Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

philipl

Members
  • Posts

    31827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by philipl

  1. Prof McKenzie is stepping down as Chairman at the Leeds AGM on 23 December. Ostensibly it is to enable for him to try to bid for the club with a group of Chinese businessmen but the Guardian openly dismisses that theory. Neither Alan Leighton nor Prof McKenzie exited early enough not to get embroiled in the aftermath if Leeds go into administration on 18 January. If they are assembling consortiums of hard headed businessmen, they would both probably prefer to deal with an Administrator rather than whatever is left of the plc board. On a parallel track, Man City appear to be heading towards trouble. It will be interesting to see if they sell Anelka in January.
  2. The American bond holders, anyone else who has leant money to Leeds and anyone who is owed money by Leeds United as a result of a normal commercial contract (from selling them meat pies to supplying services as a centre forward) has a legal right to expect payment according to the letter of their contract. Leeds' problem is that they cannot pay all their financial obligationsas and when they fall due. The directors believe they can sell the club in such a way that all the third parties I listed above will get paid in full, albeit a little late. So they have negotiated an agreed pause in payments with several creditors and presumably have the backing of their lawyers that they would not be held to be trading illegally or unfairly discriminating against any individual or group of creditors. If Leeds has not been sold by 18 January and if the directors cannot convince the creditors to accept an further extended pause to payments, then any creditor would be within their right to apply for a winding up order which ordinarily would be granted by the Courts within a very few weeks of the application being made. The Americans could do this but so could the man selling the pies if the club owes him money. The fact that any creditor can do this (even the ones you think you have an agreement with), means that the directors would be highly likely to seek protection from the creditors. In the UK, that would mean applying for a creditor's voluntary liquidation if the asset and business situation is unlikely to yield a contiunuing flow of cash or appointment of an administrator by the creditors where there is a business capable of generating cash to meet the creditors' claims. In the case of football clubs, administration is usually the route (Accrington Stanley, Aldershot and Maidstone are the exceptions in England) because there is a continuing income stream from the turnstiles plus several thousands of season ticket holders would become singularly unpleasant unsecured creditors of the club folds mid-season. It is simply not in any of the creditors' interests to close the business down. That said, the administrator'ds job is solely to get the best deal for the creditors- fans and football only matter in so far as they can be used to pay the debts. The amount of power and influence of the creditors depends on the legal strength of their claim. The taxmen come first, then the employees, then the creditors with added security (the Americans have a legal claim over all assets and the next 25 years' gate receipts) and the man selling the pies and his like come last. Those creditors with claims over specific assets might apply to the Courts to seize those assets. It might be that the administrator will be faced by the mortgage companies which financed the acquisition of certain players applying to the Courts to take control over those players away from Leeds so they could sell their contracts seperately themselves if they believe they will get more value that way. Creditors can sue the administrator. So you can be sure that whilst negotiating hard with the Americans to try to get them to take a reduced deal for the good of all creditors, the administrator will in reality do nothing without the agreement of the Americans. They hold more than 50% of the debt, a fixed and floating lien and the first rights to the next 25 years' of ticket sales. Hope this helps.
