Emne: Hvem eier Leeds United?

[Promotion 2010]

Leeds United's owners declared fit and proper but can remain anonymous• They are all above board, says Leeds' holding company
• Politicians and fan groups condemn Football League

David Conn guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 March 2010 15.13 GMT Article history


Ken Bates arrives at Elland Road in January 2005 after buying into the debt-ridden then Championship club. Photograph: Ian Hodgson/REUTERS

Politicians from the three main parties and football supporters' groups have united in calling for the Football League to make public who owns its clubs after the league approved as "fit and proper" the offshore owners of Leeds United while keeping their identity private.

The sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, said: "Fans of any football club have a right to know who the owners are. We want to see greater supporter representation in the running of football clubs and far greater accountability. The League should insist on clubs making public to their supporters who owns them."

He was joined by the Conservative shadow sports minister, Hugh Robertson, who argued: "As with Parliament and many other areas of public life, transparency is going to be an increasing requirement and expectation. That includes publicly identifying the owners of football clubs. Football should reform its governance, to include greater supporter representation on the board of clubs."

That call was echoed by the Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate, Phil Willis, who has long criticised the anonymity of Leeds' ownership, routed via companies in offshore tax havens. "At the very least, supporters of a club have a right to know who owns it. As an act of faith and goodwill, I hope the Leeds United board now publish the documentation they have presented to the Football League so that all sense of mystery can be removed."

The Premier League does now require its clubs to publish the names of all shareholders with stakes of 10% or more, but the Football League does not. Instead, clubs must tell the League's chairman, Lord Mawhinney, and three other senior executives, who the ultimate owners are, but the information is not made public.

Leeds have declined requests from the Guardian, following the League's ratification, to say who the ultimate owners are. The only response this week came from Peter Boatman of Château Fiduciare, the Geneva-based financial administrator of Leeds' holding company, Forward Sports Fund. "It is not necessary for you to have that information," he said.

The politicians were joined by the Leeds United Supporters Club, the national Football Supporters' Federation and Supporters Direct in calling for League clubs' owners to be publicly identified. "Like all football clubs, Leeds United's character is that of a public institution wrapped in a privately owned business and that creates a mismatch," said Dave Boyle, the chief executive of Supporters Direct. "The authorities can recognise that public nature by sending a clear message: you can remain a private anonymous citizen, and you can own a football club, but you cannot do both."

Boatman was named last May as an FSF director and confirmed this week he had passed the fit and proper person test. He pointed to the progress Leeds have made on the field and financially this season, and said questions about who owns the club would be seen as unwelcome criticism with the club pushing for promotion. He added that no information has been withheld from the League.

Summing up Leeds' position under the current ownership, Boatman said: "The situation at the football club has improved immensely, which is very satisfying when some other clubs are in serious financial trouble. We have never denied information to the Football League and although I cannot confirm or deny who the shareholders are, the only thing I can say about the structures we control is that they are all above board."

The League's approval of Leeds' owners follows inquiries it began in October after the Guardian revealed that the club's chairman, Ken Bates, had revised his account of its ownership at a court case in Jersey. In January last year, Bates' solicitors told Jersey's royal court, which is hearing a dispute between Leeds and a finance company, Admatch, that he and his long term financial adviser, Patrick Murrin, jointly owned "management shares" in the club's holding company, the Forward Sports Fund.

In May, Bates swore an affidavit stating that the previous statement had been "not correct" and "an error on my part". In fact, he stated, he did not own a management share in FSF. The affidavit attached a letter from Château Fiduciare, which said FSF had 10,000 shares, owned by shareholders who have not been named.

The League confirmed it had written to Leeds seeking clarification because directors and 30% shareholders in its clubs must be identified to it and passed as fit and proper people who have no recent criminal convictions and have not run a football club into insolvency twice. The League made no further comment until a spokesman said last month: "The Football League has concluded its enquiries regarding Leeds United's fit and proper persons test documentation and has addressed the issues raised with the club. Following further information from Leeds, the League is now satisfied that the club is compliant with Football League regulations."

No further details have been released. Sutcliffe this week acknowledged the moves the League has made in securing detailed financial information from clubs and requiring outstanding tax to be paid, but said "more can still be done" to make clubs more transparent. A League source said clubs currently have "no appetite" to introduce a rule requiring their owners to be made public.

Mawhinney, who is due to retire this month after seven years in which he has overseen a series of reforms, did indicate that he believes the League should go further. "We have come a long way," he said. "Clubs cannot play in our league unless we know who the beneficial owners are. Could we do more? Yes – but it is a matter of priorities. Eventually I think football will be strengthened if the ownership of clubs goes public."

