Is £52 million a Fair Price for a Lower Division Football Team? The Sale of Leeds United

After long and tortuous negotiations, the sale of “Leeds United” finally was completed yesterday. As the new owners, GFH Capital, announced:-

GFH Capital has today been unveiled as the new owners of Leeds United Football Club following completion of the acquisition on Thursday night.

The announcement was made at a press conference at Elland Road on Friday where GFH Capital Board Director, Salem Patel and the company’s Deputy CEO, David Haigh revealed their plans for the club.

The Dubai-based bank finalised the deal following an initial 33% investment on 21st November. Patel and GFH Capital Managing Director Hisham Alrayes will join the club’s Board of Directors in the coming weeks alongside Haigh who took up the position earlier this month.

Acknowledging the backing of Leeds United fans during the takeover, David Haigh said: “We are delighted but also honoured and proud to be the new owners of Leeds United Football Club. Over the past few months we have received more than 4,000 emails of support and have been overwhelmed by the positive reaction of fans during the process.

“We see this as a huge opportunity to revive the fortunes of Leeds United both on and off the pitch. The atmosphere on Wednesday night against Chelsea was sensational and we look forward to bringing more of the same to Elland Road in the future.”

Salem Patel said: “We are looking forward to a bright future, this is a fresh start for the football club and we welcome all fans, both old and new, to Elland Road starting this Saturday against Middlesbrough.

“From a business point of view this is an exciting investment and also an exciting opportunity for GFH Capital and we are looking forward to Marching on Together.”

Neil Warnock, Manager of Leeds United, said: “This is a massive day in the history of Leeds United Football Club. I’ve had some very encouraging conversations with GFH Capital and it’s great news that the deal has now been completed.”

 It is good to see the new owners mentioning one of our regular commenters, Marching on Together!

The Guardian revealed more details of the sale.

GFH purchased 100% of the club’s parent company, Leeds City Holdings Limited, on Thursday.

The deal, one that does not include the purchase of the Elland Road Stadium or Thorpe Arch training complex, is understood to be £44m, plus £8m of investment. “It was a lot of money,” was all that was said on the subject by Salem Patel, one of three GFH directors to have joined the club’s board along with David Haigh and Hisham Alrayes. Haigh, a lawyer, Leeds fan and GFH’s deputy chief executive, said: “We have had some fantastic confidentiality agreements in place over the last few months so we cannot discuss that right now.”

If £44m is accurate then Bates, who owned 73% of a club he placed into administration in 2007, clearing its debts, stands to receive close on £32m. As he is resident in Monaco and he owned Leeds via a company, Outro Limited, that is registered in the tax haven of Nevis, he is exempt from paying capital gains tax as an exile.

GFH is owned by the Bahrain investment bank Gulf Finance House, supported, according to Bates, by “a very rich individual who is very close to the government of Bahrain”. Though no name has been forthcoming. “I am glad that question has been asked,” Haigh said. “We are very transparent. We are a Dubai-based, regulated bank owned by a Bahrain-based, regulated bank that is listed on four stock exchanges [Bahrain, Kuwait, Dubai and London]. So when it comes to transparency over where the money comes from, who are our investors, who are our shareholders and directors, it is very clear and it is incredibly transparent.”

Haigh admitted that re-connecting with fans who have turned away from Elland Road was a key requirement for the club under GFH. He also stated: “We have bought the club with cash. There is no debt.”

GFH has bought the holding company that owns Leeds United Football Club but not the stadium and training ground that were sold off following the club’s financial collapse and relegation from the Premier League. Patel, however, said: “Any club would love to own its own stadium. Currently Leeds United do not own their stadium or training facilities but it is part of our plan to buy them both. I am not at liberty to put a timescale on it.”

He added, “Leeds is a great club with history, pedigree and a fantastic base on which we can build. We looked at a number of clubs but Leeds was the most attractive for these reasons. It is obviously going to take investment [to return to the Premier League] and we would not have bought a club like this if we were not prepared to make that kind of investment. We are not going to be spending crazy money like others have done. It is going to be sustainable.”

