McCormack - not for sale...but do the board agree???


By Andy Baggott
August 19 2013

Ross McCormack’s superb individual goal on Saturday rescued a point for Leeds, but also poised many questions.  Whilst the player is clearly desperate to stay, the next week or two could reveal a lot about GFHC and their ambition. 

The last few months have been good from the owners, as various PR stunts have brought the feelgood factor back to Elland Road.  Reduced season tickets, cheaper match day tickets, good advertising, club shop in town for a short spell and other incentives have all gone down well with the fans.  However, for all the PR spin, there’s a big test coming up for the money men – and McCormack is key to that.

 

The forward wants to stay, the fans want him to stay, and the manager wants him to stay – simple?  Nothing at Leeds is ever simple…

 

GFHC clearly aren’t made of money – there is not a big pot of money, and manager Brian McDermott has to wheel and deal to get players in and out.  Getting players out seems to be the hardest part at the moment.  Although a decent start to the season, the bulk of the squad have little, or no resale value – which is a problem.  Sam Byram has been coveted by many teams, but it is McCormack who is attracting attention-  namely from Blackpool and Middlesboro.  I like McCormack – I think he’s vital to our team.  However, I understand we have to get players out to get players in – the offers though are, to me, shockingly poor.  Boro having one of £1 million, then a follow up of £1.3m turned down - £1.3 million? Really?  Could we get another player of Rosco’s ability for that price?  Of course not (if we could, Boro would go for him!).  To let him go would be madness – unless Boro came in with a silly money offer.  If he went for way over his value, say £4 million+, then it may be a case of thanks Ross, but goodbye, that’s the reality of football.  In the position we are, we can get 2 or 3 good players in to take us forward…

 

GFHC have had a decent start to their tenure of Leeds – that feelgood factor would certainly dampen if they let McCormack go for the figures been banded about…

pqs: qs:
McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Unofficial Leeds United (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 16:06

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013:10:10:21:08:18 by Willow.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Thackley white (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 18:14

He;s deffinately for sale! LUFC are a selling club. Ross is a valuable asset..we will sell when the price is attractive enough.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: snifferclarke (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 21:01

Still talking to boro according to skysports..

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Lubyvader (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 21:50

I'm tied on what I think like him a lot and would like him to stay but I heard he was a bit awkward during a post match interview on Saturday but would like to hear his interview for myself and can't get hold of it

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Rhino White (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 22:04

Lest get 1 thing clear 99% of Clubs are "selling clubs" irrepscetive of wealth or status.
The bigger picture here is how much would we accept ,will Brian Mc sign better and finally do GFH really want to gamble the backlash for selling our best player for peanuts?
Time will tell.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Lord Buckethead (IP Logged)
Date: 19/08/2013 23:43

Peanuts is the point alright - every player has their price but imho we have a history of selling to cheaply that goes back pre-Cantona. In today's market I would suggest even 4m is peanuts for McCormack

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: enochs extra leg(aka dfitz) (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 01:24

i hope we dont sell him,i think we will be in a relegation dogfight if we do sell him as he is our only player that can create and score loads of goals.
would be a massive mistake from the board to sell him after the good start and good crowds this season.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: vawhite (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 03:19

Ross is a class player who can win games with a flash of brilliance. would hate to see him go and hoping he gets a further contract extension from all this speculation. a couple of signings before window closes and we could be set up nicely with a push for promotion this season.

If GFH don't sanction a transfer kitty then we are destined for another season of mid-table or worse.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 06:07

GFH have very little income - season tickets have been forward sold and Catering rights have been contracted off - with the money going towards our 'crumbling wreck' of a stadium!

I suspect GFH are having to fund a lot of the ongoing running costs this season - It wouldn't surprise me if they are having to pump £5m-£10m into the club just to meet ongoing obligations, and don't forget we have had some activity in the transfer market.

If the offer is good, and allows BM to spend, then I could accept it this year. It depends what the gaffer wants though. If he would prefer to keep Ross and have the squad as it is, then I hope they back him - but if he would be prepared to sell and get the money to spend on more players, then in my view, it is acceptable.

I don't get the impression he has to sell regardless.

