Monkey Tennis Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The test will come if/when they become a middling top flight team. Their fans love mismatches. If Rangers become genuinely competitive, as opposed to dominant at a particular level, then we'll see how crowds hold up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 No crowds are up because we are playing football and the change of boards has also helped rocky. Correlation does not imply causation -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Fraud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 But they were never LIQUIDATED then?Correct, they are also still paying their debts (unlike Rangers) and they also came out of Administration (unlike Rangers)....Creditors owed money when Leeds United went into administration in 2007 have received payouts totalling nearly £600,000. United’s former administrator, accountancy firm KPMG, today confirmed the dividend of 4p-in-the-pound had been paid to unsecured creditors. The cash has come from funds generated by the sale of Leeds after they went into administration. If all of the 231 verified claims by unsecured creditors were settled in full, the amount paid out would be just over £18.5m. But KPMG say that, under the terms of the deal that rescued United from administration, the 4p-in-the-pound dividend is all the unsecured creditors are currently entitled to. A one-off additional payment of £4.75m will be split among creditors if Leeds win promotion to the Premiership before the start of the 2017-18 season. United’s unsecured creditors included traders and other firms and have been dealt with separately to ‘football’ creditors such as players. Leeds were bought out of administration by an offshore firm called Forward Sports Fund (FSF). United chairman Ken Bates purchased the club from FSF in April last year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Correct, they are also still paying their debts (unlike Rangers) and they also came out of Administration (unlike Rangers).... Creditors owed money when Leeds United went into administration in 2007 have received payouts totalling nearly £600,000. United’s former administrator, accountancy firm KPMG, today confirmed the dividend of 4p-in-the-pound had been paid to unsecured creditors. The cash has come from funds generated by the sale of Leeds after they went into administration. If all of the 231 verified claims by unsecured creditors were settled in full, the amount paid out would be just over £18.5m. But KPMG say that, under the terms of the deal that rescued United from administration, the 4p-in-the-pound dividend is all the unsecured creditors are currently entitled to. A one-off additional payment of £4.75m will be split among creditors if Leeds win promotion to the Premiership before the start of the 2017-18 season. United’s unsecured creditors included traders and other firms and have been dealt with separately to ‘football’ creditors such as players. Leeds were bought out of administration by an offshore firm called Forward Sports Fund (FSF). United chairman Ken Bates purchased the club from FSF in April last year. http://www.bdo.co.uk/services/business-restructuring/rfc-2012-plc-formerly-the-rangers-football-club-plc-in-liquidation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Again, why are we discussing Leeds and if it's so easy to provide all this "evidence" Why can't the same about Bill Miller, I mean Charlie Green buying the assists and transferring them to a new company. I will ask 1 question though, did any Leeds players refuse to TUPE over? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 There was no deal to rescue them from administration .... The CVA failed...the oldco founded 95 years ago is no more, proved by companies house. The CVA failed on the 6th of July 2007 KPMG invited offers for the sale of the assets on the 6th of July. 6 offers were received by the 9th of July, a deadline set by KPMG. KPMG considered 4 of these offers on the evening of the 10th of July. KPMG accepted the offer from Leeds United Football club Limited 2007, a company formed in 2007 which now holds the FA membership. Confirmed by this statement from KPMG The oldco exited administration by liquidation in February 2008 Even the English FA issued a statement where they referred to the oldco as the 'old club' however now recognise the newco as the same club with all the history attached. Many on this have already discuss and accepted these events, it was discussed at Length by HibeeJibee. and then of course we have our dear Monkey spelling out his ultimate fear.............. Aye, well done, Pelucía. Now, when you were happily digging back three and a half years in this thread - longer than either the the rangers or indeed your P&B life have existed - in order to find something which, although you appear to think backs up your thinking but clearly doesn't, perhaps you could enlighten us as to: 1. The statement you've printed, apparently from KPMG, says the CVA was accepted when offered by LUFCL. Not, as I'm sure you noticed, LUFC2007L. As an acolyte of the Govan Strollers, I'm sure you're aware of how confusing all these similar names can be. Surely you're not lobbing another hand-grenade into your own foxhole, now, are you? 2. Is that the "proof" you claim to have from KPMG? Seriously? 3. You did pick up on the fact that in Leeds' case, the business and assets were bought? Oh, and in reference to the point I made about having someone smart on board, it's clear your mob did. Shame it was Charlie... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 In the end the FA agreed to the transfer without the CVA, just like the Scottish FA transferred our membership without a CVA............both clubs were protected by the establishment, poor Monkey was right in his fears, its obvious he is still depressed about it. I usually am right Ted - you'll have noticed that I'd imagine. I do think it's unfair that complete continuity is recognised by football authorities. It seems to allow for suicidal behaviour by clubs. As you know though, I've never been one to insist on Rangers being entirely new either. What we have in the cases of both Leeds and Rangers is a sort of botched re-birth, giving us something kinda new and kinda old. I'm proud of the fact however that in Rangers case, at least we were able to require what emerged, to do so in our bottom tier. For me, continuity was always of secondary importance to title stripping. It'll probably be pleasing for you or something, but I am still sore that the club was allowed to cling on to trophies won with players registered not just wrongly, but deliberately deceptively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I usually am right Ted - you'll have noticed that I'd imagine.I do think it's unfair that complete continuity is recognised by football authorities. It seems to allow for suicidal behaviour by clubs. As you know though, I've never been one to insist on Rangers being entirely new either.What we