So we have a Championship club being sold for an estimated £44 million. This price does not include the ground or training facilities.

What have GFH bought?

They have acquired the players, “goodwill” and “history” and the company’s rights to income from prize money and ongoing sponsorship. They have no issue with TUPE, as the players are still employed by the same company – rather it is the ownership which has changed. There is no question of Leeds today being a “new club” in place of Leeds yesterday. This was not a sale involving an insolvency.

Unlike the purchases of Manchester City and Chelsea, which seem simply to be huge vanity projects, one imagines that GFH are here to make money. Agreeing to fund £8 million of investment as well as paying £44 million to buy the “club” seems to emphasise that.

However, they are not going to spend “crazy money” and, similar to Mr Green at Ibrox, boast of having no debt.

Presumably the only way in which they can make a return is by getting to the Premier League and being successful there. However, it will take significant progress to achieve a return on an investment of over £50 million!

These money men clearly see there is cash to be made by owning a football club, and Mr Bates, the seller, is proving this be departing to his Monaco home with over £30 million profit.

One wonders whether GFH ever looked at Rangers? After all, as we have seen with Mr Green’s consortium, they whole assets, including ground and training facilities, were sold for £5.5 million.

I wrote some time ago about Crystal Palace acquired by Mark Goldberg in the late 1990’s for £25 million, but without purchasing the ground. He managed to end up in bankruptcy within a year. Presumably GFH will exercise restraint to avoid such a fate striking their vehicle owning Leeds.

People with cash still see that money can be made from football. Is this akin to the 1849 California Gold Rush – where many speculated all they had; most lost everything; and a few became richer than Croesus?

Can all the money men be wrong? (Silly question, as anyone who has watched the banking industry over the last few years can testify!)

I like the new deputy CEO’s reference to “fantastic confidentiality agreements” – a phrase which I suspect has never been written before!

Leeds United fans now embark on another roller-coaster ride in an effort to regain lost glories. Can it do it? Can GFH make money?

Have the markets woefully undervalued football teams again? And might this sale price for Leeds assist BDO if they pursue the issue of “gratuitous alienation” of the assets of Rangers Football Club by the administrators?

Only time will tell!

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Football, Leeds United

51 responses to “Is £52 million a Fair Price for a Lower Division Football Team? The Sale of Leeds United

  1. Leeds old co was liquidated.

    • Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (oldco) was placed in liquidation in February 2008.

      In July 2007 the assets of Leeds United were sold by the administrators of oldco to “newco” Leeds United 2007 Limited (which changed its name to Leeds United Football Club Limited, which had been formed on 1st May 2007.

      So Derek, you are correct that oldco was liquidated. This was after the asset sale to newco.

      What GFH have now bought 100% of is the holding company which owns newco.

  2. allyjambo

    I think there can be no doubt, morally at least, that gratuitous allienation has taken place between Green and D&P, and I suspect legally too. It all depends, in my non-expert opinion, on the will to see ‘justice served’ of BDO and the authorities as to whether or not they pursue this line. Further more, if the value of the players, ‘goodwill’ and ‘history’ of Leeds United FC is almost ten times greater than Rangers FC’s were, plus Ibrox and Murray Park, then just how big was RangersFC? Was Rangers FC bigger, or smaller, than Leeds United FC? On the other hand, we could ask, is a football club bigger than the sum of it’s assets? And if you only buy the assets, have you bought the club?

  3. Jon

    Very interesting post Paul and i have to say it disgusts me that Mr Bates can place the company in administration then walk away with so much money for himself. It’s little wonder the country is basically bankrupt when individuals profit at the expense of so many others. You’re the legal expert; how is this right in the eyes of the law because it doesn’t seem right in the eyes of this particular layman?
    One thing in defence of Charles Green is that he did not place the club in admin but he is no less of a carpetbagger than Bates and it will be interesting to see what BDO make of his consortium although I fear the longer it takes the less likely they will do anything at all.