The problem we have had in the past is that players have been sold from under the manager, and the funding has disappeared on private flights, executive boxes and radio stations. I do feel that GFH understand that the team is the priority - so if players are sold, I am sure it will be with the agreement of the manager and for the (long term) good of the team.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: LUID (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 06:31

No point selling RM unless replacement and other deals ready to be done as we cannot expect the current lot without his creative influence to be anything other than lower half of table. GFH would be undoing all the good they have done to date if they sold Ross without BM's blessing and release of funds to improve the team. Like most others I hope he stays even if we only add if others(Pugh , Norris , Drury etc) are moved on. We can re-assess ahead of January window.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: andyl (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 06:43

What I don't get is the million quid splash out on Murphy for potential and they are contemplating getting shot of our most skillful current player for not a lot more. Has something happened between then and now because I don't think the manager would have made that decision back then if he knew what was on the horizon.

If he is sold for less than 2 million then we know we definitely haven't a pot to pi$$ in.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: WF10White (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 07:33

Simply can't sell Ross at any price! Even 3 or 4 million isn't enough as who do you buy? We're heading towards the end of the window so prices inflate. Send out a message of intent GFH and tell Boro not so politely to go away. Would rather we signed no one else than sell Ross to do it.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 08:10

The thing is - there comes a point where you have to sell. For arguments sake, if someone offered £20m for him, I don't think there would be many on here that would say we should turn that down as well.

So there is a point where the money rules the decision.

I do believe that Brian McDermott will have final say - we don't have to sell him to pay the bills, but if we get a figure that BM feels he can use to strengthen the squad further and give us a better team, then it is the right thing to do.

We have to be more than a one man team - what if Ross got injured next weekend and was out for four months or had a dip in form? Both are possible.

We know we need to strengthen at the back, we need the wide players and if he went, another attacking option - £4m+ at this level could bring us three or four good quality players.

Ross is good - and exciting - and on form, but setting the whole season around one man is very bad tactically. As long as any money raised goes back to the gaffer, then it would be ok in my view.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: WF10White (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 08:23

3 to 4 million? Even at those figures and boro are currently at 1.3 million who do you buy? 2 or 3 players at lesser quality than we already have, we currently have a squad full of lesser quality. If we could replace Ross with a player of equal quality or better then Boro would go after him. Silly money comes in I agree let him go but 3 to 4 million at this stage of the window I don't agree is silly money. Everyone will feel differently but this is my opinion.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Thackley white (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 15:35

Just said on radio boro have bid two million . I hope we don't sell because he is our true quality player..i honestly think he'd do a job for a prem club.....i'd value him at 5 million (and even then i wouldn't sell).

Seems little point in selling him to allow funds to be made available to strengthen the team. I mean what's the point in selling him for that.We weaken the team by selling and we won't bring anyone near his quality.

If GFH allow him to go it clearly underlines to me a glaring lack of ambition despite what they may say otherwise.

You sell at your peril GFH!

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 15:52

What if McDermott wanted the funds and it was his choice rather than GFH. Would it be acceptable then?

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Lilly (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 16:12

It would be more acceptable but would likely only be occurring because the Board have backed him into a corner over funds. Anything less than 2m for Ross should not be contemplated in my view even if the manager did agree to it. He's got to be worth more.

One thing that I wonder about reading and listening to Ross's comments is whether he has pushed for a new contract on significantly higher (unaffordable) terms. When he says it'll be "their" decision maybe he's referring to whether or not they accept his demands? If that's the case and we could be in a wind-down of contract situation then there would be an argument to secure whatever we can get for him.

I'm probably being unfair to the lad but let's not kid ourselves here.



Poxy Burger League Champions 2011/12
Hot Dog Trophy Finalists 2011/12
Last Wo(Man) Standing Runner Up 2012/13

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: dnd (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 16:22

Quote:
Thackley white
Just said on radio boro have bid two million . I hope we don't sell because he is our true quality player..i honestly think he'd do a job for a prem club.....i'd value him at 5 million (and even then i wouldn't sell).
Seems little point in selling him to allow funds to be made available to strengthen the team. I mean what's the point in selling him for that.We weaken the team by selling and we won't bring anyone near his quality.

If GFH allow him to go it clearly underlines to me a glaring lack of ambition despite what they may say otherwise.

