Wise move!

[Mooro]

God does this game stink!!!

So we now have KPMG complicit in Bates screwing everyone over Leeds and circumstances making it pretty clear that for all the protestations from West Ham there are still third parties involved in the Tevez deal.

Yet come August 11th, the Hammers will still be in the premier league &amp Bates will still be in charge at Leeds, Evans &amp Raynor will still be in the Conference, and the blazers at the FA and PL will still be stuffed with the same clueless, gutless idiots.

The only difference will be that once or twice a week we might actually get to watch 22 men kicking a ball around a field for a couple of hours, to distract us from the stench

[GodalmingYellow]

It looks like Bates is going to get away with his improved offer of an unconditional 8p in the £.

In fairness to the administrators, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Football League said unless Leeds pay their creditors in full, or get an unconditional cva agreement, then the Football League would not recognise transfer of the Football League share to the new owners, thus preventing Leeds from playing next season. So the club had to be sold in order to be able to play next season.

On one side the Revenue were saying not enough money from Bates and his money is conditional, so they will challenge the cva, which Leeds United did not have cash to defend. No cva means no play next season, which would almost certainly have meant the end of Leeds United.

On the other side, as Bates holds a the majority of shares and more than 75% of the creditors balance he was able to put two fingers up to the Revenue and force the creditors (simply by voting for himself to buy the club at the rock bottom price) to accept 8p in the £ unconditional. It hasn't been revealed if Bates offer has been increased again, but I suspect it is simply a case of removal of the conditionality which has resulted in the sale back to him. Bates stated that if his deal was not accepted by the administrators, he would challenge the decision, which again Leeds could not defend.

Whether this will still be challenged by the Revenue or indeed one of the other bidders, is unclear.

Its a bag of shite to be honest. This case isn't like most other cva cases where there is normally only a single existing majority shareholder making an offer to creditors (as happened with OUFC). In this case there were more offers of more money than Bates was (apparently) offering, so creditors lose out just down to Bates' greed, which he will profit from a second time in the future no doubt by selling Leeds for a debt free high price.

In my view there is a strong argument for forcing football cva's to go to the highest bidder to validate the Football League share.

[recordmeister]

I remember the drive back from York at the end of the season, with the Leeds fans calling 6-0-6 on Five Live to talk about their problems. Many of them were basically saying &quotThis is as bad as it gets, with the relegation.&quot and I remember thinking &quotNo it isn't. I remember us in the top division and now we are non-league. There is still an awful long way you can fall, and it get's worse.&quot Of course, Five Live wouldn't read out a text from an Oxford supporter pointing this out...!

Any way it looks like things have got worse for them with Uncle Ken still in charge. Godness knows where that club will end up now. It's anyone's guess...

Still. It doesn't get worse than Division One, does it...!??!

[GodalmingYellow]

The Tevez saga reeks as well as Mooro points out.

I would hope that if Tevez ends up playing for ManUre or indeed any other club than West Ham next season, unless West Ham recieve the transfer fee, that West Ham get relegated and Sheffield United get a reprieve.

We know the suits won't have the balls though.

[Resurrection Ox]

It looks like Bates is going to get away with his improved offer of an unconditional 8p in the £.

In fairness to the administrators, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Football League said unless Leeds pay their creditors in full, or get an unconditional cva agreement, then the Football League would not recognise transfer of the Football League share to the new owners, thus preventing Leeds from playing next season. So the club had to be sold in order to be able to play next season.

On one side the Revenue were saying not enough money from Bates and his money is conditional, so they will challenge the cva, which Leeds United did not have cash to defend. No cva means no play next season, which would almost certainly have meant the end of Leeds United.

On the other side, as Bates holds a the majority of shares and more than 75% of the creditors balance he was able to put two fingers up to the Revenue and force the creditors (simply by voting for himself to buy the club at the rock bottom price) to accept 8p in the £ unconditional. It hasn't been revealed if Bates offer has been increased again, but I suspect it is simply a case of removal of the conditionality which has resulted in the sale back to him. Bates stated that if his deal was not accepted by the administrators, he would challenge the decision, which again Leeds could not defend.

Whether this will still be challenged by the Revenue or indeed one of the other bidders, is unclear.

Its a bag of shite to be honest. This case isn't like most other cva cases where there is normally only a single existing majority shareholder making an offer to creditors (as happened with OUFC). In this case there were more offers of more money than Bates was (apparently) offering, so creditors lose out just down to Bates' greed, which he will profit from a second time in the future no doubt by selling Leeds for a debt free high price.