    Football is first and foremost a game and it is because of this simple fact that it, like almost every sport, is a risky business. Regards a return on investment, obviously if Leeds were to make it to the promised Land that is the Premiership then big money rolls in but it is all relative because it needs to be spent on survival and there is no guarantee of that because there will be about 10 clubs doing the same thing and each in their desperation artificially inflates the price of transfer fees and wages in their efforts to sign who they hope will be the best players but injuries, loss of form and suspensions are not factored into this cost. I remember a very decent Birmingham side in 2006, in its third year in the top league, who looked certain to be safe after ‘investing’ in some very good players like Emile Heskey, David Dunn, Nicky Butt, Matthew Upson and Jermaine Pennant – all England internationalists – but after a catalogue of injuries and a miracle at Pompey by Harry Redknapp, down they went and off went most of their best players
    Even spending big in an effort just to reach the Premiership is a risky strategy. Hull seem to be adopting this at the moment but you need only look at the likes of Bradford City and Sheffield Wednesday to see what life is like once the Premiership dream is shattered and I remember Wolves spending big year after year trying to get to the top flight and by the time they got there the money had run out and down they went.
    I think GFH have paid far too much for far too little – no ground etc while Green paid too little for too much but that’s the crazy world of football.

    • lord mac

      yes i agree, when they can demand money from lottery winners that have done wrong, why cant they demand wrongs be made right

      • Jon

        Administration seems too easy a way out. In theory it’s a good thing in that it allows a still-potentially viable business an opportunity to save jobs and get back on its feet by utilising a pence in the pound agreement against debts in order to continue to fulfill contracts and generate revenue for themselves and compensate for losses to their suppliers/debtors without current levels of debt servicing but surely there ought to be an annual review to see if more pennies in the pound can be made available to repay more of the historic debt? Say up to a pre-agreed 50-75% which is usually an acceptable proposal in full and final settlement between Joe Public and debt recovery agencies.
        I don’t think CVA’s at 1p or 10p in the £ should be full and final, especially when a short time later that business is making asset purchases or even vanity purchases beyond the means of their historic debtors and industry competitors. It’s more than an abdication of responsibility; it’s actually a transfer of liability to the debtor. If company A can’t pay Company B then how is Company B supposed to pay their suppliers and so on? But that’s not Company A’s problem because they are now debt free and exploiting previously redundant revenue streams and gaining unfair advantages over hard working honest competitors in their particular field of business. Mr Bumble was right – the law is an ass.

  4. theres no doubt the money paid for Leeds is down to being in the championship one step away from the pot of gold that is the premiership.

    • allyjambo

      But to get there they are going to have to spend even more money, a lot more money, with no guarantees of getting there, and even less of staying there. The only thing they have bought that could make money without massive outlay is the brand name, hardly a worlwide brand name, unlike, as we are assured daily by Green and his MSM, The Rangers FC! Either The Rangers are bigger than Leeds, or not, and if they are, then they are surely worth more money than Leeds are (or at least a comparable amount)? Then factor in the heritable property!

  5. Arb urns

    Those that catch the clapham omnibus each day are relying on BDO, LNS and at least two Heidi Poons In a granted leave appeal to Hec to alleviate the burden of taxation they all bear, otherwise they will be catching the tumbrill which goes straight through Monaco without stopping. Be interesting to see if Chico can make it to that promised land and go for stroll with Kenneth and Harry’s dog round lowes, ras cas, swimming pool, casino sq et al in the grand prix edition of monopoly they are playing. Beats Elgin on a wet and windy dec sat for sure.

  6. Dave S.

    The ease with which money can be made, and competitive advantage gained, by defaulting on debt underlines the rightness of making clubs start again at the bottom. I bet Mr Whyte is eating his heart out, Bates has done with The Leeds pretty much what he planned for RFC.