You sell at your peril GFH!
100% agree. 5M is a more realistic valuation and he is good enough to play in the PL. If by some miracle we got promoted this season he is one of a very few of the first team who could actually do a job for us.
Tell Boro to go and ... off.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Thackley white (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 16:22

he's off! bye bye ross. and bye bye 13,000 fans if mcdermott isn't given all the money raised to buy.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: dnd (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 16:25

Quote:
Thackley white
he's off! bye bye ross. and bye bye 13,000 fans if mcdermott isn't given all the money raised to buy.
Source?!

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 16:50

To me, it would undo a lot of the good work this board has done. So far, their PR has been good – got a feelgood factor going. Yes, they’ve spent a bit of money on players – but look closer, and there hasn’t been a huge amount… Somma, Kisnorbo, Rachubka, Connolly and Bromby were all on a decent whack- and Habibu sent back. That money covered the Hunt and Smith signings, with plenty left over. Morrison then going (on big, big wages) financed the Murphy signing. Fantastic to spend £1m on a player, but the bulk, if not all funded by letting others go…all good PR by GFHC, but little outlay… Various other incentives are all good, and cannot be faulted, but it’s on the pitch that matters…
McCormack has openly said he doesn’t want to go, and if he does, it’ll be down to ‘the suits’ – which is GFHC, not McCdermott. The boss has said he doesn’t want him to go…loud and clear. The only ones keeping quiet are the owners….no reason they cannot come out and quash it once and for all…
The worry to me is the size of the bids – Boro MUST be getting some encouragement. Their opening bid was £1m – rejected. At that point, Leeds could have said ‘not for sale at any price’ – they may have done, but the fact they followed it with a £1.3m bid suggests that they didn’t get a firm no – the third bid was, according to Sky Sports, just over £1.5m – which sounds to me like Leeds are holding out for nearer to £2m…can we replace Ross with someone better for less than £2m (less agent fees, signing on fees etc)? I doubt it… Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying don’t sell whatsoever – we are where we are. To a degree, a selling club – but we need some level of ambition surely? Selling for £2m is IMO no better than what Bates would have done. Sell for £5m and you think fair enough – we can get 2 or 3 players in, and the squads better… Big test GFHC – and they are yet to convince me….



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Milsner (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 17:02

I think he is worth sacrificing to move the TEAM forward. He has started the season in a rich vein of form so its a pity if we cannot hold on to him, but for me its definitely more important to bring in the 2 or 3 players in other areas that are sorely needed. Last year i thought he was quite poor - and i'd be surprised if he keeps his current form going, so if the offer was over £2m i would be very tempted to take it.

Could see us then being able to bring in 2/3 very decent players who are into the last year of their contract elsewhere - eg. Tommy Rowe for starters.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Tony Currie 10 (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 17:39

Over the past few seasons we have scored a lot of goals with Beckford, Becchio and Gradel....We haven't replaced them and now we want to sell the only other player who looks like scoring? (Sm26)

We are being linked with players such as Rowe, Mackay-Steven, Wooten etc....I pride myself on knowing/thinking I know a lot about football but these players are unproven and I'm sure, by posts about these players, we don't know enough about them confused smiley

We know we won't be replacing Ross with quality....the only one out there would be Billy Sharp. As much as I would love Sharp, he is a goalscorer and not creative like Ross. We haven't got any creative players as it is!

We have sold quality players for peanuts or let their contracts run out over the last few seasons and want to replace them with unproven unknowns....?

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: dnd (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 17:47

Quote:
Milsner
I think he is worth sacrificing to move the TEAM forward. He has started the season in a rich vein of form so its a pity if we cannot hold on to him, but for me its definitely more important to bring in the 2 or 3 players in other areas that are sorely needed. Last year i thought he was quite poor - and i'd be surprised if he keeps his current form going, so if the offer was over £2m i would be very tempted to take it.
Could see us then being able to bring in 2/3 very decent players who are into the last year of their contract elsewhere - eg. Tommy Rowe for starters.
He was poor under Warnock because he was played out of position. When played in his favoured position he scored 20 goals for us.
He is quality, simple. Anyone who thinks we can replace him with similar quality for 2M is deluded. Be very suprised if we can get 2 or 3 good players for 2M. Murphy cost us 1M and is unproven at this level.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Tony Currie 10 (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 17:55

Decent chances and creativity have been at a bare minimum in the 3 League games....Ross is the only one to give us a spark!

