Official TOMA (Take Over My Arse) thread

lufc1304 · Post by **lufc1304** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:52 pm

dezzy wrote:Some positive news on Facebook from lust, stI'll to be verified by their sources that takeover took step forward last night

Also on twitter. The suggestion is that some members of the buying consortium will indemnify other members of said consortium against the risk of one or several of Bates' 'supposed' skeletons coming back and biting them on the arse! Bates (strangely enough) remains unwilling to sign indemnity clause. LUST are viewing this 'supposed' move on the buyers side as a show of positive intent, they remain keen to buy the club. Too many 'supposedly, allegedly' phrases to be anything other than conjecture, I'll believe it when I see it

Wolfetoneleeds · Post by **Wolfetoneleeds** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:55 pm

No still can't see this going through!! Typical speculation going on here!!! No evidence that's what we have had all summer!!!

The Subhuman · Post by **The Subhuman** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:20 pm

lufc1304 wrote:
Also on twitter. The suggestion is that some members of the buying consortium will indemnify other members of said consortium against the risk of one or several of Bates' 'supposed' skeletons coming back and biting them on the arse! Bates (strangely enough) remains unwilling to sign indemnity clause. LUST are viewing this 'supposed' move on the buyers side as a show of positive intent, they remain keen to buy the club. Too many 'supposedly, allegedly' phrases to be anything other than conjecture, I'll believe it when I see it

LUST would have to though wouldn't they.....

white.riot · Post by **white.riot** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:44 pm

faaip wrote:

LUST would have to though wouldn't they.....

I think we know enough to know that LUST are not really in the know, don't we?

HarryofOz · Post by **HarryofOz** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:21 pm

Half the board having to indemnify the other half, great to see a united front there.

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:33 pm

HarryofOz wrote:Half the board having to indemnify the other half, great to see a united front there.

I'll stick with the Trust Harry. They do know more than any other Leeds fans about this. Still not holding my breath re takeover tho mate.

joluafc4eva · Post by **joluafc4eva** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:36 pm

Twiggster wrote:
I'll stick with the Trust Harry. They do know more than any othr Leeds fans about this. Still not holding my breath re takeover tho mate.

And there was you Twiggs, no so long ago saying it is gonna happen.

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:39 pm

joluafc4eva wrote: And there was you Twiggs, no so long ago saying it is gonna happen.

It WAS all happening Jo. Bates keeps going to his tool shed to find yet another spanner to throw into the works!

Jason123 · Post by **Jason123** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:03 pm

Phil Hay put an update on twitter

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:07 pm

Jason123 wrote:Phil Hay put an update on twitter

Phil Hay is calling the Trust on speed dial every 5 mins!

He knows jack mate!

Jason123 · Post by **Jason123** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:09 pm

Twiggster wrote:
Phil Hay is calling the Trust on speed dial every 5 mins! He knows jack mate!

Agreed however more ITK than some!

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:15 pm

Jason123 wrote:

Agreed however more ITK than some!

Like You? or me? Get te fook

The Subhuman · Post by **The Subhuman** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:26 pm

Twiggster wrote:
I'll stick with the Trust Harry. They do know more than any other Leeds fans about this. Still not holding my breath re takeover tho mate.

that's much like saying 7 year olds know a bit more than 6 year olds about quantum physics

Twiggster · Post by **Twiggster** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:19 am

faaip wrote:

that's much like saying 7 year olds know a bit more than 6 year olds about quantum physics

dezzy · Post by **dezzy** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:02 am

faaip wrote:

that's much like saying 7 year olds know a bit more than 6 year olds about quantum physics

HarryofOz · Post by **HarryofOz** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:04 am

I don't care if LUST think it will happen. I'm concerned about the commitment of people who want to take us over requiring their partners to indemnify them. If they are not fully committed then they can go jump.

Dr.Leeds · Post by **Dr.Leeds** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:54 am

HarryofOz wrote:I don't care if LUST think it will happen. I'm concerned about the commitment of people who want to take us over requiring their partners to indemnify them. If they are not fully committed then they can go jump.

But then again if you are investing a large amount of money and are doing business with a rather untrustworthy individual who will not sign the indemnity that would be standard in a deal like this you'd think twice about it.

HarryofOz · Post by **HarryofOz** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:57 am

Dr.Leeds wrote:
But then again if you are investing a large amount of money and are doing business with a rather untrustworthy individual who will not sign the indemnity that would be standard in a deal like this you'd think twice about it.

I can understand their reluctance to take a risk, but if that is the way they feel just pull out and let someone else have a go.

Post by **YorkshireSquare** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:19 am

HarryofOz wrote:I don't care if LUST think it will happen. I'm concerned about the commitment of people who want to take us over requiring their partners to indemnify them. If they are not fully committed then they can go jump.

If it is a consortium then obviously some will be richer than others. It's fair, I think, that those without as much to offer in the deal are worried about the potential millions they could be liable for as Bates dealings come to light. What we see is those in the consortium who can afford it offering to cover those shortfalls and protect those in the deal with less to offer.

It suggests to me that the consortium are extremely keen to get the deal done, not as you say reluctant.

lufc1304 · Post by **lufc1304** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:54 am

Shields53 wrote:
If it is a consortium then obviously some will be richer than others. It's fair, I think, that those without as much to offer in the deal are worried about the potential millions they could be liable for as Bates dealings come to light. What we see is those in the consortium who can afford it offering to cover those shortfalls and protect those in the deal with less to offer.

It suggests to me that the consortium are extremely keen to get the deal done, not as you say reluctant.

Whilst none of us know definitively who or what is causing the hold-up (we can hazard a guess, but we've been round THAT particular buoy a million times!!), the fact that the prosepective buyers are still at the table suggests these aren't fly-by-night shysters but a group with serious intent