[Promotion 2010]

Politicians, officials and fans react to the Leeds ownership issue
The question of who runs Leeds United has brought demands for the Football League to be more transparent about who owns its clubs
   Tweet this (6)guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 March 2010 16.38 GMT Article history
The League should insist on clubs making public to their supporters who owns them, says the minister for sport. Photograph: Gareth Copley/PA

POLITICIANS

Gerry Sutcliffe, minister for sport

"Fans of any football club have a right to know who the owners are. We want to see greater supporter representation in the running of football clubs and far greater accountability. While I welcome the Football League's moves in securing detailed financial information from clubs and their work with HMRC to help keep clubs on a secure financial footing, more can still be done. We have offered to help the League, where we can, on the issue of transparency but it should insist on clubs making public to their supporters who owns them."


Hugh Robertson, shadow minister for sport

"As with Parliament and many other areas of public life, transparency is going to be an increasing requirement and expectation. That includes publicly identifying the owners of football clubs. Football should reform its governance to include greater supporter representation on the board of clubs."


Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate

"At the very least, supporters of a club have a right to know who owns it. The Football League should follow the Premier League's lead and insist on this basic necessity. As an act of faith and goodwill, I hope the Leeds United board now publish the documentation they have presented to the Football League so that all sense of mystery can be removed and the supporters can know who owns their club."


FOOTBALL OFFICIALS

Malcolm Clarke, chair of the Football Supporters Federation

"Football clubs are not like other businesses, they are part of the heart and soul of their community. Part of their responsibility is to ensure their loyal supporters, whose money is vital to keep a club going, know exactly who owns the club and to whom their money is going."


Dave Boyle, the chief executive of Supporters Direct

"Leeds fans support the club with millions of pounds each year because of a profound sense of connection with the club, and that loyalty and commitment means its fortunes and activities matter to the community in a way unlike nearly every other organisation in the city. Like all football clubs, Leeds United's character is that of a public institution wrapped in a privately-owned business and that creates a mismatch. The authorities can recognise that public nature by sending a clear message: you can remain a private anonymous citizen and you can own a football club but you cannot do both."


Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive

"It's very hard to argue that clubs aren't effectively 'owned' by a much wider group than those that happen to legally own the shareholding. We should know and the public should know and the fans should know who owns their club."


Gerald Krasner, the former Leeds United chairman

"I sat in court when Mr Kenneth William Bates said he did not know who the owner of Leeds United was. So today I would say to Mr Bates: 'Now that you know, why would you not like to tell your club's fans who it is?'"


Kevin McCabe, the chairman and owner of Sheffield United

"Football clubs are peculiar, in that they represent their community, town and city but they are companies with shareholders. My own view is that you owe it to supporters to let them know who does own, control and influence their club. It is a part of being open and transparent. What is the shame in disclosing it?"


SUPPORTERS

Dave Gaertner, a spokesman for Leeds United Supporters Club

"It is very important for fans to know who owns a football club. It helps to know that person has a vested interest in re-investing money in the club. When you talk about faceless overseas organisations, you have no idea where the money is going. Football clubs are really there for the fans who support it all their lives and the ownership should reflect that and be as transparent as possible."


Dan Moylan,the editor of Square Ball – Leeds United fanzine

"I understand that the owners and backers have a right to stay anonymous but it is not right for the fans, whose money is paying for the club to push on and get back to where we belong. Progress has been made on and off the field but for the money the fans are putting in, there is a lack of transparency. We'd like to know where the money is going and who ultimately owns the club."

[Promotion 2010]

Statement on the Guardian’s expose’ of our secret owners.
Love Leeds Hate Bates issues the following statement following today’s web articles on the ownership of Leeds United on the Guardian website.
In the summer of 2007 when Leeds United went into administration, Ken Bates threatened that, unless he got his way, he was willing to let Leeds United go out of business. At that point, he lost the support of a great many Leeds fans and we have seen nothing since to suggest we should change our minds.
Whether failing to keep our best players, reneging on promises to repurchase the Thorp Arch training ground after listing it as a priority, investing in pie-in-the-sky plans for a hotel complex, indulging his ego in failed court cases or picking fights with supporters groups, Ken Bates has proved himself to be unworthy of a position at the helm of Leeds United.
That he manages to further insult our intelligence by keeping the ultimate beneficiaries of our support hidden via the smoke and mirrors associated with the fund management of offshore accounts only serves to heighten the obvious disdain with which he ultimately views the fans of our great club.
We commend the Guardian for its attempts to expose the truth.
The original Guardian articles are here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/football-league-ownership-leeds-united and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/leeds-united-ownership-reaction

[Promotion 2010]

LLHB says it like it is..Guardian expose’ of Leeds United’s secret owners

keep going.
Love Leeds Hate Bates has published a statement on the tails of the following two Guardian articles: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/football-league-ownership-leeds-united and http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/leeds-united-ownership-reaction

“In the summer of 2007 when Leeds United went into administration, Ken Bates threatened that, unless he got his way, he was willing to let Leeds United go out of business. At that point, he lost the support of a great many Leeds fans and we have seen nothing since to suggest we should change our minds.

Whether failing to keep our best players, reneging on promises to repurchase the Thorp Arch training ground after listing it as a priority, investing in pie-in-the-sky plans for a hotel complex, indulging his ego in failed court cases or picking fights with supporters groups, Ken Bates has proved himself to be unworthy of a position at the helm of Leeds United.”

