white.riot wrote:
You need to challenge anyone who tells you to pipe down. That's totally out of order. The mods should deal with that.
By the way, balancing the books is a success. I know folk like you discount it [claim we have no facts], but folk like me prize it far higher than signing a big name player. Investing in ground redevelopment is also a success. Again I realise that folk like you want to buy players whose value deteriorates over time but I take a different view. Other than that, being inspired by someone who claims to have made the ultimate sacrifice - not going to games/investing in the club - is laughable to me. We're all different but when times are hard some of us feel the ultimate sacrifice is turning up, investing in the club and supporting the team. You prefer to kill the club in an attempt to unseat Bates and replace him with a void - so be it.
As for the treatment you've been given - as far as I can see most folk said welcome and 99% of posters probably agree with you in one way or another. Personally I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think if you love Leeds and have the money/time etc should get along to games. There are posters on here and throughout the world who would love to have the money/time/geography to attend games.Obviously none of them are 'proper' Leeds fans.
We have a club. We balance the books [debt is crippling Championship clubs]. We have an income generating East Stand development. We are not in The Prem - oh dear, this is the mighty LUFC, don't you know, we shouldn't be slumming it with clubs who have more honours than us. The balance is in favour of Bates and would tilt even further his way if fans didn't spend their time working on the divide.
But the East Stand ISNT GENERATING INCOME. Or if it is I'd be shocked. £7 million spent on it, is there £7 million worth of business in there? All it's got is executive boxes, which aren't getting sold, supposedly conferencing facilities, which will be bringing in similar to the pavilion at best on the basis that they are similar facilities to the pavilion - those numbers look pathetic. The rest of the facilities are just extras to squeeze a little more out of the fans who bother to use it, which isn't many. It's cost £7 million and I'd be surprised if it turned over much more than £1.5 million, before operating costs. In the unlikely event it's making a profit, I'd be surprised if it was more than a couple hundred thousand - so it will take 35 years before it actually makes up for the cost of building it, and once that's done that's enough for what? Another £4k a week on a wage? Enough to buy an up and coming youngster? That's barely enough to make any difference to our chances in the Championship, let alone the Premier League.
If it is speculation, at least I've tried to evaluate the potential gains of it. All you've done is said "property = good". There's absolutely no basis for what you've said. You just assume that redeveloping a stand that doesn't need redeveloping is good because the value of buildings doesn't depreciate and players do. Ok then, might as well stop bothering with the football players, lets just build buildings. Lets just all pile into a stadium and support ken bates as he stands there reading out his plans for another new development. Supporting football is old, lets all support a property developer!
For your argument to have any grounds, there has to, and I mean HAS to, be income projections. You have to prove me wrong. None of this "the onus of proof is on you" crap, I've already challenged the validity of it by pointing out these developments are into low margin industries that are struggling due to a recession. I've already challenged the validity by pointing out that snazzy new conferencing facilities do not bring in £7 million business a year, let alone profit. I've already challenged the validity that fancy new executive boxes at a failing football club are USELESS if nobody wants to watch the football.
The casino is a brilliant idea. That's a licence to print money. If they can pull it off that will be brilliant. But spending £7 million on developing the only stand that doesn't need it, adding something that's not getting used and it could have been PREDICTED it wouldn't get used, attempting to start up in a low margin industry that's struggling, where is the good business sense in all that?
That is a simple question. Explain to my simple, mere mortal human brain where the good business sense is in
these particular developments. Don't insult my ability to not comprehend it if you're not willing to provide reason why doing so is going to bring in profits.
Also, those assets are still worth nothing. The value of Elland Road to anybody but Leeds United is the value of the land it is on, as it is a specific purpose building. They are worth even less because Leeds United
does not own them. So yes, brilliant increasing the value of our assets, by spending millions on a building we don't own that's worth nothing to anybody except us. But property is a license to print money isn't it!
