Ken Bates was attempting to "end the speculation" and settle what he derided as 
"scaremongering" over Leeds United's anonymous offshore ownership by announcing 
todaythat he has finally bought the club himself. Characteristically of this 
saga, in which the proud Yorkshire club have been owned by unnamed 
beneficiaries of trusts in tax havens since Bates arrived as chairman in 2005, 
he said he had bought Leeds from those anonymous owners "for an undisclosed 
sum", via a company, Outro Ltd, registered in a tax haven – Nevis, in the West 
Indies.

Leeds said in an officialclub statement that the "change in ownership 
structure" was meant to settle the issue, the lack of transparency over who 
owns Leeds, in which the Premier League and the football inquiry by the 
culture, media and sport select committee has recently taken a keen interest. 
Yet many more questions are prompted by this move than Leeds are answering.

Will Leeds supporters, the wider football public and the parliamentary select 
committee ever be told who those owners were? Why, after buying Leeds back 
after administration in 2007, seeing the club up from League One and to the 
brink of the playoffs for Premier League promotion, did those owners decide to 
sell now? Leeds's statement said the reason was to satisfy the Premier League 
whose chief executive, Richard Scudamore, told the select committee inquiry 
last month that if Leeds were promoted he would seek more details about the 
owners than the Football League had required.

"The Football League have chosen not to apply the rule as robustly as we think 
we will be applying it," Scudamore said.

That, though, seems a strange reason for the offshore owners to sell. Their 
investment would have been worth a fortune, at last, if Leeds did win 
promotion, so why would they not have happily furnished Scudamore with any 
information he wanted?

And when they decided to sell, whatever their reasoning, why to Bates? Leeds is 
widely regarded as one of the last remaining good prospects as a football club 
to buy – in a one-club city, with a huge support which has stayed solidly 
loyal, paying eye-watering ticket prices in League One and the Championship. As 
Bates and the chief executive, Shaun Harvey, have proudly said, the club's 
financial position is healthy as the £35m debt was wiped out when Bates and his 
fellow directors put Leeds into administration.

So did the investors, having waited through the rebuilding from League One 
under Simon Grayson's inspirational management, market the club far and wide, 
to Gulf state sheikhs and US sports-franchise owners, but find Ken Bates, with 
his offshore company, the one person offering the best deal?

Bates told the high court, in a libel action brought against him by the former 
Leeds director Melvyn Levi in 2009, which Bates lost, that he had never put 
money into Leeds. Bates said he did not have cash; his wealth is mostly tied up 
in assets. So is this a good deal for Leeds fans who might think, with a bit of 
investment, their club could be in the Premier League?

Yet of all these questions, the most curious episode in the Leeds United 
ownership saga remains the way Leeds emerged from administration. In that 
financial wreckage one offshore company, Astor Investment Holdings, was owed 
£17.6m after the two years in which the club was owned by the Forward Sports 
Fund, a company registered in the Cayman Islands, and run by Bates. There were 
four competing bids to buy the club, one of which was Forward, which wanted to 
install Bates as the chairman again.

The administrator, Richard Fleming of KPMG, said Bates, his solicitor Mark 
Taylor and Harvey had stated there was no connection between Bates or Forward 
and Astor. Yet Astor said it would write off millions of pounds if Forward was 
allowed to have the club back with Bates as the chairman. If a competing bid 
for Leeds was accepted, Astor would add its £17.6m to the debts for repayment.

When that issue came up in the libel trial the judge, Sir Charles Gray, told 
Bates he was "exceedingly puzzled" about why Astor would "kiss goodbye" to so 
much money, if it had no connection to Bates and Forward.

Bates replied that he could only "presume" Astor wrote off its £17.6m because 
"there would be the option for business in the future", if he and Forward 
remained in control. Presumably the company believed it would not have the 
opportunity to lend more money to Leeds if anybody else took over.

In the two years since, Astor never did lend money to Leeds United again. When 
Bates wanted the club to buy back their Thorp Arch training ground he sought a 
loan from Leeds city council, which ultimately was not agreed.

Some chinks of disclosure in the ownership of Leeds have emerged in a court 
action Bates himself brought in Jersey against a company, Admatch, he claims 
owed the club money. First it was revealed that Astor had actually owned 
Forward originally, then Taylor said that connection had been "severed" in late 
2006, before the Leeds directors put the club into administration.

Bates's solicitor then told the court that he and his long-term Guernsey-based 
financial adviser, Patrick Murrin, owned Forward Sports Fund, being the sole 
owners of two "management shares". Subsequently, however, Bates told the court 
in a sworn affidavit that was not correct, he had made "an error", and in fact 
did not have a management share. Instead Murrin and Peter Boatman, "a 
representative of a Geneva-based fiduciaire [financial administrator]", owned 
the management shares, on behalf of investors.

"This information has only just come to light," Bates told the court. In that 
affidavit, he said that although he was authorised to manage Leeds, "Neither I, 
Mark Taylor or Shaun Harvey are able to confirm who the ultimate beneficial 
owners of Forward are."

Now, apparently, nobody will ever know, and Leeds believe they have put a lid 
on all the questioning. Those never-named beneficial owners, who had no 
connection to Bates, for whom Astor wrote off millions so it and Bates could 
remain charge, have now sold to Bates "for an undisclosed sum". Why it did, why 
now, why to Bates, and how much he paid, nobody is to be told.

Yet Leeds are confident neither the Football League nor Premier League rules 
require any more information to be given.

"This change in ownership structure … delivers the transparency sought," said 
Leeds United, now owned by the 79-year-old Monaco-based Ken Bates, via Nevis, 
in the West Indies.

Michael
_______________________________________________
Leedslist mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
To unsubscribe, email [email protected]

MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)

Reply via email to