That he manages to further insult our intelligence by keeping the ultimate benificiaries of our support hidden via the smoke and mirrors associated with the fund management of offshore accounts only serves to heighten the obvious disdain with which he ultimately views the fans of our great club.”

Clarkeonenil is happy to support both LLHB and the Guardian.

[Promotion 2010]

Five questions fans need answered about their club's ownersHow much do you know about the ownership of your club? Are they are using offshore tax havens and have they put any money into the club to invest?
   Tweet this (2)Comments (0) 
Do the owners have sustainable plans? Photograph: Christopher Thomond/Christopher Thomond / Guardian

Politicians and football supporters groups have united in calling for the Football League to make public who owns its clubs after the league approved as "fit and proper" the offshore owners of Leeds United while keeping their identity private.


Does this issue raise any alarms over the ownership of your own club? Here are five questions you should be able to answer. Please let us know your thoughts below the line:


1 Do you know who the individual people are who own your club? At most clubs in the Premier League and Football League, this is clear, but at some, like Leeds, it is still not.


2 Do you know clearly what their motivations are, and do they have sustainable plans for the club? Are they supporters who want to contribute to the club's health and future, and if they have other motives, have they clearly explained them?


3 Do you know what structures they are using. For example, are they using offshore tax havens to hold the shares in English football clubs? Are they holding the shares in such a way as to enable them to avoid paying UK tax when they finally sell the club?


4 Do you know whether they have put money into the club for them to invest, and if so in what way?


5 Do you know whether they have been paid money out of the club in salaries, dividends, interest on loans, or made money from the sale of shares, and if so how much?

[Promotion 2010]

Who Owns Leeds United? None of Your Business, Lad.
Posted by Tom Dunmore on 3/04/10 • Categorized as Politics and Economics


The Football League, led by Chairman Brian Mawhinney, has led the way in England in some respects in steps towards more enlightened governance of the game for some years now, as we have commented on before.

Notably, the Football League was the first in England to require clubs to reveal their payments to agents, a move which has not entirely uncoincidentally seen those payments cut in half.

The Football League was also the first to introduce a “fit and proper persons” test for club owners and directors to prevent, for example, those who have taken more than one club to bankruptcy before or who have criminal convictions for fraud from being a director of a club.

But in one important area, the Football League’s fit and proper persons test has fallen down: it does not require owners to reveal in public who they are. Given last year’s fiasco at Notts County, that seems like a mistake.

Indeed, just a few months ago, Mawhinney said “I would like total transparency. That’s me personally and I think we’re on a journey towards that point.”

Unfortunately, as the case of Leeds United shows, the League is some way off from what ought to be the most basic requirement of an owner of a football club.The club are owned 100% by a Cayman Islands registered ownership firm known as Forward Sports Fund. Who is behind that company remains a mystery,

As David Conn reports today, Leeds’ offshore owners have been approved as “fit and proper” even though their identity remains a secret, a decision condemned by both the government and fans’ organisations.

The Premier League does now require its clubs to publish the names of all shareholders with stakes of 10% or more, but the Football League does not. Instead, clubs must tell the League’s chairman, Lord Mawhinney, and three other senior executives, who the ultimate owners are, but the information is not made public.

Leeds have declined requests from the Guardian, following the League’s ratification, to say who the ultimate owners are. The only response this week came from Peter Boatman of Château Fiduciare, the Geneva-based financial administrator of Leeds’ holding company, Forward Sports Fund. “It is not necessary for you to have that information,” he said.

The politicians were joined by the Leeds United Supporters Club, the national Football Supporters’ Federation and Supporters Direct in calling for League clubs’ owners to be publicly identified. “Like all football clubs, Leeds United’s character is that of a public institution wrapped in a privately owned business and that creates a mismatch,” said Dave Boyle, the chief executive of Supporters Direct. “The authorities can recognise that public nature by sending a clear message: you can remain a private anonymous citizen, and you can own a football club, but you cannot do both.”

The importance of this isn’t just a matter of principle; it was Conn’s own investigation into Leeds’ mysterious ownership structure that led the Football League to seek clarification from the club, as he goes on to explain:

The League’s approval of Leeds’ owners follows inquiries it began in October after the Guardian revealed that the club’s chairman, Ken Bates, had revised his account of its ownership at a court case in Jersey. In January last year, Bates’ solicitors told Jersey’s royal court, which is hearing a dispute between Leeds and a finance company, Admatch, that he and his long term financial adviser, Patrick Murrin, jointly owned “management shares” in the club’s holding company, the Forward Sports Fund. In May, Bates swore an affidavit stating that the previous statement had been “not correct” and “an error on my part”. In fact, he stated, he did not own a management share in FSF. The affidavit attached a letter from Château Fiduciare, which said FSF had 10,000 shares, owned by shareholders who have not been named.