And balancing the books is piss easy if you just write off all the debt through loopholes and shady deals like he does - you cannot argue that he has made his fortune from insolvent businesses. Did you know he made a couple of million by paying off a debt Chelsea owed to RBS using another loan from RBS for the same value under a different organisation? RBS agreed to a deal that meant they would be paid in full if bates was allowed first dibs on all the assets of Chelsea Football and Athletics Club. He then formed another business called Chelsea Football Club, transferred all the assets, took out another loan, transferred the loan to CFAC and used it to pay off the debt to RBS. RBS gained nothing from the deal, bates got control of all assets left over at CFAC and pocketed the money. Good businessman and massive con artist out to screw over businesses if it benefits his own wallet? I'll let you decide. You'll probably say "but property is a better investment for a football club than football players".
He also stripped all of the costs down. Then money started going missing. £2 million on ground rental, £11.6 million on player wages, £4.9 million on non-player wages (alarming amount for none playing staff don't you think), where's the other £15 million gone? Policing, insurance, stock and etc does not cost £15 million a year. Where's all that going? Brilliant balancing of the books isn't it.
And yes, we discount it, because you've ignored these extremely concerning matters. "He balanced the books" means absolutely f**k ALL when you don't provide context. It's you dismissing questions and information. I've looked at it 1000 ways and still cannot figure out why nothing adds up. I've looked at the property developments 1000 ways and still cannot see the massive benefit you're harping on about. The pavilion made an operating loss. WITHOUT ANY STAFF. All the staff were paid for by Leeds United. It brought in £1.1 million, made an operating loss, and all without any staff. What a f**king MASSIVE SUCCESS. If that's a success then I'm going to s**t on a piece of paper and call it a degree. If I call it a degree enough then I can pass it off as a success, right?
As for the treatment I've been given, I've responded to 99% of fans with respect and taking what they've said on board. It's only you who's gone "oh dear, another person who wants bates out because he doesn't like him", then condescended to me with hollow arguments. Everybody else has acknowledged the points I've made and appreciated that I seem to have put the thought into it. All you've done is said "you're wrong calm down" before repeating everything you said before, then told me I have to prove you wrong when I ask you to give backing.
An argument with some facts as backing is better than one with NO FACTS. Yours has no facts, just speculation. The assumption that property = money.
Then again, you actually think it's ok for bates to condition fans to think with a small club mentality. Lowering expectations so we're not disappointed when it goes wrong. That's what you want to do. Except we're more disappointed. At least if we have a big club mentality, we can say we tried every season if we fail. Instead, nope, we're having people try and brainwash our fans that a club the size of Leeds United (regardless of honours, big fish in a little pond barely covers it - the turnover charts that put us at the top by a couple of million AHEAD of clubs on parachute payments - that speaks for itself) is right at home in the middle of the Championship. Even worse, that we've got to come up with alternative methods to even have an outside shot at competing, spouting extremely twisted information that doesn't even cover it. "Clubs have parachute payments and sugar daddies" - this would be fair enough if all clubs in the Championship started on a level playing field - but guess what? They didn't. Even after that they have to step to us on money available. Only difference is they spend theirs on football. And yes, I mean clubs who aren't spending beyond their means. Clubs like Burnley. These are the kind of clubs on parachute payments that are in extremely good financial health. And guess what? Last I checked they spent about £8 million more on wages than we did. "oh but look where they are blah blah blah" - they tried. They. Are. Trying. Leicester City. Are. Trying. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but not spending GUARANTEES FAILURE. That's like saying "look at that tosser he bought a lottery ticket with money he could afford and he didn't win the lottery, what a waste of money even though he could afford it", ignoring the other guy who bought a ticket and won, and conveniently overlooking the fact that he has absolutely 0 chance of winning, because he DIDN'T BUY A TICKET.
Maximising success is always, 110%, no questions asked, always definitely, unquestionably, a better investment in football than property development. If the first priority is not football, then success in football will NEVER HAPPEN.
I'm so glad you're not a businessman, you'd be terrible at it.