In my view there is a strong argument for forcing football cva's to go to the highest bidder to validate the Football League share.

It is not a bag of shite. It is the Insolvency Act. It's the law. He has more than 75% of the votes on his side. You can't change the law unilaterally. Simply because it is 'Ogre' Bates. There are plenty worse club owners than Ken Bates around anyway

.

[Resurrection Ox]

The Tevez saga reeks as well as Mooro points out.

I would hope that if Tevez ends up playing for ManUre or indeed any other club than West Ham next season, unless West Ham recieve the transfer fee, that West Ham get relegated and Sheffield United get a reprieve.

We know the suits won't have the balls though.

Yes this does reek. Fact is West Ham are considered to be a better commercial 'bet' than Sheff United by the Prem.

[Mooro]

It IS still a bag of shite - as the administrators do not appear to be able (or want) to hold an open, honest and transparent sale of the club with all bidders on an equal footing.

Whether they are in cahoots with Bates, or running scared of his threats of court action (and the costs to either them or the club) they are not able to act independently.
Any owner who uses a threat of a court action which a club cannot afford to secure the purchase of that club cannot in my book be deemed to be fit and proper person to run that very same club in its best interests, particularly as he was the person who was already in control when they sank into the position in which the administration became necessary.

If he was running it well enough for it not to need administration, then he would be in a position to be able to choose whether to sell it to other bidders or not, but, given that adminsitration was felt necessary, that right to choose should no longer be his and, I would have thought, then rest with the administrators. If after a fair and transparent bidding process, they decide his new company is the best offer, then so be it, but given that at no stage has anything been fair, open or honourable then in my view this still stinks!

##

We can never know for sure of course, but the question still remains as to whether Sheff Utd, Wigan or even Fulham had been the club under investigation and had survived at the expense of West Ham, what decisions would have been made, but it is very difficult to believe that the final outcome would not have been somewhat different.

The only way that the Hammers ought to be able to get out of this hole without being, er, Hammered, is for Kia Whats-his-face to write off the millions he feels he is owed from any sale and let it go to the club. Given that they are probably not his favourite people right now after letting someone else buy them, I somehow think that will not happen.

Incidentally, where did the fee for Mascherano go - Kia or West Ham?

What a mess - all that is left is for Manchester City's new owner to get locked up and the money he used to buy it proven 'ill-gotten' and their assets frozen.

[Hog]

Yes, it's all good publicity for the Premiersh t isn't it?

[Resurrection Ox]

It IS still a bag of shite - as the administrators do not appear to be able (or want) to hold an open, honest and transparent sale of the club with all bidders on an equal footing.

Whether they are in cahoots with Bates, or running scared of his threats of court action (and the costs to either them or the club) they are not able to act independently.
Any owner who uses a threat of a court action which a club cannot afford to secure the purchase of that club cannot in my book be deemed to be fit and proper person to run that very same club in its best interests, particularly as he was the person who was already in control when they sank into the position in which the administration became necessary.

If he was running it well enough for it not to need administration, then he would be in a position to be able to choose whether to sell it to other bidders or not, but, given that adminsitration was felt necessary, that right to choose should no longer be his and, I would have thought, then rest with the administrators. If after a fair and transparent bidding process, they decide his new company is the best offer, then so be it, but given that at no stage has anything been fair, open or honourable then in my view this still stinks!

##

We can never know for sure of course, but the question still remains as to whether Sheff Utd, Wigan or even Fulham had been the club under investigation and had survived at the expense of West Ham, what decisions would have been made, but it is very difficult to believe that the final outcome would not have been somewhat different.

The only way that the Hammers ought to be able to get out of this hole without being, er, Hammered, is for Kia Whats-his-face to write off the millions he feels he is owed from any sale and let it go to the club. Given that they are probably not his favourite people right now after letting someone else buy them, I somehow think that will not happen.

Incidentally, where did the fee for Mascherano go - Kia or West Ham?

What a mess - all that is left is for Manchester City's new owner to get locked up and the money he used to buy it proven 'ill-gotten' and their assets frozen.

That's not the point. Bates has 75% of the share action and that counts as far as the law is concerned. Bates used his power to block a sale. It is legal. It is not bent , It is not 'a bag of shite'.

As for Tevez and Mascherano fiasco well that is somewhat different. The whole incident screams of money talking and morals walking. Who's the best 'bet' Happy Hammers - gawd bless 'em - or boring Yorkies? We know the answer now.