  7. paul

    Excellent! I have stopped winding myself up about Gratuitous Alienation. I find it difficult to compare the value of Leeds and RFC, but as you suggest £52m without the ground and training facility as opposed to around a tenth of that for the lot at RFC looks interesting. I wish BDO would move on this so we can all move on. Although, I would not want to be in BDO’s shoes. Go for the throat and you could be a party to the demise of a national institution as some see it. That said, I have always favoured the ground share with Queens Park option and a slow return to the SPl. If BDO act, that’s what we might get.

    • Arb urns

      Sale and leaseback of the castle is my preferred route ena. They can then buy it back at a discounted price at some future point when all creditors are repaid but BDO would need a Heidi P in their strike force .as the old song goes “there’s only one Heidi p”. So far !!!!

    • Let me reiterate, Gratuitous Alienation is not a subject BDO will be considering, when this finally registers all misguided dreamers can beat themselves up again, for beating themselves up over it in the first place.

      54 and counting, that needs no moderation…lol

  8. Balmer

    Does this article qualify as a random thought on scots law?

  9. cam

    It does look as if the emotions that the word Rangers seems to stir in some folk is getting the better of their rational thought processes.
    This new found outrage at tax avoidance which has been going on for years on a much larger scale at other organisations without comment from the self appointed guardians of all things integrity,,,,fans of CFC!
    Lets not discuss oor Dessie,lets not dig too deeply into the business practises of CFC shareholders,,move along nothing too see here,Coyote Pete is manning the watchtowers.
    Hang on whats happening with form PGn1658,have “they” published their accounts?is this share flotation legal?can we apply G.A to sink “them”? who gave “them” the right to pick which matches “they” choose to attend? why are “they” still allowed to exist? how dare “they” call themselves what “they” want and laugh at “us”,why are “they” happy,why are “they” still turning up to watch “them”.
    Look around bhoys,your ammo is running low you have a couple more nukes to try to land on the Gers but when the smoke clears the big bad bogeyman is still gonna be there.
    I do hope that one of the Juventus chaps doesn’t have a wee balance problem which decides the tie,i wouldn’t like to witness the unnacceptable face of defeat plastered all over the papers,,,he is doing so well now that the refereeing problem has been negated.
    pip pip

    • carl31

      Since the objections against rule bending, blatant debt-sheddery and ongoing arrogant denialism of ‘Rangers’ extends far further than fans of Celtic, you give away your own ‘bogey man’ fears by shoe-horning in that angle.

      You think the big bad bhoy is coming to get you. You are like a child that needs the non-existence of monsters explained.

    • You might want to check out Stuart cosgrove’s excellent article on “whataboutery” over on TSFM.

      Was that a reference to Neil Lennon? Sky Sports “manager of the year” a man assaulted, slandered and libelled in Scotland with seeming impunity? but who is lauded and respected beyond the borders of his chosen team’s league?

      I’m not going to stoop to a “whataboutery” debate – but imo NewcoRangers need to stick to their own task, stick to the rules (both football and fiscal) and try to get their fans to behave (in song and deed).

      If they can do all that they will have become.a man my son…

    • Raymilland


      RANGERSTV broke more new ground as significantly more people viewed the club’s 6-2 win online than attended the match. I do hope that further ground is broken when RTV viewing figures continue to climb for home games after BDO do their job. When the smoke clears, the spectre hanging over Govan may loom large in the form of a ‘for sale’ sign.

      Playing on the street isn’t an option.

      • willy wonka

        I take you know that the game wasn’t played at Hampden ? That the game was sold out ? Why then any surprise that several thousands Rangers fans decided to pay 6 quid to see their team in action ?
        As for any ‘for sale signs’, don’t folk like you ever learn ? Hopeful, half thought out posts forecasting the end of the world as Rangers know it have had their wee period in vogue. It didn’t work last time and it won’t happen at any time in the future.
        That’s not a forecast…………… that’s a fact.
        Onwards and upwards.
        Pip pip.

        • Raymilland

          @willy wonka

          A more accurate forecast would be to see the ‘for let’ sign over Ibrox (title deeds anybody) who’s the daddy, de facto?

