Oh no, here we go again.....

WUP will have been the result of lengthy/numerous requests for payment that weren't satisfied.

There is no mention of the validity of the claim which I therefore assume to be valid. Why not just pay the damn thing and focus on settling boardroom differences and addressing our perilous form.

Not to worry, chaps, many posters here assured us all that Ken Bates would pay his own legal bills and settlements related to this case.

We can now return to regular programming.

"Why not just pay the damn thing " maybe it's to do with principles and the fact that issuing this to the press is illegal practice..............Melvin Levi............when did that name last crop up and who owned LUFC at the time

Highland Cellino tried same thing with sport capital Wup. It got our bank account frozen, players wages not paid, transfer embargo and we had to pay additional legal costs.

So, some people just blow off the fact that Bates caused this debt thanks to his festering gob. Chose not to pay it. Rather, opting to shackle the debt to the club (with Harvey's knowledge and agreement). And also now blow off the fact that GFH chose not to pay the debt. Yet, after all that, those same people vilify MC for the WUP?



Bates is the problem here. Get a grip.

Batty, you are right in your final assessment.

But this new item generates some questions:

1) Did GFH know about this Leeds United debt?
2) If not, how did the auditors sign off on the accounts once this judgement came down?
3) If yes and the accounts included this liability, what possible reason could Leeds United, now under MS, have for not paying it?

Regardless of who racked up the debt, if it was included in the accounts and/or disclosed, the buyer of the business now has the obligation.

Case closed, I'm afraid, not the answer that most would like.

Exactly Jonny, exactly.

How you doin Jonny.

Thing is, there are those against Cellino, who continue to say that LUFC and MC are not one and the same. They make that distinction vehemently. And yet, here's a debt created by Bates' gob, but, now the responsibility
of LUFC. An LUFC debt that has sat through Bates' and GFH's tenures. Now, with the WUP, those same people are screaming (paraphrasing here) "Pay it Cellino, you crook." Surely, it's still LUFC's debt to pay. The same LUFC that people keep telling me isn't MC's.

Clearly, the debt should've been paid. It wasn't. Why should MC now pay it out of his pocket? It needs to come out of LUFC's coffers, right? What if MC has demanded that GFH help settle this debt, as a % owner of the club, but, as with everything else, they won't? Does MC provide LUFC with a loan from him
to pay the debt? Does he then get slated for 'loaning' the club the money to pay of it's (LUFC) debt?

That's what bothers me on this. Bates' gob created the debt. LUFC is saddled with repayment. MC is called out as the villain.

I hear you Batty, but at the end of yesterday, today and tomorrow, MC is the majority owner and primary decision make of LUFC.

He now has the responsibility for all things Leeds United.

The failure of LUFC to address current issues has to be answered by MC.

Evening Batty - just as a point, it is irrelevant whether you are pro, anti, or fence-sitting on Cellino, he and LUFC not one and the same.

As JLA says, this is a debt of the club, Cellino is the decision-maker at the club and therefore he is the one that has to decide whether to pay this or not. Who was the cause of the debt is now immaterial, the duty of payment rests with the club. Cellino makes those decisions.

If the club doesn't have £150K and needs to raise extra capital to pay it Cellino may have well asked GFH to chip in their 25% worth and they may well be refusing (highly speculative, but it may be what is happening). But if we're a championship club with pretensions of aiming for the Premier League and we don't have £150K in the coffers, we're in a far worse state that has been let on. No extra capital should need to be raised, it should simply be a question of deciding to pay or not.

And I don't see where Jonty is saying Cellino is the villain, merely that in a previous case he tried to delay payment which resulted in a negative outcome for the club, and let's hope that doesn't happen again. I understand that Jonty-bashing is a popular sport on these boards, but I think that perhaps, because it's Jonty, you're seeing things that aren't necessarily there.

Nothing in the June 2012 accounts specifically related to this debt - so probably included in the other creditors (£614k) amount. Considering this debt is due to a legal judgement, one would have expected some statement in the notes.

Wonder if this is an item that Cellino's forensic accountants have identified as a "disputed" transaction (i.e. not an LUFC debt) and Cellino is challenging that, hence the non-payment to date?

However, I believe that LUFC are likely going to have to pay it and then try to claim it from whomever they believe owns debt.

Tedd, not sure gfh would have to contribute as their agreement with Cellino is that cellino funds the club not gfh despite their management of the other 25% ownership of the club.

I think Cellino will be livid about this. But the club has the money and it's a club cost - more of the McCormack money going on stuff that should have been settled years ago.

It will be paid, at the last minute, and it is just another of those costs coming out of the woodwork that Cellino is having to deal with. Wonder how many more

Radebe, not leveling comment at Jonty.
Twitter (waccoe) is a bonanza of anti-MC
commentary. Maybe some of those on
there are on here also? Not sure.

LST - I suspect you're right, but as JLA and Middlesex say, it's probably going to come down to LUFC having to pay it and then, if they deem it a worthy cause, going after the creator of the debt, namely Bates. Not sure how far they'll get with that and it may well be that Cellino simply has to sanction the payment and get on with it.

To be honest, although it's a WUP, I suspect that is a storm in a tea-cup and will be sorted without too much brouhaha.

Personally, more worried about an apparent deterioration of relationship between Cellino and GFH. Whilst I'm no fan of Cellino, given the position we're in, I'd rather he had full control rather than the current situation. Not through any particular ill-feeling for GFH, but simply because a single owner (even one with Cellino's 'whims' and impulses) is better than a majority owner who doesn't speak to a minority owner.

Batty - fair enough. Misunderstood your comments, apologies.

Sorry for doing a runner, had to pick the daughter up and take her to a party!..

Soft Papi I know!.

"Germany, Bates would talk to others. He actually wanted to sell to Preston Haskell, but Harvey messed up the paperwork and committed to GFH."

Jonty, its the way Bates always came out with there's nobody there or those that are there ain't worth the air he was lucky enough to aquire that slung me, I new there were talks with others but thought he only wanted to let Gfh in!..

So, if Harvey made such a big crap up it makes one wonder who's side he really is on, Bates or Gfh?..

"I understand that Jonty-bashing is a popular sport on these boards, but I think that perhaps, because it's Jonty, you're seeing things that aren't necessarily there."....Tedd!....

There are people on both sides of the Cellino devide that I agree or disagree with, the same as both fall out with me at times!.

So here's a good en, the McCormack sale, did Gfh not say they only agreed to it to buy back the stadium?..

So why only to buy back the stadium?..

The club has today (Friday November 7) received a winding-up petition from solicitors’ firm Ford & Warren acting on behalf of their client Mr. Melvyn Levi.
We have been advised by legal counsel that the publication of the winding-up order to the media within seven days of its service is illegal and amounts to an abuse of process and a contempt of court.
This activity was designed for the sole purpose of putting undue pressure on the football club.
Our lawyers are demanding that the petition be immediately withdrawn, and a full apology made else we will ask the court to dismiss the petition on Monday morning.
- See more at: http://www.leedsunited.com/news/article/87jluic29f8m1fim2tuvot1ql/title/statement#sthash.lbOP3lRp.dpuf