[Kernow Yellow]

Bates used his power to block a sale. It is legal. It is not bent , It is not 'a bag of shite'.

It may well be legal, but it seems to me (as a complete layman in such matters) to be hugely wrong that Bates can act as both controlling debtor and controlling creditor in this deal, and thereby force the hand of everybody concerned.

It appears to be in Bates' best interests, rather than those of the club, the Revenue or anyone else, and that's got to be 'a bag of shite' for football fans (and taxpayers) everywhere, surely?

As for your assertion that there are worse club owners than Bates, that's damning him with pretty faint praise. He's bad for the game, and we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders at his nasty, bully-boy tactics.

[GodalmingYellow]

It looks like Bates is going to get away with his improved offer of an unconditional 8p in the £.

In fairness to the administrators, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Football League said unless Leeds pay their creditors in full, or get an unconditional cva agreement, then the Football League would not recognise transfer of the Football League share to the new owners, thus preventing Leeds from playing next season. So the club had to be sold in order to be able to play next season.

On one side the Revenue were saying not enough money from Bates and his money is conditional, so they will challenge the cva, which Leeds United did not have cash to defend. No cva means no play next season, which would almost certainly have meant the end of Leeds United.

On the other side, as Bates holds a the majority of shares and more than 75% of the creditors balance he was able to put two fingers up to the Revenue and force the creditors (simply by voting for himself to buy the club at the rock bottom price) to accept 8p in the £ unconditional. It hasn't been revealed if Bates offer has been increased again, but I suspect it is simply a case of removal of the conditionality which has resulted in the sale back to him. Bates stated that if his deal was not accepted by the administrators, he would challenge the decision, which again Leeds could not defend.

Whether this will still be challenged by the Revenue or indeed one of the other bidders, is unclear.

Its a bag of shite to be honest. This case isn't like most other cva cases where there is normally only a single existing majority shareholder making an offer to creditors (as happened with OUFC). In this case there were more offers of more money than Bates was (apparently) offering, so creditors lose out just down to Bates' greed, which he will profit from a second time in the future no doubt by selling Leeds for a debt free high price.

In my view there is a strong argument for forcing football cva's to go to the highest bidder to validate the Football League share.

It is not a bag of shite. It is the Insolvency Act. It's the law. He has more than 75% of the votes on his side. You can't change the law unilaterally. Simply because it is 'Ogre' Bates. There are plenty worse club owners than Ken Bates around anyway

.

It IS a bag of shite. It is abuse of the law, rather than use of the law.

As you will know well, it is the job of the administrators to obtain the best price for the creditors. The are beng prevented from doing that by the abuse by one man who seeks to make personal gain at the expense of the other creditors, including taxes that the same man has refused to pay, meaning you and I will pay instead.

It may be just about legal, but it ain't moral by a very long way, and it is not what the insolvency act was created for. Therefore, it is a very large bag of very smelly shite.

[Resurrection Ox]

It looks like Bates is going to get away with his improved offer of an unconditional 8p in the £.

In fairness to the administrators, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Football League said unless Leeds pay their creditors in full, or get an unconditional cva agreement, then the Football League would not recognise transfer of the Football League share to the new owners, thus preventing Leeds from playing next season. So the club had to be sold in order to be able to play next season.

On one side the Revenue were saying not enough money from Bates and his money is conditional, so they will challenge the cva, which Leeds United did not have cash to defend. No cva means no play next season, which would almost certainly have meant the end of Leeds United.

On the other side, as Bates holds a the majority of shares and more than 75% of the creditors balance he was able to put two fingers up to the Revenue and force the creditors (simply by voting for himself to buy the club at the rock bottom price) to accept 8p in the £ unconditional. It hasn't been revealed if Bates offer has been increased again, but I suspect it is simply a case of removal of the conditionality which has resulted in the sale back to him. Bates stated that if his deal was not accepted by the administrators, he would challenge the decision, which again Leeds could not defend.

Whether this will still be challenged by the Revenue or indeed one of the other bidders, is unclear.

Its a bag of shite to be honest. This case isn't like most other cva cases where there is normally only a single existing majority shareholder making an offer to creditors (as happened with OUFC). In this case there were more offers of more money than Bates was (apparently) offering, so creditors lose out just down to Bates' greed, which he will profit from a second time in the future no doubt by selling Leeds for a debt free high price.

In my view there is a strong argument for forcing football cva's to go to the highest bidder to validate the Football League share.

It is not a bag of shite. It is the Insolvency Act. It's the law. He has more than 75% of the votes on his side. You can't change the law unilaterally. Simply because it is 'Ogre' Bates. There are plenty worse club owners than Ken Bates around anyway

.