The League confirmed it had written to Leeds seeking clarification because directors and 30% shareholders in its clubs must be identified to it and passed as fit and proper people who have no recent criminal convictions and have not run a football club into insolvency twice. The League made no further comment until a spokesman said last month: “The Football League has concluded its enquiries regarding Leeds United’s fit and proper persons test documentation and has addressed the issues raised with the club. Following further information from Leeds, the League is now satisfied that the club is compliant with Football League regulations.”

The Football League need to change those regulations: not just to meet the solid principle that fans should know who owns their club, but because rules that encourage owners to skirt transparency can lead to the sort of problems we’ve seen at Notts County all too recently.

[Promotion 2010]

Kommentarer i The Guardian:

Comments in chronological order (Total 37 comments)
Post a comment
Staff
Contributor
Close
Abuse reportPlease choose a problem:
 Choose one Personal abuse Off topic Legal issue Trolling Hate speech Offensive/Threatening language Copyright Spam Other Comment: (optional)
 You have 300 characters left
Logged in as
Your email address: (optional)
 
Loading...............
Closing this window without pressing "Report" will result in your words being lost.
Are you sure?   
Thank you 
Sorry, something has gone wrong and this action cannot be completed. Please try again later.
 acme
4 Mar 2010, 4:36PM
How can they be fit and proper if they are anonymous?

Especiallly when there is an extraordinary catalogue of "errors" and "mistakes" about the facts of the ownership of Leeds United.

How do we know that the facts the Football league considered when making this decision were not as riddled with errors as the information previously provided?

Recommend? (9)
Report abuse
Clip | Link jimjimmer
4 Mar 2010, 4:43PM
It appears that Château Fiduciare also administrated Krato Trust who were Leeds' biggest creditor when the club went into administration the second time. This meant they were able to ensure that Ken Bates was able to buy the club back.

Recommend? (
Report abuse
Clip | Link guyb9
4 Mar 2010, 4:44PM
Mr X is a fit and proper person to own Leeds United.

Unless it's Malcolm Glazer...

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link supernowt
4 Mar 2010, 4:57PM
Malcolm X owns Leeds United?

Recommend? (12)
Report abuse
Clip | Link lemonentry
4 Mar 2010, 5:02PM
It makes sense to remain anonymous. I mean, it would be very embarrassing to have your name associated with Leeds football club.

Recommend? (25)
Report abuse
Clip | Link orkney89
4 Mar 2010, 5:06PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.  Chriskiy
4 Mar 2010, 5:14PM
With all the charming and utterly "fit and proper" people currently owning or trying to buy football clubs (take a bow Mr Thaksin Shinawatra), people who are NOT hiding their identity, just how dodgy and deeply disreputable must these new owners be if they wish to remain anonymous? Makes you shiver. Are they perhaps the Ku Klux Klan Social Club Investment Society? Or the Saddam Hussein Admiration Circle? Or are they just a group of bankers, spending the government bail-out in such socially responsible ways? Bankers? I think maybe I prefer the KKK. At least they're vaguely honest about their intentions.

Recommend? (6)
Report abuse
Clip | Link brumell
4 Mar 2010, 5:21PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.  symball
4 Mar 2010, 5:24PM
probably the same Mob who actually owned chelsea before mr abramovich came to the rescue- bates has plenty of previous for this sort of chicanery. The premier league ended up giving up on the maze of shell companies and offshore accounts used to hide the true owners of chelsea under bates.

Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip | Link GomezAddamms
4 Mar 2010, 5:24PM
maybe it's Johnny X, the invisible frontman for Fulchester Rovers in Billy The Fish
and if i can remember what the indian girl was called i'll die happy.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link thelonegunman
4 Mar 2010, 5:28PM
what else does one expect from the suits who thought a deposed (and wanted) prime minister, a straw man owner son of a (wanted) arms dealer (not to mention his replacement), to name a prominent recent few, were 'fit and proper?'

to the FA, if you have LOTS money (regardless of how gotten), they consider you 'fit and proper'... the rest of you lot are told to sod off...

Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip | Link damandblast
4 Mar 2010, 5:29PM
Ken Bates = murky.

Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip | Link MWinMilan
4 Mar 2010, 5:29PM
I love the league regulations. Fit and proper apparently by their standards means no recent criminal convictions and must not have run other football clubs into the ground twice. Ince would be ok. that's just bad luck.

Absolute genius.

Perhaps the Glazers own it?
Ha Ha.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link MWinMilan
4 Mar 2010, 5:32PM
@GomexAddamms

I think it was Brown Fox.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link BrazilBranch
4 Mar 2010, 5:38PM
Fit & Proper... anybody who has business deals with Captain Birdseye.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhaaaaaahhahahahahhhahahaha.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhahahahahahahahah.

The St John's Ambulance must be spilling their tea with laughter over this one.

Tombstone Text of the two latest Leeds Chairman:

1.Here lies the man who Dared to Dream of Goldfish.

2. Here lies the man who Robbed the St John's Ambulance blind.

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link exobserverreader
4 Mar 2010, 5:40PM
jimjimmer: It appears that Château Fiduciare also administrated Krato Trust who were Leeds' biggest creditor when the club went into administration the second time. This meant they were able to ensure that Ken Bates was able to buy the club back.