This is Leeds United....it's PROVEN we DON'T replace the quality we sell....

Why do some of us think any different without any signs from the board (Sm164)

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Rhino White (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 17:59

They ONLY way this deal would be acceptable would be 4m+ and Mc gets EVERY penny to spend or 2m+ and Emnes and MC still gets the lot to spend.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Johnboy60 (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 18:15

Quote:
Milsner
I think he is worth sacrificing to move the TEAM forward. He has started the season in a rich vein of form so its a pity if we cannot hold on to him, but for me its definitely more important to bring in the 2 or 3 players in other areas that are sorely needed. Last year i thought he was quite poor - and i'd be surprised if he keeps his current form going, so if the offer was over £2m i would be very tempted to take it.
Could see us then being able to bring in 2/3 very decent players who are into the last year of their contract elsewhere - eg. Tommy Rowe for starters.

So you think for 2m we can bring in 2 to 3 decent players in including Tommy Rowe christ the mind boggles!

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: LEEDS YRA CHAP (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 21:00

This is unbelievable . Just what we supposed to survive on . Scrap end players ? Selling Ross is fkin Joke and will be a massive step backwards. end of



THE LORD ART THOU REVIE WITH BILLY BY HIS SIDE

WE' RE YORKSHIRES REPUBLICAN ARMY
WE'RE BARMY, WE'RE EVER WE GO
WE FEAR NO FOE FOR WE ARE THE YRA !!

P.S ( THAT CNT IN THE MILL WALL END & SON OF STEPTOE WITH THE WE FEAR NO FOE FLAG, CHECK OUR HISTORY YOU @#$%&. ITS OUR MOTTO )

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 22:01

Can I just remind everyone....



GFH have not had any income out of Leeds yet.

When GFH rocked up, Bates had already borrowed again, and spent the season ticket money for last season, the season before and this season.

You buy a pie and pint at Leeds now, GFH don't get anything - contracted out!

So in my mind GFH have had to shell out...

c.£28m to buy the club
c. £2m to run the club last year and meet ongoing obligations.

This year, I expect GFH will have to pump in c.£10m to meet the running costs (which is basically the missing season ticket money) and we have invested in the team - slowly we are bringing in better players and clearing out the one's we don't want.

Signing Wotton, who is young enough and was targeted by BM is another good sign. The manager is being backed.

Forget promotion this year - think of a three year plan - if the sale of a good player will help us along that journey, then I'm all for it.

Don't forget that GFH have been selling shares - recouping some of the their money by selling a percentage of the company, not selling the players. Give them some credit.

Even if they sold him and kept the money, I could forgive them for what they have taken on and had to spend so far.

We haven't got mega-rich owners, but we do seem to have sensible and practical businessmen that have put the fans as a priority and in my eyes. haven't put a foot wrong so far.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Rhino White (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 22:57

3rd offer from Boro rejected the Club are now discussing a new contract with Ross Mc.
Source-Phil Hay YEP tweeted it earlier.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: IShotAMancInReno (IP Logged)
Date: 20/08/2013 23:23

Phil Hay also said he thinks thats the last offer from Boro..although how he knows that I'm not sure..hope its true though..



Do you fancy a drink, theres a place called the brink, we can go there!

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 08:22

Think you have too much faith Fids. I don't think they've done a massive amount different to Bates yet - however, their PR is better...much better. They offloades 10 players at the end of the season, and got rid of Morrison (valued at £2m for the Becchio swap, and Premiership wages) - and brought in 2 free transfers and a £1m signing - 2 of those players from the division below us, so hardly big wages.. If Bates had doen that, he'd be accused of not investing - GFHC do it, and it's sensible building!!!
Not saying they won't come good, but they're here for one thing - to make money. They are trying to make us a more saleable asset. Granted - that may come from taking us forward as a club - a Premiership club is a miore valuable commodity.However, they are not here for the love of the club - they are not here for their ego's to have a crack at the Premiership - they are here to sell us and line their pockets... Whatever our thoughts are on them, their not here for the long haul - and they haven't got the financial clout to really take us forward...



