Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Travel2airport

Leeds United: Thorp Arch was deal too far

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 October 2009
Leeds United have restated their claim that they were unable to independently finance the repurchase of Thorp Arch, citing the cost involved in running the League One club.
In an interview with the Yorkshire Evening Post, chairman Ken Bates moved to address concern among supporters over why United's income in recent months and years was insufficient to secure ownership of the club's training ground near Wetherby.

An exclusive buy-back option negotiated by Leeds when they sold Thorp Arch to private owners in 2004 – a deal completed in an effort to fight rising debts at Elland Road – expired on October 15 after a plan for Leeds City Council to acquire the site and lease it back to United collapsed in the final hours before the deadline.

Bates said the club considered the council's plan a "done deal" and criticised the local authority for setting at late notice 13 conditions which Leeds claimed they were unable to answer before the deadline and would have left the club facing a £5.8million buy-back bill without a guarantee that the council would provide the necessary funding.

The failed deal, however, raised questions about United's inability to fund the repurchase cost themselves. The club posted a £4.5million profit in the financial year leading up to June 2008 – including an operating profit of more than £900,000 – and sold Fabian Delph to Aston Villa in August for a fee which was widely reported to be in the region of £6million.

United confirmed that the undisclosed fee for Delph was being paid to them in instalments and said further income – generated by the likes of tribunals involving a number of United's former academy players – were being used to meet running costs and other expenses including managerial appointments and sackings.

Among the liabilities listed by Bates were:

An annual wage bill in excess of £6million, described by him as "on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs".

A yearly rental bill of around £2million for Elland Road and Thorp Arch, on top of £600,000 paid in rates and utility costs for the two properties.

Pay-outs which are currently being made to former manager Gary McAllister and former assistant manager Steve Staunton, both of whom had their contracts terminated in December of last year

Compensation owed to Blackpool Football Club after Leeds appointed Simon Grayson as their new manager 10 months ago.

Investment of more than £500,000 in securing planning permission from Leeds City Council to redevelop the East Stand at Elland Road.

Bates said: "This is an expensive football club to run and we didn't have the money (to conclude the Thorp Arch deal without the council's help).

"The wage bill is on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs.

"We've had to pay money to McAllister and Staunton and to pay for bringing in Grayson. We've also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that's completed, it's something the club will benefit from for years to come. Buying Thorp Arch with our own money wasn't an option because we didn't have the money to do it. A lot of clubs are in trouble at the moment but we're run sensibly.

"Our objective at the moment is to get promoted from League One and we're well on the way to doing that. Leeds United is run efficiently and properly. Never again will this club be put in a position where it does not live within its means. It's in safe hands."

Pressed on the subject of Delph's transfer fee, a portion of which is being paid to the midfielder's former club Bradford City, chief executive Shaun Harvey said: "You don't receive 100 per cent of the fee up front.

"People see a headline figure of £6million but that's not what we actually receive straight away. Bradford got their share and still have some to come."

Bates revealed that Leeds would shortly be required to pay an appearance-related sum to Barnet as part of the deal which brought Tresor Kandol to Leeds from Underhill in 2007, and he also said that the club were budgeting for additional bonus payments which would be due to players signed on loan in the event that the club are promoted from League One this season.

The profit of £4.5million recorded during the financial year leading up to June 2008 arrived around the same time as Leeds incurred heavy costs through their fight against a 15-point penalty, imposed on them by the Football League following the club's exit from administration. Bates confirmed that the bill for that fight ran to seven figures.

United's chairman said the accumulation of these costs explained why the club were unable to raise the £5.8million needed to buy back Thorp Arch from Barnaway Ltd, the company which holds the freehold on the training ground and currently rents it to Leeds for around £500,000 a year.

He insisted that every one of the council's conditions would have been met by the club had the local authority not raised them on the last day before the October 15 deadline.

Bates expressed his disappointment with the council's failure to conclude the sale, saying: "As far as we were concerned, it was a done deal.

"The conditions raised by the council at the last minute were all capable of being resolved if it had given us enough time to do so but we couldn't commit to a deal without the guarantee that the council would come up with the money 28 days later (the point at which the sale would have been officially completed). We didn't have the money to afford it."

Leeds no longer have the exclusive right to purchase Thorp Arch, though the club's lease agreement runs for 20 years and they could still attempt to negotiate a private sale with Barnaway Ltd at a future date.