Which is exactly why HMRC are so suspicious of the adminstrator at Portsmouth, they suspect the same trick is being pulled.

Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip | Link ClubOwner
4 Mar 2010, 5:41PM

Boatman ......said questions about who owns the club would be seen as unwelcome criticism with the club pushing for promotion.

Huh? This is a very shifty response that rings alarm bells in my head. What are they trying to hide? What difference does it make whether a club is likely to be promoted, or not? Totally irrelevant. When people use false arguments to defend their behaviour it's usually a good sign that they are covering up something.
One of the reasons why all ownership details should be made public is that Lord Mawhinney (and the three other FL executives) are not capable of investigating the history of the Leeds owners. We need investigative journalists and concerned, qualifed, fans to do that. Maybe they also own another club (illegal) under the name of another company, or have a history of asset stripping, or poor management, or criminal records, or any number of things that would make them unsuitable.
The English football authorities have an appalling record vetting club owners, why should we be expected to believe that, suddenly, they know what they are doing? How can they be believed, or trusted, if they withhold the information?

Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip | Link TheBelovedAunt
4 Mar 2010, 5:47PM
Nice to see that all the lessons from the past year or two about fit and proper ownership and the importance of transparency are being learned by the authorities.

Recommend? (6)
Report abuse
Clip | Link onefatbloke
4 Mar 2010, 5:47PM
The football league, the premier league and the referees association ...
Thee bodies who have the tools at their disposal to make everyones lot a hell of a lot better and they're all too damned scared to use them.

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link duncan23
4 Mar 2010, 5:49PM
How much longer will the government stand idly by while the Premier League, the Football League and the Football Association make a mockery of the national sport?

Meanwhile MUST have 108,474 members and growing....

Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Chriskiy
4 Mar 2010, 5:52PM
Ken Bates could have put his teeth in before the photo above was taken, too . . .

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link GMcG
4 Mar 2010, 6:00PM
Seems like a nice chap:

http://www.mail-archive.com/leedslist@list.zetnet.co.uk/msg09674.html

Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link thedodger
4 Mar 2010, 6:03PM
So few comments on this piece of highly interesting Leeds United news...................no wonder they are so mortally jealous of all things MUFC.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link thedodger
4 Mar 2010, 6:09PM
Or should it be envious? or both?

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link ClubOwner
4 Mar 2010, 6:10PM
Duncan23

How much longer will the government stand idly by while the Premier League, the Football League and the Football Association make a mockery of the national sport?

I wouldn't place any hopes for improvement on the government. It seems the only people who care about how football is run here are the fans.
It's time all the regulatory bodies included fans. One from each division in the FL, and some from the non FL leagues too. The clubs from which they come could be rotated yearly. Individual clubs could elect their own candidates and the representatives could be selected randomly.

Meanwhile MUST have 108,474 members and growing....

So, are you going to be boycotting games? Hitting "owners" (quotes because, of course, they don't actually own the clubs, whoever loaned them the money does) like the Glaziers in their pockets is the only language these people understand. Some things, such as the very existence of one's club, are more important than an afternoon's entertainment, or keeping an unbroken attendance record.
Good luck.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link ClubOwner
4 Mar 2010, 6:12PM
aaaargh! Blockquote fail. (But still understandable, I hope).

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Hibernica
4 Mar 2010, 6:15PM
This stinks.

Can we even be certain that the Football League knows the identity of the people who it deems fit and proper to own a club?

And, if they do, why have they agreed to keep their identity under wraps?

Let's face it, upstanding members of society have no need to keep their identity secret.

How murky do your business dealings have to be if you are to think you own a portion of a football club only to discover later that you don't. Very murky indeed, I would suspect.

And how dubious would you have to be as a group of businessmen if the only person whose identity you're willing to reveal is Ken Bates? Ken f**king Bates!!?! Very dubious indeed, I reckon.

In fact, how do we know that there is anybody other than Ken Bates involved at all? Can we be certain that the fit and proper owners are not a figment of Ken Bates imagination? Can we say for a fact that the anonymous owners are not a fictional or semi-fictional creation of some accountant who specialises in off-shore tax-dodging and who happens to work on occasions for Ken Bates?

Well? Can we?

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link blaggard
4 Mar 2010, 6:20PM
Boatman was named last May as an FSF director and confirmed this week he had passed the fit and proper person test.

haha, for a moment or two I thought you meant "Football Supporters' Federation" by FSF. That was concerning, although even then, not very surprising.

Yes though, it is very dodgy that they can get away with not telling who they are....and even more dodgy that they don't want to. I mean ok, so owning Leeds might not be something to be that proud of but even so.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link Optymystic
4 Mar 2010, 6:24PM
Utter twaddle throughout, you are all shooting at the wrong target. The problem is not Bates ,about whom some of my previous comments have been censored by the Guardian's moderators. It is not Leeds, the Glazers the PL the League or the FA.