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: IShotAMancInReno (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 09:04

interestingly, the Evening Gazette in Sogland reports that both Leeds and MacCormack want the deal to go ahead and the reason its taking time is that we have a complex offshore ownership and that means decisions cant be taken quickly!!!!

what a load of tripe..they do say though that the last offer has been turned down and Boro have yet to decide whether to come back with another..

Surely if the first paragraph was true then they would..just spin really..



Do you fancy a drink, theres a place called the brink, we can go there!

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: ytrewq2 (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 10:05

Just watched his goal against the wendies again. It's such a good goal. His first touch to put him on the run and the touch past the defence. Not to mention the vision and pace to pull it off. I really hope he doesn't go!



http://i44.tinypic.com/2z5krjd.jpg


Leeds United player and fans in celebartion as man in red lays defeated. Love this picture!! MOT

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 11:40

Quote:
They offloades 10 players at the end of the season, and got rid of Morrison (valued at £2m for the Becchio swap, and Premiership wages) - and brought in 2 free transfers and a £1m signing - 2 of those players from the division below us, so hardly big wages.. If Bates had doen that, he'd be accused of not investings

They have done that at a time of NO INCOME and reducing ticket prices for Elland Road.

I don't understand how anyone can be frustrated that an organisation can buy us from Bates and his dodgy dealings. Can run the club despite having no season ticket sale money and people still expect substantial investment in the team.

I don't want a sugar Daddy - I'll be quite happy knowing that the owners are prioritising the football team again, instead of building shopping centres and buying radio stations.

It's getting back to football but lets not demand overnight success.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Rhino White (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 14:25

100% agree Fids.

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 15:47

what's their long term plan then little brother? Have you, I or anyone got the foggiest? Why is the parent company (GFH) saying the club is for sale, whilst GFHC is saying it isn't?
Why was David Haigh scheduled to hold a fans forum a few months ago, that got cancelled at the last minute due to a family bereavement - not rearranged, and said a few days ago that he's not comfortable talking in front of big groups...
What is their track record of running football clubs?
Is there a strategy to take us forward? I sure as hell haven't seen it...Are they readying us for a takeover? Are they in it for the long haul? Have they got a pot to @#$%& in?
I don't want it all at once, but I'd like to have a plan of what lies ahead... these guys took 6 months to complete DD so they knew what money they'd have - in fact, with the big attendances, they should be ahead - as well as making over £100K from Radio Leeds I've seen David Haigh on twitter announce there was massive news to come... and nothing. I've seen redundancies at Elland Road that were kept low key...
This may seem as anti GFHC - but it's not...all I want is an IDEA of what their plan is...short, medium and long term... I don't know if they plan to sell us tomorrow or are planning for Europe in years to come...for a company that seems to keen on social media, their communication, at times, is shocking..



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Ridsdale's Goldfish (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 16:07

This is a great game of sibling tennis(Sm128)

Great 'shots' (points raised) from both players

30 all!

(Sm53)(Sm53)(Sm53)(Sm53)(Sm53)(Sm53)(Sm53)

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 16:14

I played him at real tennis RG many years ago, in Menorca - he told me he was good after beating his missus... Baggott senior (moi) won 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 - very happy memories!!! [:wor kid:]



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Ridsdale's Goldfish (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 16:29

(Sm22) a real cliffhanger then....


Sounds reminiscent of THE Federer-Nadal final at Wimbledon a few years back(Sm56)

Glad to see this 'match' is more eventhumbs down

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 16:39

He keeps sharking a few streaky backhands down the line to keep this contest close - his nerve will go soon and I'll beat him... if that fails, I'll give him a wedgy or a chinese burn...used to work when we were kids!!



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Ridsdale's Goldfish (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 17:57

(Sm22)

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Thackley white (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 18:26

Quote:
dnd
Quote:
Thackley white
he's off! bye bye ross. and bye bye 13,000 fans if mcdermott isn't given all the money raised to buy.
Source?!

previous experience (the cynical cnut i am).

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 23:03

Quote:
what's their long term plan then little brother? Have you, I or anyone got the foggiest? Why is the parent company (GFH) saying the club is for sale, whilst GFHC is saying it isn't?