  3. Leeds made an announcement to the Stock Exchange that they are in talks with possible purchasers yesterday. I would not read too much into this. The rules of all Stock Exchanges require member companies to disclose any possible merger or acquisition activity immediately. These rules are to prevent markets being distorted by different groups having access to different information and creating gains or losses accordingly. In most situations the directors get involved in shadow dancing with virtually nothing on paper or electronically in order to keep preliminary discussions secret at the most sensitive and potentially advantageous time. In Leeds' case with administration looming, the board will have rushed out the statement as quickly as they possibly could to try and engender an auction atmosphere. It is quite possible that they may have little more than an e-mail saying: "Dear Prof McKenzie, I am trying to put a consortium together to buy your beleaguered club, please can I have a copy of the sale memorandem and here is the signed confidentiality agreement." More significantly, Peter Wilkinson, the Leeds supporter worth a reported £400m who was seen as either a potential buyer on his own or a lynchpin in any supporters' led consortium has declared he has no interest in buying any stake in Leeds. As I have already speculated (and many others have now done so in writing), Leeds have probably seen the last of Alan Leighton so the number of serious bidders is.... er??? A note to Revidge, the American bond holders have secured a string of legal claims over Leeds current business and their gate revenue for 25 years to come. If Leeds go into administration, the job of the administrator is purely to get the best possible deal for the greditors in their rank order of seniority. It isn't going to be pretty but probably all the debts will get shaved but for the Americans, the opportunity exists for them to receive a delayed but reasonably secure payment from running the club with the cost base of a club with gates of 15,000 whilst knowing that actual gates in the Nationwide are probably going to average 25,000 over the next 25 years. That would generate them £6m a year (assuming £30 per ticket) which will repay £60m principle with interest over some 18 to 20 years. Finally, O'Leary might have some sort of agreement arising deferring his claim for £2m from Leeds. Or, Leeds have shown him the books and he has concluded they are so bad that there is no way he will get his money this side of administration and has gone for the kudos of being magnanimous in public at no cost to himself. If Leeds go into administration, he could be a ranking creditor as a former employee depending on how his contract was structured. Either way, it will be interesting to see which Leeds players end up at Villa Park in the January fire sale. Alan Smith to be playing alongside Vassell?
  4. Congratulations to Jason on this week's column. Well written, well balanced and agree 100%.
  5. We are now into a period of rumour, counter-rumour and perception managing. Trevor Birch has made a good start by suggesting four consortia are looking to bid whilst a story hit the papers yesterday suggesting that the American lenders would accept £25m to go away. The latter is moonshine and the former is highly suspect. The "bidders" The Leeds-mad sheikh rarely goes to Elland Road and has no money of his own so its unlikely his mates would strike anything than a very hard deal if they put their money in. You have to be sceptical. Alan Leighton has left it late to resign and generally has divulged very little about his rescue package. It seems he has now raised £4.5m- a drop in the bucket given Leeds apparently had to negotiate £5.8m to cover their cash requirements from 4 December to 18 January on a current operating basis. You have to be sceptical. The supporters consortium has appeared from nowhere, seems to consist of unknown names and has not raised a penny yet. You have to believe in voodoo magic to give this one any cxhance of success. Apparently a guy who made £400m out of freeserve is expected to bid. Again he also has been too quiet to be credible. Coming back to that £5.8m- that was apparently the money they had to raise simply to survive five weeks with the Christmas gates coming within this time frame as well! This suggests that Leeds cash absorption requirement is still £50m a year and with all gate money going to America, no wonder they are in the soup. The £5.8m was raised from four different places in what reads like a cowboy mix and match set of deals. Trevor Birch either works a miracle by 18 January or the administrators will step in. In the meantime, the people who provided the mortgage finance on the players must be readying to act if, as seems likely, the payments to them are not honoured. Perhaps one or more players will end up having his registration permit reviewed.
  6. ... and Leeds do not own their ground, their training facility or even, nowadays, a goldfish.
  7. Leeds have been given breathing space by the Americans until 18 January. Significant choice of date. It allows the existing board time to try to sell sufficient players and do deals with the player mortgagors and gives an administrator almost two weeks to sell off the first team squad before the window closes if the existing board fails. As for rescue packages, Leighton's consortium currently consists of him on his own and £2.2m- literally incredible for a man so well placed to step down from the board and not have all the funding ready. The contradictory messages coming out of Dubai probably mean that somebody has the dream of owning a Prem club but neither has the technical know-how nor the gritted determination to follow-through to make it happen. So, prof MacKenzie's comments on today's events has convinced 92er to anticipate a possible Leeds revival which I find a very untealistic proposition. My gut feel is that the Americans are backing themselves to come out on top of the spoils from an administration in which all other creditors receive a pittance and are also excluded from participation in any upside generated by a new owner of Leeds.
