And so say all of us. Everyone should print that out and post it to the odious old get.
Sent from my iPhone On 3 Jan 2012, at 20:23, "Rick Duniec" <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.thescratchingshed.com/2012/01/kens-tight-ship-sadly-sailing-towards-iceberg/ > > So it's January again, and as in July the Ken Bates pre-packed clichés are > already flowing. We won't `break the bank' in the transfer market, or risk > the clubs financial stability now we can spend some money on players. > > We'll also hear about those clubs who foolishly spent money in the summer on > players, not performing as well as we are (Leicester, Notts Forest etc) > conversely we'll also hear how our players need to buck their ideas up, > perform better and get us promoted - or else, ditto the incumbent manager. > > Finally as certain key players reach the end of the current contracts we'll > hear how unreasonable they are in their demands - asking for pay rises, > add-ons contracts for more than 2 years, and so it's gone for the past three > seasons with Bates. > > Core to all of this is that Bates is running a tight ship, on sound business > principles, and that while we as `morons' simply want him to spend some of > his multi-million pound fortune, he will not be swayed - I forgot he may also > mention something repulsive about intercourse or foreplay at this point, to > really repel anyone still interested in the detail of what hes saying.. > apologies, just threw up a bit. > > So it's blame the manager, blame the players - even blame the fans, but never > blame Ken Bates or Shaun Harvey for us being in the second division, the > business model's rock solid, we must never criticise it.. is it? Let's break > it down. Firstly why the model is strong > > Positives & Potential > > 1. A loyal and numerous client and customer base > > On average over 20,000 fans turning up to any home game - even in Division > Three - and prepared to pay Premier League ticket prices to watch the likes > of Yeovil, Brighton & Walsall. > > 2. A worldwide historic brand > > A fan base which the likes of West Brom, Fulham and Bolton would kill for, > and achievements in living memory like winning the last first division title > and the oft discussed champions league semi. > > Sky can sell ours and probably only West Hams games around the world in the > Championship. Movies are made about Leeds United and best selling books sold. > > 3. A profitable business for the past 3 years (into the millions) > > A rarity in football, full stop. And this a business which was in > administration no more than 4 years ago (but see points 1 &2) > > 4. A manager who can find decent players for low fees and sell for much more > > Part of the above, we have very little in the debit column when it comes to > fees or salaries as a proportion of our revenue (as per the football league). > Our manager and our scouts do seem to be able to find them (Gradel, Somma, > Beckford) - and like Arsenal - sell them well, (generally). Since relegation > note a few of our key 'outs' - Gradel (£2M), Schmeicel (£1M), Delph (£6M), > Lennon (£4M), Milner (£5M). > > 5. A strong production line of home-grown talent > > How much do we think the likes of Howson, Lees, White would go for? More > recently look at the likes of Garbutt, Kebbie, Taiwo, Woods - who were > coveted even before an appearance was made in a white shirt. Much of our > potential financially comes from this; moreover many of our match winning > players are home-grown. We seem to excel here, with not enough investment it > seems. > > 6. Large potential catchment area > > As per point one, in League One, and Championship regular attendances over > 20k, are in stark contrast to over 30-35,000 while in the top flight. Leeds > were big then, and they could be again. Its often trotted out that we're a > one club city (apologies to Farsley Celtic). > > 7. Readymade facilities for purchase at below market price > > The club could buy back Elland Road and Thorp Arch for under £30M. The > facilities are already purpose built for the training and development of > soccer players, and for the playing of football (no one said good football.) > > 8. Support of Local Council > > The council, even in these rarefied times offered to loan Bates & Harvey, a > loan to buy the ground (despite us having turned a profit for the last 3 > years) because they see it as critical to the success of the city that the > club has that security. > > But for the intractable issue of who exactly FSF were Leeds would have > secured that loan. Any property developer will tell you such support is like > Rocking Horse Poo from a city council, moreover that it is vital if you have > ideas about building casinos, hotels, shopping centres and erm. a football > team maybe Ken? > > So just like Craig David. (I could think of no other), Leeds are 'Born to do > it' - so why aren't we? Well here's the rub - his name's Ken Bates, and his > business model stinks like Boxing Day Stilton left next to the oven overnight. > > Key blockers and disadvantages (or Ken as we know him) > > 1. Minimal investment in core business > > Why do people (including the non-moronic businessmen) turn up to LS11 every > other Saturday? To watch football, at best they used to get their business > contacts down to see the best football in Europe - and it followed that the > better the offering - the more investors you got, the more tv money you got, > and the more profits you made. > > So you need to win games right? To get out of the dead zone Leeds occupy? To > be the best you can? How do you do that? - You get the best players you can > afford. Here's where it breaks. Despite receiving transfer fees, generally up > front (according to Bates & Harvey) Gradel £2M, Schmeicel £1M, slashing the > wages of Johnson, Kilkenny, Beckford in the last 2 years from the wage bill, > Did we go for the best players available? Did we even replace the ones we > sold? No we didn't, and we won't. > > A club of Leeds' financial stature should compete with a Leicester, a > Southampton, even a Barnsley, but we simply won't spend transfer fees to give > us a competitive edge. Ken's right, the fees are exorbitant, and perhaps > banks won't lend 'speculatively' but we do have cash in the