The problem is in the spineless and outrageously grovelling behaviour of the English courts which enforce the extraordinary football creditors rule. This rule is of dubious legality and has frequently been questioned, but the English courts have allowed the League to write and enforce this peculiar law which means that the Glazers get paid when the St. John's ambulance does not. And you thought parliament wrote the law. Without the football creditors rule much of this nonsense would not even get started.

Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip | Link AdamAsker
4 Mar 2010, 6:29PM
If Malcolm Glazer were to sell Man Utd and buy Leeds Utd, I might be able to live with that; on seconds thoughts, I wouldn't even wish him on Leeds.

Not having a criminal record shouldn't be enough, there ought to be a way to ensure that the new owner doesn't load the new club with debt. Mind you, we allow this across UK business in our "open" economy; Kraft were in heavy debt and borrowed massively from RBS to buy Cadbury's.

Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip | Link ClubOwner
4 Mar 2010, 6:33PM
OptymysticHow can you say

Utter twaddle throughout, you are all shooting at the wrong target. .. It is not Leeds, the Glazers the PL the League or the FA.

and then blame the "extraordinary football creditors rule" and say

English courts have allowed the League to write and enforce this peculiar law

?
Btw, I very much doubt that If fans' representatives were on the FL, FA etc boards/committees they would have allowed a rule like that to be passed.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link acme
4 Mar 2010, 7:00PM
Let's also remember the way that Stephen Vaughan Senior was allowed to destroy Chester City. "Fit and proper" my ...minutes silence for a liverpool gangster.

Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link picklesthewonderdog
4 Mar 2010, 7:15PM
As long as you can say "I'm considerably richer than you....." You're in

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link wallwall
4 Mar 2010, 7:20PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.  Tabloid
4 Mar 2010, 7:20PM
Hmm, I wonder why fans and fans' groups wouldn't trust the FL's opinions of fit and proper persons. Let's just consider their track record, Darlington, Donny and Chester spring to mind first but there are hundreds of others.

And let's not forget the FA commission in 2002 found Pete Winkleman to be a plausible, honest and trustworthy witness, while myriad Wimbledon supporting surveyors, lawyers, experts and fans' representatives weren't.

Farce. As ever. Good work David, and Dave Boyle. Keep the pressure up.

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link bunster
4 Mar 2010, 7:41PM
In view of Ken Bates's pro Tory comments in the past- urging Tory MPs to support John Major when Thatecher left- is the real owner Lord Ashcroft?

Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link bunster
4 Mar 2010, 7:42PM
Is the real owner Lord Ashcroft?

[baste]

Hva med en kortversjon?

[DenHviteYeboah]

Hva med en kortversjon?

Bates er en ulykke for klubben

[jarle]

Kortversjon...

vi er eid av kjeltringer!!!

[RuneR]

Huffda.  Hvorfor har ingen fortalt meg dette tidligere 

[Boxman]

For å se litt positivt på det, så er det jo greit å vite at PL har litt strengere regler enn The Football League.
Som jeg skjønner det, vil dette bety at når vi rykker opp i PL, vil en av to ting skje. Vi får vite hvem eierne er, eller de må selge. Og siden det tydeligvis er så viktig å være anonyme for hvem det nå er, kan vel det tyde på at de vil selge seg ut når dagen kommer, og vi er kalre for PL igjen...

[DenHviteYeboah]

For å se litt positivt på det, så er det jo greit å vite at PL har litt strengere regler enn The Football League.
Som jeg skjønner det, vil dette bety at når vi rykker opp i PL, vil en av to ting skje. Vi får vite hvem eierne er, eller de må selge. Og siden det tydeligvis er så viktig å være anonyme for hvem det nå er, kan vel det tyde på at de vil selge seg ut når dagen kommer, og vi er kalre for PL igjen...

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

[baste]

For å se litt positivt på det, så er det jo greit å vite at PL har litt strengere regler enn The Football League.
Som jeg skjønner det, vil dette bety at når vi rykker opp i PL, vil en av to ting skje. Vi får vite hvem eierne er, eller de må selge. Og siden det tydeligvis er så viktig å være anonyme for hvem det nå er, kan vel det tyde på at de vil selge seg ut når dagen kommer, og vi er kalre for PL igjen...

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

Rykker vi opp til CCC i år, er jeg litt fornøyd. Hva som skjer etter det vet ikke jeg. Kunne selvsagt ønsket meg eiere med penger, men trenden er vel at man må drive etter hva som er økonomisk forsvarlig. Om ikke nnet tjener LEEDS penger for tiden. MOT

[Bjorn]

For å se litt positivt på det, så er det jo greit å vite at PL har litt strengere regler enn The Football League.
Som jeg skjønner det, vil dette bety at når vi rykker opp i PL, vil en av to ting skje. Vi får vite hvem eierne er, eller de må selge. Og siden det tydeligvis er så viktig å være anonyme for hvem det nå er, kan vel det tyde på at de vil selge seg ut når dagen kommer, og vi er kalre for PL igjen...

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

Joda. Det gjør vi det så! 

