser. Bates vil bli fradømt klubben hvis dette blir bevist i retten. Bates har brutt alle spilleregler når det gjelder klubber som er i administrasjon. Vi snakker ikke om noen usle pund, men snarere et sted mellom 20 og 30 millioner pund

1 - Først av alt, om du har fått hat-mail for hva du har skrevet på forumet her, så synes jeg det sier det meste om de som eventuelt har sendt dette. Håper og tror du ikke bryr deg særlig om dette. Du går aldri selv til personangrep på meddebattanter, tross at folk stadig har angrepet deg, det synes jeg vitner om karakter. Likevel, til tider krasse svar (på ball!) må du nesten forvente når du til stadighet legger ut ganske heftige påstander uten særlig kildehenvisning.

2 - Er dette vanlig prosedyre, eller antakelser?

3 - Du ønsker Bates fjernet, det er greit. Skulle selv gjerne sett en annen styreformann, men faktum er at Bates driver klubben nå og økonomisk sett har han snudd klubben rundt i positiv forstand. Om du skal bytte et vindu i huset ditt, jevner du da hele huset med jorden, for så å bygge opp nytt? Eller om du misliker en nabo i et ellers perfekt nabolag, håper du da tyskerne teppebomber hele nabolaget? Leeds vil nemlig ikke være Leeds slik vi kjenner det, om klubben skulle havne i stor gjeld igjen (om antakelsene dine om straff er korrekte). Det stod ikke akkurat folk i kø for å kjøpe klubben når vi var under adm og det vil ikke skje neste gang heller, dersom gjelda tilskrives Leeds igjen. En klubb i L2 med en halv milliard i gjeld? En investering? Ikke akkurat. At du ønsker at Leeds taper og rykker ned fordi du ikke liker Bates, er for meg sjokkerende.

4 - Når du skriver dette uten noen form for å bekrefte at dette er dine antakelser og ikke klare fakta, så grenser det til skremselspropaganda. Har du ikke selv kritisert dette fra Bates' side flere ganger??