What exactly is it that you want? Would you like a complete insight into their financial dealings, business case - maybe a seat on the board would suffice?

We've just had eight years under a guy that had just didn't want to invest into the football at Leeds United.

Our new owners seem to have a far more sensible approach to business of running a football club;

-Committed to buying a club for c£28m, despite no ground, no training facilities, a squad probably valued at less than a third of that, no income for an extended period (as the previous owner had already borrowed it and spent it)

-Meeting the running costs of the club despite that reduced income.

-Investment in the team, both in securing the services of Brian McDermot on a longer contract (none of this 1 year rolling b0llocks)

-Restructured the club to remove the likes of Yorkshire Radio and halting all work on development of a shopping arcade and hotel.

-Provided funding to secure several players that the manager had identified.

-Established links with local media and investing on raising the perception of the club within the local area.

-Connected with the fans, lowered prices, special reduced cost matches etc.

Rather than attempting to prove what I feel they have done right, I'd rather ask, what have they done wrong?

As big as we like to think we are, we are a championship club, meaning we do sometimes have to sell our better players to raise funds - that is a normal thing to do - it is business - it is how football clubs survive.

Leeds are in the fortunate position that we have rarely had to do this as we have always had strong attendance, which equal good income, meaning we can afford the players. Unfortunately the bloke we had before didn't see it that way as he wanted to build hotels and take private flights - and someone had to pay for that.

I would argue that GFH also wouldn't need to sell McCormack in any other normal season - but for them, this isn't a normal season - it is a season where the income of the club is being severely impacted, and I don't think that should be underplayed.

Otherwise what is the argument? You can buy Leeds United but
only if you are rich and can cover all of our running costs AND buy players AND don't sell anyone etc.

I suspect that behind the scenes things are moving at pace with regards to share sales and ownership - and for that reason, hosting fan forums wouldn't be appropriate perhaps due to confidentiality - or perhaps at the request of new investors - who knows for sure - I think we will hear from GFH when it is appropriate to hear from them. They are not mega-rich and are seeking to reduce their financial risk but selling shares - and each time that happens, someone else gets a litte bit of a say in how things should be done.

But in all honesty - what have they done wrong?

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Fids (IP Logged)
Date: 21/08/2013 23:05

Oh and yes you beat me at tennis quite convincingly - but where you were given sporting talent and a natural flair with physical ability, I got given the big @#$%&!

So good luck with your serve thumbs down

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: Andy Baggott (IP Logged)
Date: 22/08/2013 07:43

Don't need every detail about their finances - just would like to know if they are putting us up for sale, or here fro the long haul... Not much of an ask is it? GFH say they are actively looking to sell.... GFHC say they are looking at attracting investors - one is clearly lying...why?
You've asked what they've done wrong...there's your answer..

If it's GFH that is telling porkies, why would they do that? GFHC is just an arm of them...

Yes, they've spent some money buying the club - but they're an investment bank - they have to get a return for their investeors. They'll sell the club and get their money back.
Why do you think they've got the club? For the love of it or for the money. Clearly to make money - no real problem with that, but how many people are there to make money on this? We hear of groups that have invested £10m - they'll want a return. GFH will, as will GFHC and all its members - there's also the Chairmans investment. Tranfer dealings are said to be difficult due to our 'complicated structure' - too many fingers in the pie - all wanting a little bit of the club and it's money... Bates had a complicated off shore structure - and was slaughtered for it - I don't see much difference with these...
What happens if they cannot attract investers - they clearly don't have a wealthy backer, or a massive amount of money, and need investment (their words).

Like I say - it sounds very anti GFHC - but I'm not at all-I think theyve done some fantastic stuff. However, after the last 3 or 4 owners, I've learnt that people have to earn my trust. At present, I don't trust them - for all their (excellent) PR... Bates didn't invest in the pitch - neither really have these guys. They've shipped 11 players out, and used the money to bring 4 in - good business yes, but investment on the pitch????



[www.facebook.com]
[twitter.com]

Re: McCormack - not for sale...but to the board agree..
Posted by: WF10White (IP Logged)
Date: 22/08/2013 16:25

lets hope Boro get Becchio and that way leave Ross alone. That way it won't be GFH decision.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net