[h.b]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

[Tom S]

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

Eg henger ikkje alltid med på desse konklusjonene, må eg innrømme.
Kunne ikkje det blitt lagt fram som at "eg trur ikkje vi rykker opp så lenge Bates styrer klubben" ?
Vert litt enklere å forholde seg til då, trur eg  

[DenHviteYeboah]

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

Eg henger ikkje alltid med på desse konklusjonene, må eg innrømme.
Kunne ikkje det blitt lagt fram som at "eg trur ikkje vi rykker opp så lenge Bates styrer klubben" ?
Vert litt enklere å forholde seg til då, trur eg  

enig i det, men nå er det vel slik at de aller fleste på forumet påstår det ene og det andre,dette er kun min PERSONLIGE påstand-slik jeg ser det,eller skal alle skrive at dette er kun min mening i hvert eneste innlegg?

[Tom S]

problemet er at vi ikke kommer til å rykke opp til PL så lenge Bates styrer klubben

Eg henger ikkje alltid med på desse konklusjonene, må eg innrømme.
Kunne ikkje det blitt lagt fram som at "eg trur ikkje vi rykker opp så lenge Bates styrer klubben" ?
Vert litt enklere å forholde seg til då, trur eg 

enig i det, men nå er det vel slik at de aller fleste på forumet påstår det ene og det andre,dette er kun min PERSONLIGE påstand-slik jeg ser det,eller skal alle skrive at dette er kun min mening i hvert eneste innlegg?

Bra.

[Boxman]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

[DenHviteYeboah]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

Jeg mener du er naiv som innbiller deg at Bates kommer til å selge hvis vi kommer til PL...hvorfor skal han det?han har jo uttalt at han savnet å være i foppallens rampelys.Greit det, men han skal vel ikke selge for å sikre seg selv pensjon?det har han gjort for lenge siden....nei,klubben blir solgt eller overdratt til nye eiere lenge etter han har tatt kvelden fordi det må ordnes opp i en million med suspekte avtaler,selskaper,eierforhold osv....dette er flotte greier...

[Karl Hot Shot]

Ken Bates har selv bekreftet at han ikke eier Leeds United. Han har vel i høyden en liten eierandel i dette sveitsiske selskapet som eier klubben. Dermed vil han heller ikke sitte igjen med hele salgssummen ved et videresalg av klubben. Han tjener nå sine penger som arbeidende styreformann og via noen avtaler som offentligheten ikke får innsyn i. Han har sikkert ikke noe imot å rykke opp til The Championship, for spill i CCC vil generere flere penger inn gjennom flere tilskuere, mer salg av drakter osv. Men det kan godt være, slik h.b skriver, at han i det lengste vil unngå det innsynet i klubbens forretningsdrift som Premier League vil kreve, ved et opprykk dit, selv om jeg ikke er videre imponert over hvordan PL har skjøttet Portsmouth-saken.

[DenHviteYeboah]

Dette blir heftig diskutert på teamtalk.Her er 2 ganske morsomme innlegg

"Following the questions raised in the guardian today, I have decided to come clean. I own Leeds United together with a 3 bed semi and a 6 year old car. With any look I am hoping to invest more capital in the club very soon. It will be around £50 but only after further discussions with the club to make sure I get a suitably located seat from which to watch the game. However now that I have revealed myself as the owner if you have any questions regarding the club, I will be more than happy to answer them on this forum. "

.paulpaint (Leeds United fan)
Posted Today @ 08:34 View all paulpaint's posts
"The Football League once again has proved itself to be a joke! They are happy to allow a situation where they know who run our club but we don't! Bearing in mind the current situation where large amounts of money are being made by selling players like Delph, cup runs and generally bigger crowds than last season paying high prices. Add to that the failure to buy back Thorp Arch which is our future and the lack of investment in new players which could have seen us walk this league. Then its not surprising then that there is real concern regarding the way our club is being run and why there is such secrecy around who owns the club! "
.

[Boxman]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

Jeg mener du er naiv som innbiller deg at Bates kommer til å selge hvis vi kommer til PL...hvorfor skal han det?han har jo uttalt at han savnet å være i foppallens rampelys.Greit det, men han skal vel ikke selge for å sikre seg selv pensjon?det har han gjort for lenge siden....nei,klubben blir solgt eller overdratt til nye eiere lenge etter han har tatt kvelden fordi det må ordnes opp i en million med suspekte avtaler,selskaper,eierforhold osv....dette er flotte greier...

Du misser poenget. Hvis Leeds United rykker opp i PL, har eierne to valg. Selge, eller "komme ut av skapet". Get it? At Bates liksom skal holde klubben i CCC med vilje, for å slippe å offentliggjøre eierne, er en direkte latterlig påstand.

[h.b]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

Jeg mener du er naiv som innbiller deg at Bates kommer til å selge hvis vi kommer til PL...hvorfor skal han det?han har jo uttalt at han savnet å være i foppallens rampelys.Greit det, men han skal vel ikke selge for å sikre seg selv pensjon?det har han gjort for lenge siden....nei,klubben blir solgt eller overdratt til nye eiere lenge etter han har tatt kvelden fordi det må ordnes opp i en million med suspekte avtaler,selskaper,eierforhold osv....dette er flotte greier...