  8. When the terms of the loans and mortgages Leeds entered into became widely known, I would think any Leeds fan with half a brain (having forfeited the other half in being a Leeds fan in the first place) would want to top him or herself. A Leeds supporting billionaire would have surfaced by now and no self-respecting high net worth business-oriented individual would want to go anywhere near this mess. The American fund providers have secured a fixed and floating lien over all the club's assets and got some additional little bonuses in terms of first call on all revenue for the next 25 years just for good measure. If Leeds go into administration, it is tantamount to the existing management saying they can no longer cope and handing over the club to an accountant to manage the business solely in the interests of the creditors. If they do this, it does prevent the existing directors from being charged with illegal trading if they exit whilst creditors or Company House inspectors can see they avoided incurring any new liabilities with no realistic expectation of them being honoured as they fall due. The fact that interest payments have been waived for a month means that Leeds must be perilously close to this point and in any business other than a football club, would probably have gone beyond the point the Directors can legitimately remain in charge. I have no doubt that Alan Leighton is genuinely willing to put £2.2m into the club and that he is genuine when he says he wants the freedom to organise a buy-out from outside but your average cynical city person would neither say nor write what they really think about his resignation from the board to day. In any "arrangement" (administration, liquidation or receivership), the Crown takes precedence over disposal of assets for taxation bills outstanding. When the taxes are paid (usually a per centage discount is negotiated but the Crown will certainly play hardball in such public circumstances with so many highly paid employees and self-evident bad management to blame), the American funds will be left to call all the shots with the security terms they imposed over the club's current and future business. No sale or settlement by either the current directors or a replacement administrator can be achieved without their say-so. With the 25 year charge over all income from future ticket sales, that is a pretty hefty controlling interest which any potential purchaser from the administrator would need to negotiate with. It is quite possible that Leeds would not come out of administration for a very long time as no purchaser would want to carry that albatross and the Americans would be mad not to extract full value from the amazing deal Ridsdale gave them. Whilst in administration, the administrator would have a legal obligation to funnel the first (and currently all) spare cash back across the Atlantic. Lets face it, the mortgage holders over the players and all other creditors except the Americans are now in as sticky and hopeless a position as the Leeds fans and are likely to be negotiated away by the administrator to close to zero value. The problem the fans have is that they are too numerous and too loyal for the good of the football-future of the club under the likeliest scenario the American lenders are looking at. A very significant cash surplus could be generated by a club with the equivalent of Burnley's cost base footling away in Divs 1/2 with 25,000 average crowds (Sheff Weds are pulling 20,000+ going nowhere in Div 2). This is undoubtedly the safest way of ensuring the Americans get their investment cash plus interest returned over the next 25 years. After being suckered by Ridsdale's promise of perpetual Champions' League success, who could blame them for now selecting an option with no dependency on performance of the football team? Perhaps the administrator would attempt to argue duress or incompetence when the American deal was structured but I could not see a Court agreeing to setting aside the loan terms on such grounds. In short, Leeds are stuck. The other options of calling in a receiver or going for a voluntary liquidation have to be seriously considered from the standpoint of Company Law and the position of the Directors. Effectively, both these options close Leeds down (in the absence of any serious likelihood that the business as current constituted has no prospect of viability) and whilst a company less in the public eye can negotiate a phoenix with the liquidator doing a deal through a purchase agreement to buy the company back from the liquidator, I believe the Premiership would have no option but to cancel Leeds' registration in the event of a voluntary liquidation and certainly in the event of receivership (receivers are primarilly appointed to break the business up). I have no doubt that were Leeds a conventional business, it would either be in liquidation or receivership by now- it is clearly insolvent, has a massively negative balance sheet, and possesses virtually no unencumbered assets. The lawyers advising Leeds will only be allowing the directors to continue in business because there are significant intangible assets which might attract a buyer to pay significantly more than the balance sheet is worth. Membership of the Premiership is a very valuable right but not valued on the balance sheet because it is both transitory and cannot be