It IS a bag of shite. It is abuse of the law, rather than use of the law.

As you will know well, it is the job of the administrators to obtain the best price for the creditors. The are beng prevented from doing that by the abuse by one man who seeks to make personal gain at the expense of the other creditors, including taxes that the same man has refused to pay, meaning you and I will pay instead.

It may be just about legal, but it ain't moral by a very long way, and it is not what the insolvency act was created for. Therefore, it is a very large bag of very smelly shite.

You can't break the law just to get the best price for creditors though. As you will know well also.

75% || of the shareholders || creditors are controlled by Bates. 75% || is whats needed to usually swing things through in company law. And in insolvency legislation. There is no section in the insolvency act covering what happens when the world at large does not like a 75% || owner/creditor simply because he has a white beard, is a tax exile and has a prickly, sometimes offensive public manner. Rules is rules.

Tevez story is far far more concerning. West Ham should have been docked points earlier in the season. The delay in reaching a conclusion was appalling. A smaller club would have walked the plank. A very unhappy event for the Premiership.

[GodalmingYellow]

[quote=&quotResurrection Ox&quot][/quote]

[GodalmingYellow]

You can't break the law just to get the best price for creditors though. As you will know well also.

75% || of the shareholders || creditors are controlled by Bates. 75% || is whats needed to usually swing things through in company law. And in insolvency legislation. There is no section in the insolvency act covering what happens when the world at large does not like a 75% || owner/creditor simply because he has a white beard, is a tax exile and has a prickly, sometimes offensive public manner. Rules is rules.

Tevez story is far far more concerning. West Ham should have been docked points earlier in the season. The delay in reaching a conclusion was appalling. A smaller club would have walked the plank. A very unhappy event for the Premiership.

That misses the point. The rules were written on the basis that shareholders will inevitably vote for the best deal available. The rules were not written so that one shareholder can ride roughshod over the others for personal gain, at everyone else's expense. Bates is abusing the law.

It is legal to do many things, but not necessarily good to do so. It is legal for a dodgy builder to quote and charge an old aged pensioner an astonomical amount to fix a dripping gutter, but that doesn't make it fair or reasonable or morally good.

This argument is not because it is Bates, though that might in itself be enough as in my view he represents the arse end of society. It is because Bates is making personal gain preventing other creditors getting the best deal available for all, just so he personally can make a killing.

Can't disagree on the Tevez affair, except it is nowhere near as important as the Bates scandal.

[Resurrection Ox]

You can't break the law just to get the best price for creditors though. As you will know well also.

75% || of the shareholders || creditors are controlled by Bates. 75% || is whats needed to usually swing things through in company law. And in insolvency legislation. There is no section in the insolvency act covering what happens when the world at large does not like a 75% || owner/creditor simply because he has a white beard, is a tax exile and has a prickly, sometimes offensive public manner. Rules is rules.

Tevez story is far far more concerning. West Ham should have been docked points earlier in the season. The delay in reaching a conclusion was appalling. A smaller club would have walked the plank. A very unhappy event for the Premiership.

That misses the point. The rules were written on the basis that shareholders will inevitably vote for the best deal available. The rules were not written so that one shareholder can ride roughshod over the others for personal gain, at everyone else's expense. Bates is abusing the law.

It is legal to do many things, but not necessarily good to do so. It is legal for a dodgy builder to quote and charge an old aged pensioner an astonomical amount to fix a dripping gutter, but that doesn't make it fair or reasonable or morally good.

This argument is not because it is Bates, though that might in itself be enough as in my view he represents the arse end of society. It is because Bates is making personal gain preventing other creditors getting the best deal available for all, just so he personally can make a killing.

Can't disagree on the Tevez affair, except it is nowhere near as important as the Bates scandal.

No. Tevez story is far more important. Prem has been grossly negligent at best. At worst they have been corrupt.

Bates is not being corrupt. He is applying the law. Your comparison with the dodgy plumber overcharging is plain wrong. How has Bates been guilty of 'overcharging'? He controls the insolvency and company law process re Leeds United. He is applying his rights. That's all.

Bates is not a nice bloke by all accounts but describing him as the arse end of society is a bit rich.

For better examples of that look at the old Donny chairman who burned the ground down for the insurance, Brian Hillier, who defrauded HMRC with his pal Macari by paying the players cash in hand or say Keith Haslam who has seemingly used Mansfield Town's cash flow as his own personal bank account.