...det går vel an 'å forstå' Bates' stance ut ifra denne (følgende) tankegangen.
Det er altså ført i pennen av Duncan Castles, som visstnok blir foret av Gwyn Williams, som igjen er Bates' ører på treningsfeltet.
Castles is a journalist. Like any good journalist, he reports what facts he can find and attempts to add context or balance. This statement from him below appears to derive from both camps, which is what he should be doing: keeping us informed, presenting both sides. Bates's reign appears to have nowhere left to go but given the previous two regimes (Yorkshire consortium - got us relegated and sold the ground/TA; Ridsdale - financial meltdown) fans should be looking at anything that appears to resemble a light at the end of a decade-long tunnel and asking 'Is that an oncoming train?'
"Am told that there has been no change to the position reported here at the end of August. A price was agreed for Ken Bates' majority shareholding in Leeds United in July, only for the consortium to fail to complete the transaction. The Leeds chairman is understood to have been unhappy with an attempt to redirect funds the group had used to secure a period of exclusivity into Neil Warnock's transfer budget.
Essentially, the money paid by the consortium was perceived as a deposit on the full purchase price for the club. They then attempted to dictate to the seller how that deposit should be used before they had paid for full control of Leeds. This led to doubts over the bidders' ability to fully fund the takeover, and the club itself after the takeover.
Sources close to the consortium say there are no issues with their finances and that the failure to complete the deal was simply due to Bates' refusal to sign “standard†indemnity documents. (These documents would have enabled the buyers to claw back some of the purchase price if additional legal or financial liabilities surfaced post-takeover.)"
The buyers failed to accept Bates' ridiculous demands ref indemnity, so Bates alludes to the world that it could be that they don't have the cash. Despite the fact we know it's in an Escrow account. f**king wake up. You're making yourself look an apologist at best!Bates ' versjon (inntil nylig) var altså at han lurte på om 'kjøperne' hadde så mange midler som de hevdet (og som Bates tidligere i sommer jo skreiv at de hadde), de hadde jo ikke betalt inn en avtalt sum innen en frist i sommer (ifølge den gamle enigheten). At dette skyldes en uenighet som gjerne gikk på 'indemnities' er så sin sak, men det var dette Bates nå 'tok de på'.
Men nå har altså kjøperne ordnet denne usikkerheten rundt 'indemnitien' seg imellom. Og da burde det atter være klappet og klart for et salg.Så da blir vel spørsmålet om Bates nå finner på nye 'argumenter' for ikke å la salget gå i orden ('uvillig selger').
Gjør han det, forsvinner nok kjøperne.
Så jeg vil anta at de første dagene av kommende uke vil fortelle oss hvordan dette går.
JA, jeg èr optimistisk nå