accurately assessed from an accounting standpoint in the same way as the Leeds United brand image has a saleable value (but less than it should be because of publicity Pete fooling around with the badge) but is also excluded from the formal balance sheet. Even taking those benefits into consideration (and Premiership membership is a rapidly wasting asset when you are languishing in 20th position), the board meeting minutes will be enormously reliant on descriptions of negotiations with potential investors or purchasers to give the lawyers and directors the necessary fig leaves to cover their backsides and remain arguably within the law. However, as I have already pointed out, the American lenders have Leeds United by every part of the anatomy Vinnie Jones could reach. Nobody with Leeds affiliations has come forwards to rescue Leeds and I just cannot see any sane outside investor spending £60M+ to sort out Ridsdale's debt inheritance to buy a club with no assets and no prospect of avoiding relegation. This thing is so complex and expensive, I think it is highly unlikely a deal could be done before the January transfer window is closed. Irrespective of whether the club has directors or an administrator by the time the window opens, Leeds will be selling players again in January. The Americans have no interest in doing any deal to rescue Leeds' premiership position as they will have done their sums and can see their cash coming back from a Nationwide outfit. The same amount of money (£60m) would probably buy Doug Ellis out of Aston Villa, give the investor control over Villa Park and a sizeable chunk of better than OK Birmingham real estate which is owned by Villa AND leave spare cash to give O'Leary more of a transfer pot than Ellis allowed. Why buy into Leeds if you are an arab oil sheikh? Abramovich didn't even look at it when he went shopping. One final observation. I remember being very suspicious a number of years ago when the City whizz kid who helped set up the Ridsdale take over of Leeds walked out of Elland Road to take over Hull City. He was right!
  9. Just dashing out to a meeting so will answer later but the replies which follow are good ones.
  10. I don't see a serious risk of Leeds doing an Accy Stanley- too many fans ands too big a brand. However, things are right at the edge for the PLC to put out a statement effectively blackmailing their creditors and threatening shareholders with an absolute loss. My guess is that the creditors have concluded that their money will probably be safer with an administrator than Prof McKenzie and his bungling over Kewell. The Prem relaxed the rule about automatic deduction of points for a club going into administration but it will still go before their disciplinary body if Leeds do hand over control of the business. Leeds are in very deep trouble.
  11. To say that England are favourites to beat Australia on their own turf to win a World Cup, I am completely under-whelmed by the vwhole thing. Have to say I have found this RU World Cup very sterile and a huge amount of the sterility has come from the man mountains in white. Football (soccer) remains thoroughly democratic. Any ordinary looking person with the requisite skill can play it. You don't have to be a physical freak to reach the top unlike rugby, american football, basketball etc etc
  12. I notice that Paul Sturrock's Plymouth have been losing consistently since someone started linking their manager with the Rovers' job.
  13. That ever so reliable web site Tribal Football are reporting that the Rovers board are monitoring the availability of Mark hughes in case Souey does not turn things round by Christmas. They are also saying that in order to meet the £5m asking price for sean Davies, Everton will offload Radzinsky to Rovers for £3m. I'm only the messenger...
  14. rover6, you are becoming tiresome. By the same logic you are advocating, ManU should have dumped Ferguson in 91/2 and presumably Bobby Robson should have gone from Newcastle in mid-September when they were out of the Champs League, in a relegation spot and that bunch of scoundrels he collected up there were spending as much time in Police Stations as on the training ground? It is not inconceivable that Souness could be dismissed deservedly. But now is not the time to be debating the point. Souness and the club deserve our total support to cheer them through this rough patch. PS Roversactive, Sunderland fell one short of equalling Darwen's record run of consequetive defeats. Rovers are twelve defeats short of equalling that record! Even if we do, equal that record, there would still be 15 games left and 45 points to play for this season.
  15. rover6, I have read most of your posts with incredulity but now you are talking complete and utter cobblers. Souness is flawed. He is no tactical genius and his man management skills are neanderthal but he has mellowed a bit. He also had a phenomenal record at Rangers, is worshipped in Turkey and achieved a miraculous recovery for the Rovers. Compared with Hoddle, Souness is a model of new age enlightenment. Hoddle is a walking disaster, a complete mess of complexes and finds it impossible to contemplate that he could in any way be wrong. Thankfully, there is no way Hoddle will ever be coming to Ewood. Hoddle may show more tactical awareness, sometimes, but he is totally out of his depth as a Manager.