have in the cases of both Leeds and Rangers is a sort of botched re-birth, giving us something kinda new and kinda old. I'm proud of the fact however that in Rangers case, at least we were able to require what emerged, to do so in our bottom tier.For me, continuity was always of secondary importance to title stripping. It'll probably be pleasing for you or something, but I am still sore that the club was allowed to cling on to trophies won with players registered not just wrongly, but deliberately deceptively. That sounds a bit like 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Good It is. Best you can do? Desperate stuff Ted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The statement does not say anything about the CVA being accepted norman........just wanted to save you from falling further into this particular hole. The Statement does however confirm that the resale of the assets was unconditional on the fact that at this point there was no guarantee that the FA membership would be transferred without a CVA. In the end the FA agreed to the transfer without the CVA, just like the Scottish FA transferred our membership without a CVA............both clubs were protected by the establishment, poor Monkey was right in his fears, its obvious he is still depressed about it. Oh, Five Stars... The speed you're digging, falling into your hole could be fatal. Have you sussed the difference between "the business and assets" and "the assets of the business" yet? You could always ask a Leeds fan or two - although you appear to be far more clued up on their club's affairs than either of the ones you've follow followed. I can safely say that coming at the Leeds situation at seven or eight years remove will be well beyond someone whose knowledge of his own club (of the time) didn't even encompass the significance of their shirt adornments. But hey, as another poster pointed out - you carry on trying to prove equivalence with the situation of another club, operating under a different FA's rules, under different circumstances, under different legislation... Maybe if you were to show some equivalence with the likes of Gretna.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Was there TUPE at Leeds? Just asking.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Deid as a Dodo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlei Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Deid as a Dodo ^^^ This thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 ^^^ This thread Not quite....Tedi's just about to give me details of the Leeds TUPE..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Was the transfer of Leeds assets subject to a serious criminal investigation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Digging WKR? FFS you could not even read a small paragraph of text properly 'The statement you've printed, apparently from KPMG, says the CVA was accepted when offered by LUFCL.' no it doesnt Gretna? desperate stuff norman, I understand why you are desperate to move on from Leeds, after all you and a fair few others already admitted that Leeds pulled it off and that same path was open to Rangers, hilariously when they took that exact same path you can no longer accept it, the best you can come up with is that somehow it is perfectly OK for the English FA to accommodate it but not ok for the Scottish FA to do likewise. Dear oh dear oh dear. I've made a wee boo-boo. Sale, not CVA. The statement clearly says that the offer from LUFCL was accepted. Maybe if you tried reading the whole statement, rather than cherry-picking the bit you think backs up your argument (imagine Tedi using this tactic, eh?) you might start to understand why you and any other fool who tries to equate Leeds' situation with the Govan clusterfúck gets ridiculed. If you had the balls to paste the whole statement, you'd see that the reason the CVA didn't go through was down to HMRC objecting to the "football creditors" ruling which, as far as I know, is unique to English clubs. That the deal did not, in the end, come to fruition does not negate the fact that it was initially accepted. Nor does it alter the fact that, in Leeds' case, the deal was for "the business and its assets", or, as described by all concerned, "the club". If you wish to equate Leeds with the the rangers, you're rubber ducked, as the equivalent entity for you is currently on the slab. The mob you're currently throwing your cash at bought their belongings in a rigged deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Was the transfer of Leeds assets subject to a serious criminal investigation? Nope, because Uncle Ken is, while an amoral cúnt, pretty fucking fly. The kind of crook Charlie and Craigy Boy can only dream of becoming.* *Allegedly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Oh Dear WKR..... 'The club' ........ what you and fellow flat earthers say is not possible to separate from the incorporated body? The think you refer to as the 'the club' was the company formed 95 years ago, the thing that currently shows a status of liquidation, you will then of course be able to explain why it was possible to separate club and company after a CVA failure in the case of Leeds and not Rangers then? Remember these facts from both situations. The assets were sold after the CVA failed not before. and perhaps while you go around calling people who equates the two situations as fools, then you have a wee look back on this thread and realise that it was not Rangers fans who first identified and equated them. HibeeJibee was the 1st and he was far from being alone, even you admitted that Bates had pulled it off and that a 'smart' person could follow suit. Look I fully understand that someone with your deep seated twisted prejudices would struggle to admit that the Rangers situation was far from unique, perhaps it would be easier (and less embarrassing for you) if you just said 'naw because its Rangers' "The business and the assets", pelucía. Not a phrase I've seen used in connection with your beloved club. Why don't you put up the whole statement? You've seen it, I've seen it. We both know why you're reluctant to post the entire document. (Apart from you having very little idea of goings on Elland Road before, during, or after Birdseye's shenanigans) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Ah so you accept that Leeds is a continuation because KPMG (the administrators) said 'The business and the assets' then? is that what you are saying, just want to be clear here.You tell me, pelucía. After all, you're the expert here. I'll give you a clue. Your attempts to put words in my mouth notwithstanding, the issue here is not what I believe. Rather, it is your flailing attempt to find equivalency where there is none. If you want to waste some more of your time, try finding reference to Green buying "The business and it's assets". I feel it only fair to tell you this may be a wild goose chase. Edited October 10, 2015 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.