In response, the council's joint leader, councillor Andrew Carter, told the YEP: "The timescale for this wasn't set by us and we did our best to meet it.

"Both parties worked in good faith to achieve a deal and, when it fell through, we seemed to agree that everyone had done their best to make it happen. But the conditions we stipulated existed all along."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 October 2009 10:43 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Leeds
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Patrick K,

Tinshill 31/10/2009 14:53:52
So now the YEP are an official mouthpiece for the board, along with the WACCOE website

It's nice that the paper gives him the opportunity to justify his running of the club, but where's the investigative journalism into the ownership, the fact we're charged the 9th highest season ticket prices in England and the mysterious Astor debt?

2

Liam1234,

Leeds 01/11/2009 10:12:12
When calculating the clubs income and expenses, I notice Ken Bates and the YEP has included all expenses, but not all of the clubs income.

What about income from gate receipts, sponsorship, advertising etc... This income alone would surely pay for the running of the club, so to say that money from player sales is running the club is a joke.

20,000 fans x 23 games, x £35 per ticket = £16,100,000

That is only home league games. Obviously there is tax to pay etc, but it is clear to see that LUFC generates more than enough income to run the club at a decent profit, without having to sell any players.

It is easy for anybody to see that there is a lot of money coming in to LUFC, but where it goes after it comes in, who knows?!
3

Liam1234,

Leeds 01/11/2009 10:14:48
My ticket prices were on the high side, but there are also food sales, programme sales, drink sales.

The list goes on.....

But also the fans average was on the low side.

Just an example which shows LUFC has more than enough cash, but the fans are being fobbed off with excuses as always.
4

Stephen_A,

London 01/11/2009 10:38:56
Liam1234 makes a very sensible point... yes LUFC does have lots of outgoings, commensurate with its size as a business, but the fact is that the incomings [£25m in 2007/08 according to the published accounts] are greater than the outgoings.

It's incomprehensible that Leeds couldn't, at the very least, obtain a loan to buy TA back, with the Delph installments useful both as a sizeable downpayment & future repayments.

It's very hard to avoid the nagging suspicion that whoever made the decision not to buy back TA has morethan a passing interest in the future cash flows of Barnaway as well as LUFC.
5

Liam1234,

Leeds 02/11/2009 10:04:23
Also, it has been widely reported that Thorp Arch is worth I think it was £15m at current market values.

It does not make any sense at all that the council would not buy the ground for the £5m buy back fee, even if they LUFC defaulted in any way, it would have made more sense to buy a £15m asset for £5m.

Although, I do not blame the council as LUFC should have approached them months, if not a year ago, to get the ball rolling on buying back Thorp Arch.

There are still far too many secrets and excuses at ER for me.
6

Kieron Maclean,

La La Land 02/11/2009 12:14:44
Considering we didn't NEED to sell Delph would it have not been prudent to ask Villa for £5m upfront? It shouldn't really be beyond the comprehension of a savvy businessman, should it. It's not like TA buyback popped up all of a sudden.
Since admin we are profitable, all one off payments should have been piling up.
In - Chelsea 2 money. Milner sell on. Wise compensation. Poyet compensation. Man City kids money. Delph transfer fee. Garbutt money from Everton.
Out - Mcallister pay off. Compensation to Blackpool for Grayson. Bromby 250k?
And there's nothing in the piggy bank, despite operating at a profit?
Courts costs - 15 points and Levi. Money well spent.

7

Liam1234,

Leeds 02/11/2009 16:36:04
If leeds didn't need to sell delph they surely would have waited for a week or two for the bigger offer that was in the pipeline from Man City.

Man City stated they would have paid more than Villa, but they were waiting for confirmation from their money men.

Also if Man City had of bought Delph, it would presumably been for cash up front, £8m was the figured touted around and that is just peanuts to what they actually spent over the summer.

All the talk of good conduct and professionalism between villa and leeds was a load of rubbish in my opinion, leeds had been marketing Delph for some time and the first firm offer that came in, Leeds bit Villa's hands off.

There must be something pretty big going on behind the scenes at ER, or at least I hope there is.

Everything seems to be focused on developing ER and the surrounding area, but leeds do not even own ER, so I cannot see any point in that.

Also building hotels etc around ER is just a waste of time in my opinion, it is too far away from the city centre to get used enough, and if no investment is made in the team first, there won't be any corporate use of the facilities anyway, which is where the main source of income would be generated.

Spend the cash on the team, get them promoted, get back to the Premier League.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.