bank, and a > turnover to support a promotion campaign - which should be after all what we > need to do to get to the next level? Were i involved in credit and lending > decisions, and I do have some professional expertise in this area, i wouldn't > call Leeds a bad bet at all. > > Nothing wrong with bargain hunting, but man cannot live by the bargain bin > alone, the odd bit of quality needs recruiting. > > 2. Major investment into peripheral areas > > So we dont have the money to do that eh? Well what about the £7m of > investment in corporate boxes. We morons love to roll that one out, and Ken > doesn't think we understand that even though hes got a lease, that most > business property is on a long lease and alterations and investments on > leased property is often worthwhile if it enhances your business profile and > profit margins. It pays for itself right? > > However whilst we dont have top flight football it's immaterial. The > differentials between Premier League and Championship corporate revenues are > staggering. It begs the question - has Ken got his priorities wrong? > > It's often insinuated he owns the ground already - who knows? > > But even if he did this investment is the wrong way round - why build a > fantastic theatre, but then fail to arrange any shows? Or to extend that > further, why then arrange shows with anything other than the worst hams, > luvvies, and burn outs on the stage? Ken has taken his eye off the prize. Why > not; if property is so important buy it outright now? £7m would be sufficient > for a deposit (over 20% of the total purchase price) and mortgage the ground > for 30 years? Then spend your money; the whole thing looks a mess. > > 3. Lack of clarity to customers as to direction of business- > > We're a successful profitable business, yet we dont spend money on transfer > fees for players, we dont compete with the best - even in our current league, > and we dont hold on to our best players and tie them to decent contracts. > > So are we profitable or not? What is this dreadful `foreplay' in which we're > engaging and what is the desired long term outcome? > > We just dont know - and it smacks of total disrespect to the fans (who are > the clubs major financial backers) It also speaks volumes to the business > community. Our ownership structure remains opaque at best, and exactly where > do the transfer fees, the inflated ticket prices, sponsorship money, tv cash > etc go? Where and how does it get spent? > > 4. Visible dislike of key client/customer base > > How can we forget being called 'morons?' It ranks with Ratners faux pas about > selling 'crap' - you just dont slag off your loyal customers, some of them > may even be investors. Ken Bates comes across as a malodorous, repulsive > despot, of the worst kind. A misanthrope, who wants to bleed the club dry > with little regard for the fans. Many fans have begun to vote with their > feet, he just doesn't seem to care, or want to change his ways - there are no > olive branches offered, and no `plan B' to get us promoted. > > 5. Failure to attract serious investors and business partners > > No Matthew Harding, certainly no Roman Abramovich, apparently no one wants to > invest in this climate. erm. apart from Marcus Liebherr at Southampton less > than 12 months ago, the Thai backers of Leicester City, Hull's backers > (whoever they are? Birds Eye I suppose?) These all of course in the > Championship, let's not forget the major investment into Man City, Paris St > Germain, Liverpool. Football clubs that are profitable, that have a large > fanbase are the plum ones to buy - mysteriously apart from us. > > Wonder why that is? Would you lend Ken £10? I wouldn't. Would you buy a used > car from him? So why might you give him £70M lets say, to buy a football > club, the phrase `magic beans' would be running through your mind as an > investor as you handed the unkindly old gent that cash - would you own the > club? The ground, the players contracts? > > Credibility is everything in business and Ken exudes a disingenuous and > antagonistic air, he is a dreadful ambassador for the club. Litigious, > cantankerous and out of touch. Just ask fans of Aston Villa about Doug Ellis, > they felt then as we do now - like no one will ever buy their team while hes > around. Ken Bates is the man who demanded to see 'proof of funds' from Roman > Abramovich - bjesus. Who called the recently deceased Matthew Harding 'evil' > - really? > > 6. Open criticism of internal management and staff from the top > > In what business is it acceptable to openly slate individual members of your > staff and management? Ken Bates has opinions about individual players and > their efforts. McCartney, Kilkenny, Johnson, Beckford have all felt the rough > edge of his tongue, and with the exception of Kilkenny have all gone on to > play for successful teams, generally at a higher level. Sour Grapes doesn't > do it justice. Moreover Ken slags off his manager's capability. > > Whether this is reverse psychology, garnering support from the fans, or just > that hes a grumpy old man is moot. You just don't wash your dirty laundry in > public - not in any business. And you don't demotivate your employees. But > hey if customers are fair game - what do you expect? > > A parting thought > > Perhaps this is extremely biased, well it is, and it's only one fans opinion. > > Is Ken Bates totally to blame for where we are? Well not entirely of course - > we're not a very good team, so that limits our chances of promotion. But he's > the man with the plan - as it were. And that plan seems totally devoid of > creativity, belief or credibility. > > When we look at that underperforming team, and at the bench for hope at 2-0 > down - remember we can only deploy the resources we are afforded by the > chairman - we don't have access to the full profits we make, or the leverage > of our reputation, and notions of where we ought to be as a team. That is > something the businessman in charge is paid handsomely to achieve. > > If the club really were in such a bad state - would he really have stuck > around as long as he has? > > Written by Matthew Brown-Bolton > > © 2012, The Scratching Shed. All rights reserved. > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