  10. The price paid for Leeds opposed to the price paid for RFC(IL) makes GA seem all that more obvious but as we have seen so far with this fiasco nothing as is it should be.At the end of the day the creditors have all but been forgotten and all that seems to matter most is the battle of is it or is it not the same club.Whatever happens I hope that the creditors are taken care of better than they are at present.No Club or Company is to big to fail and would Chuckles pay the new asking price if there was a ruling for GA..Interesting times ahead for us non sevco fans and worrying times for Chuckles and the gang

  11. alex (@thekublakhan)
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 22, 2012 at 9:12 pm
    Let me reiterate, Gratuitous Alienation is not a subject BDO will be considering, when this finally registers all misguided dreamers can beat themselves up again, for beating themselves up over it in the first place.

    54 and counting, that needs no moderation…lol

    What’s up Mr McConville the truth not to your liking…

  12. JimBhoy

    Has Leggo been shut down???

  13. lordmac

    has there been a creditors meeting with the BDO, they have to have one
    and they had 42 days to get it organized, the 12th of december was there dead line, any news of this in the papers, or the net

    • lordmac

      Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, joint administrators from Duff & Phelps, have handed over to the interim liquidators.

      Cohen and Stephen will remain interim liquidators until they are granted a formal appointment at the first creditor meeting. A creditor meeting must take place within 42 days of their appointment – however, the liquidators are trying to speed this process up.

      Cohen said: “As joint interim liquidators, our prime objective is to maximise returns to creditors. By investigating the reasons for the company’s failure, we will better understand the avenues available to enable the recovery of all possible monies for creditors.

      “This is a complex case with many potential areas for us to investigate, which we will do thoroughly in accordance with our duties and powers. Our investigations will, of course, include the conduct of those responsible for the financial affairs of the company in previous years.”

      As part of the insolvency process, liquidators have more powers to investigate the reasons behind the collapse of a company than administrators. This is the main reason HM Revenue & Customs vetoed a rescue deal known as a CVA earlier this year.

      The interim liquidators have said they will continue any legal proceedings already initiated by the administrators

  14. Budweiser

    Football gossip has it that Leeds are interested Lambert of Southhampton at a mere £12m. More than sally’s ‘warchest’ of £ 10m plus what celtic are likely to pay in tranfers in the January window. Leeds at the moment are bigger than celtic and rangers combined.

  15. dan

    I want you to consider a word. The word is ‘capitalist’. Now break it down into syllables thus: ca-pita-list. And pronounce the second syllable as you would ‘pita’, in ‘pitta bread’.

    A bit of a preamble, I know, but an old guy I used to work with pronounced ‘capitalist’ in that fashion. He was what you call a ‘Tankie’, that is,a socialist who believed that that the only way to achieve socialism was via revolution; and at the point of a gun, if need be.

    He was a member of the Communist Party, was extremely well read, and when I went on about Celtic, he used to just smile, shake his head, and say that I, and my Rangers supporting opposite numbers, were fools: that while we were bickering with each other the ‘ca-pita-lists’ were picking our pockets.

    Even at the time I could see the sense in what he was saying, but recent events down Ibrox way have reinforced his point.

    But let me state right away it is not my intention to have a go at Oldco/Nowco or whatever. Had Celtic found themselves in a similar position, and had Chico came along, I would have backed him in his endeavours.

    No, what this episode should teach us all, and I mean all, is that it is all too easy for the ca-pita-lists of every hue to rip us all off. To go into administration/ liquidation, shed their debt and carry on. Now, Chico was not part of Oldco, but in the world of ‘business’, in that place where the movers and shakers that we are supposed to revere operate, oftentimes, the old CEO’s and the new CEO’s are one and the same, oftentimes the company names are almost identical. Surely this can not be right–whether it’s done in the name of Rangers, Celtic, or anyone else.

    I was brought up in a street where Warrant Sales were commonplace. They took place when the poorest people in the community could not pay their debts. Their belongings were ‘poinded’ and sold off to pay their creditors. To our credit, we, the neighbours, would often take care of their possessions till the Warrant Sale had passed, such was our disgust at the process.