Du misser poenget. Hvis Leeds United rykker opp i PL, har eierne to valg. Selge, eller "komme ut av skapet". Get it? At Bates liksom skal holde klubben i CCC med vilje, for å slippe å offentliggjøre eierne, er en direkte latterlig påstand.

Dette ble vel hevdet da Blackwell styrte Leeds. Og hvis Bates og bakmennene har større økonomiske fordeler ved å være i CCC en i Premier League. Ja da er det inge problemer å ikke ville rykke opp til Premier League.
Bates har aldri vært og kommer aldri til å bli e fan av Leeds United. Han er fan av sin egen pegebok, og behandler denne med større omtenksomhet enn han vil gjøre med Leeds United

[jarle]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

Jeg mener du er naiv som innbiller deg at Bates kommer til å selge hvis vi kommer til PL...hvorfor skal han det?han har jo uttalt at han savnet å være i foppallens rampelys.Greit det, men han skal vel ikke selge for å sikre seg selv pensjon?det har han gjort for lenge siden....nei,klubben blir solgt eller overdratt til nye eiere lenge etter han har tatt kvelden fordi det må ordnes opp i en million med suspekte avtaler,selskaper,eierforhold osv....dette er flotte greier...

Du misser poenget. Hvis Leeds United rykker opp i PL, har eierne to valg. Selge, eller "komme ut av skapet". Get it? At Bates liksom skal holde klubben i CCC med vilje, for å slippe å offentliggjøre eierne, er en direkte latterlig påstand.

Dette ble vel hevdet da Blackwell styrte Leeds. Og hvis Bates og bakmennene har større økonomiske fordeler ved å være i CCC en i Premier League. Ja da er det inge problemer å ikke ville rykke opp til Premier League.
Bates har aldri vært og kommer aldri til å bli e fan av Leeds United. Han er fan av sin egen pegebok, og behandler denne med større omtenksomhet enn han vil gjøre med Leeds United

Desverre tyder ting på at du har rett h.b...

Skal bli spennende å se regnskapene... er det penger på bok som året før blir det vanskelig å forklare hvorfor TA ikke ble kjøpt tilbake....

[Boxman]

Selv om vi rykker opp til CCC . Ja da vil ikke Bates opp til Premier League. For det vil da innebære at Bates må legge eierne ut offentlig, og han vet da at bakmennene gjør alt for ikke å bli lagt merke til. Derfor er det mer penger å hente for Bates personlig ved å spille i CCC.
Bare det at vi setter vår tillit til en person som truet fansen med at hvis dere ikke gjør som jeg sier, ja da legger jeg ned klubben. Ja det forstår jeg ikke

Så du mener at Bates drar inn mer penger på å spille i CCC, enn på å selge en klubb som er klar for PL?
Beklager, men jeg har vanskelig for å tro at det går an å være så naiv....

Jeg mener du er naiv som innbiller deg at Bates kommer til å selge hvis vi kommer til PL...hvorfor skal han det?han har jo uttalt at han savnet å være i foppallens rampelys.Greit det, men han skal vel ikke selge for å sikre seg selv pensjon?det har han gjort for lenge siden....nei,klubben blir solgt eller overdratt til nye eiere lenge etter han har tatt kvelden fordi det må ordnes opp i en million med suspekte avtaler,selskaper,eierforhold osv....dette er flotte greier...

Du misser poenget. Hvis Leeds United rykker opp i PL, har eierne to valg. Selge, eller "komme ut av skapet". Get it? At Bates liksom skal holde klubben i CCC med vilje, for å slippe å offentliggjøre eierne, er en direkte latterlig påstand.

Dette ble vel hevdet da Blackwell styrte Leeds. Og hvis Bates og bakmennene har større økonomiske fordeler ved å være i CCC en i Premier League. Ja da er det inge problemer å ikke ville rykke opp til Premier League.
Bates har aldri vært og kommer aldri til å bli e fan av Leeds United. Han er fan av sin egen pegebok, og behandler denne med større omtenksomhet enn han vil gjøre med Leeds United

Kan du vise meg et regnestykke der det lønner seg å spille i CCC, i forhold til PL? Dette blir for dumt....

[auren]

Du må slutte å mate trollene Promo!! 

auren

[h.b]

Det er masse som sier at man kan i enkelte tilfeller tjene mer på å ikke tjene mer. Det skattemessige er en ting. For regelen er ganske enkel . Har man i England intekt som gjør at man tjener mye. Ja da spiller det ingen rolle at man er mindre enn de 90 dagene man har lov til å være i england. Ref Bates og straffeskatten.

Og hvis jeg ikke husker helt feil. ja da må Leeds ut med en masse millioner pund hvis Leeds rykker opp til Premier League innen 2012. Dette ifølge avtalen i administrasjonen

[asLeeds]

Trekløvern fekk seg vist litt gjødsel her.......