  16. Let us assume Souness does get dismissed from Ewood. Does anyone think he will be unemployed for long? Given the number of ex-Rangers and Galatasaray players we have seen at Ewood, where do you think he will do his shopping for his new employers? And, Grabbi apart, is he going to pay over-inflated prices? For all the reputation Souness carries with him, do you think many of our players would ignore him if he came calling from another club?
  17. Today's game is rather important. We didn't play badly against Charlton- we just weren't very smart against them and Souey certainly wasn't "cute" about how he handled it. Didn't see the Glencer game at Ewood but by all accounts it was a decent performance and unreflective result. So here comes the crunch. A bad performance, a convincing defeat, bottom three position and yes we have a full-on crisis. Another OKish performance, no win, and we are still where we are now. Another OK performance, Saints don't improve on recent form, miss their only chance in the game (unlike Charlton) and we get a scrappy win. Lo and behold, we will not be that far behind 4th place! My best guess is that we will lose the next three then slowly turn things round. Souness has achieved remarkable things at Ewood but I agree with Jan, he would not neccessarily be my choice as a dinner guest. That doesn't matter compared with what he has done so far. However, if he is unable to maintain the Rovers' Prem place, he will be vulnerable if come early next year there is time to save the situation and Souey seems bereft of ideas.
  18. Rev, sorry you have lost your column. Thought it was always well written and interesting and that you always got the better of the dingle. Sadly, much of what you posted on here this summer and the comments you made on local radio were total ******* or something similar. The new guy has made a very inauspicious start and I would be delighted to see you back at the typewriter (I assume no ENG at t'Telegraph. :'> )
  19. From the absence of feed back, I take it you guys had a great night last night
  20. Tarka, recommend any good books about Peru?
  21. It has been the Maltese General Election and the victorious PN used "The Final Countdown" as their campaign theme (remember the Rovers using that song the season we won the Championship?). The whole island has gone mad- claxons, flags, convoys of wagons carrying PN supporters and impromptu gigs everywhere. Practically every five minutes I think I'm back at Ewood watching the Rovers run onto the pitch again!
  22. If we are talking punk, what about Gordon is a Moron and Sharron and Me from Jilted John?
  23. All this Celtic working out of C beat V who beat L who beat R nonsense reminds me of how Burnley supporters used to justify how they were a bigger club than the Rovers. Thankfully 1 April 2001 put an end to all that and hopefully 14 November 2002 will silence the Celtic wannabes as well. Incidentally, Pete1888, ever noticed how teams which score seven hit a barren run afterwards? Its happened to the Rovers every time after we tonked an English Premier League side for seven. (There you are, given you an excuse already-I am very kind)
  24. After two results where reality was better than we could have dreamt of (shades of 94/5?), here is a game which we can and should win. Just a matter of the Rovers wanting it as much as the Bhoys.
  25. Not having Duff at Celtic Park is a huge blow- they are terrified of him and I´m sure the noise of the crowd would have changed once Duffer had a decent run at their defence up at Parkhead. Having said that we can now play Dunn, Flitcroft, Tugay and Thompson which should give us control of midfield possession and begin to quieten the crowd. The crunch will come in defence where we need Short to have one of his massive games and play Larsson out of it. More defending like we have at times in the Prem this season and Celtic will put three past us in no time. However, whilst we are playing Arsenal at Highbury, Celtic are at East End Park against the team lying third in the SPL (yes, the might of Dunfermline Athletic). When Celtic this week-end strolled 4-1 past a Hearts side that would struggle in English div 1, we beat a team which (unlike Celtic) have qualified for the group stages of the Champions League 5-2; an equally large margin. That difference in opposition class week in week out gives the Rovers a huge advantage. Just as players such as Curtis and Clement and half the Man City side look world beaters in Div 1 and are found wanting at Premiership level, so Celtic have a number of significant weaknesses which the SPL does not expose but a half-decent Prem outfit will relentlessly find. I´m going for a 2-0 win for the Rovers at Parkhead and Souey out-psyching O´Neill.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.