    I’m not sure, having travelled some considerable way from that time and place, but I think Warrant Sales are a thing of the past. So too should be the system whereby the rich and reckless can shed debt like a serpent sheds its skin. Someone has to pick up the tab, and it’s usually us.

  16. Steven brennan

    I have been a wee bit busy this week and only just caught Johnbhoys post about the shootings in connecticut.
    Well written and quite emotional, then
    Night terror and Alex made my skin crawl.
    From now on everybody should ignore these two people who are indescribable.
    Happy holidays to everyone else.

  17. lordmac

    this should make it easy for the BDO, the number 5 in there
    specialist solutions don’t think this mob will be up to the task at all.
    i think this is away above there heads
    the talk a good game but for what they have done allowed this share issue to go out is nothing short of miss management
    IMO i think they are to involved in there own merger to be bothered about there main business

  18. lordmac

    as i say i don’t hold out much hope for these 2 guys, one from London and the other from glasgow both partners in different offices, there speciality is business restructuring the both of them , I think this is way above there head here, its not restructuring that is needed it is recovery of losses and assets,

  19. I have been accused of ‘championing’ Alex, something I would plead not guilty to, but after reading his comments of JohnBhoy’s post I have to say that, like others I am shocked and saddened for him. I am not religious (if that is what he means by mumbo jumbo) but I like to think I am a reasonably caring person. How any such person could read JB’s post and comment as Alex has done is beyond me. Of course many children die and that is to be mourned as well, but not at the expense of those who died in Connecticut. We should mourn all who die especially those who die too young.

    Merry Christmas to you all, especially the children, and to Alex.

    • It is quite simple any childs death is a saddness and in this day and age preventable , none more so in the states with their gun laws.

      Mr McConville likes to moderate posts and hold them in abeyance it helps to break up the contributors reasoning ans support McConville’s acolytes, McConville is a blogging coward any one with any bottle would ban anyone they thought was disruptive……….but as said previously McConville knows the ban hammer loses him any little shred of credibility his Rangers hating blog ever had.

      Like I said violet if I ever need any tuition on Theology I will ask, as I don’t I won’t.

  20. JimBhoy

    Have a great Xmas everybody..

  21. Oh dear The Rangers shares trading at 83 pence, many if not most here will be disappointed, I am pleased and certainly not in a moderate way…

    • dan

      Goodness! Eighty three p a share! Bet those many, many, many Sevco fans who withheld their ‘pledged’ £5 mill are well sick. Ouch!

      Bye the bye Eck I was interested in your mumbo jumbo stuff. Are you an atheist? I’ve often wondered about that position, and think that agnosticism is a safer bet. I mean, can atheism demonstrate the ‘impossibility’ of a Deity? I don’t quite see how it can. Theists, however, of whatever stripe can demonstrate the ‘possibility’ of a Deity, using either the ‘ontological argument’,( look it up) or simply by deducing that as there is demonstrably ‘creation’, i.e. the world, it’s reasonable to assume there may be a ‘creator’, rather than the whole shebang being just the result of a huge cosmic accident—–which I think even science now rules out on the grounds of statistical impossibility. No, I think agnosticism is the safe bet. And talking about bets, what about Blaise Pascale’s argument in his ‘Penses’ (that’s French for ‘Thoughts’) that it is utterly rational to wager on the existence of a Deity, and, ergo, irrational to bet against there being a Big Man. My point being that ‘reason’ and mumbo jumbo are mutually exclusive.

      But hey, Eck, are you really an atheist , or are you just trying to make yourself sound interesting? I mean, I know a guy who claims he’s a Buddhist. But see when Oldco used to get beat, this geezer would go pure fkcuing Tonto, man! Some Buddhist, eh?

      • I see you are a sit on the fence 50/50 jockey, it isn’t really that complicated either you believe scripture or you believe science, I have no problem with followers of either, what I do have a problem is them using whatever view to justify the existence of anything that lessons or seeks to give credence to anything other than human choice, cause and effect so to speak.

        The Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas left me somewhat perplexed as do all dogmas that expect one to rely on blind faith.

        I am familiar with Pascal’s Wager, let me ask you the same question that I asked my professor.

        What sort of deity would punish their “creation” for exercising the very gift that was given to set that creation above the beast of the field, that being free will and stewardship over all that inhabits the earth, that being said the Bible as it does often contradicts itself on that subject by suggesting that we are merely extras in a pre-ordained existence Romans has several examples, not for me thanks I will retain the idea of free will.

        You know he never did answer it.

        The Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas

    • willy wonka

      Now increased to 90.9.

  22. wottpi

    For me the ‘assets’ deal between D&P and Mr Green’s consortium has always had a fishy aroma to it. However like it or not that appeared to be one of a very small offers on the table at that time.

    Now Charley boy may just pull off whatever it is he is planning and good luck to him if he manages it. However is the point not that there are people in the world with loads and loads of money and some are willing (daft enough) to pump some of it into football.

    But few months ago the greatest team in the world, world record title winners, best supported team with 500m fans worldwide, future conquerers of Europe, who own their own stadium training ground and have deals all set up with Adidas Apple, the Dallas Cowboys and Mickey Mouse, were up for grabs for anything that bettered a £5.5m deal.

    However despite all this on offer, the guys who have gone in for Leeds have bought (at £52m or tens times more than Rangers went for) a championship team with no stadium or training ground ownership who and still have a fight to get into the EPL (currently 8th and 12 points behind the leaders and outside the playoffs) and survive in that top league before even getting a sniff at Europe and even then its most likely going to be the Europa Cup.

    People can shout all they want about traditional, world records, greratests fans etc. The fact is that outside our wee country Rangers and all our other teams are pimples on the backside of the football world.

  23. lordmac

    CAN ANY ONE ON HERE HELP i have looked for MRC but can not find Paul Clark but i do find a Paul Clark and a David Greir worked together
    not at MRC but another company in 2005 called MRM 2005 is this the same guy that works for Duff and Phelps Address
    W1H 6LY

    (414 companies also use this postcode)

    Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
    Legal Information
    Company Registration No.: 05410812
    Incorporation Date: 1 Apr 2005
    7 Years old
    Financial Year End: 30 Jun
    Capital: £50,000.00
    on 15 May 2012
    Company Accounts:

    For period ending:30 Jun 2011
    Filed on:3 Apr 2012
    Purchase these accounts for £4.99 excl VAT
    View sample
    Company Return – Directors & Shareholder Information:
    As at:27 Mar 2012
    Filed on:15 May 2012
    Purchase this document for £4.99 excl VAT
    View sample
    Information checked: 24 Dec 2012 – Refresh Now! Map
    Powered by Leaflet — © MapQuest, OpenStreetMap & contributorsRecently Filed Documents
    41 available
    15 May 2012Annual Return of company information (not accounts) AR01
    15 May 2012Change of particulars for Director CH01
    3 Apr 2012Annual Accounts AA
    23 Mar 2012CERTNM
    10 Nov 2011Ending appointment as Director TM01
    View all 41 documents
    Directors and Secretaries
    Paul Clark
    1 Apr 2005 ⇒ Present (7 Years) Director
    Jason Godefroy
    1 Apr 2005 ⇒ Present (7 Years) Director
    David Grier
    1 Aug 2005 ⇒ Present (7 Years) Director
    Andrew Stoneman
    1 Apr 2005 ⇒ Present (7 Years) Director
    Colin Young
    27 Jun 2008 ⇒ Present (4 Years) Company Secretary

  24. lordmac

    I THINK Paul Clark, or Paul John Clark, prefers MCR he was involved with rather than MRM. before the take over, there where resignations so I cant see why or how they could have been transferred from the old company, MRM 2005 to MCR to then Duff and Phelps.
    dissolving company’s to these guys is like water of a ducks back.

  25. carl31

    Spot the difference between the change of ownership of the continuing company, and thus a continuing club, against what happened to Rangers earlier this year.?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s