text: The £11.5m Leeds United War Chest TSS January 21, 2012 Leeds United 188 Comments When it comes to sensationalism few do it better than Ken Bates. In his programme notes today, he speaks of a £2m overspend on the £9.5m player budget set at the start of this season. In doing so, the Leeds United chairman thought he'd put an end to chants of "where's all our money gone?" by throwing a huge number out there to distract Leeds United fans. Interestingly though, Ken Bates fails to offer any point of comparison. As impressive as £11.5m sounds, it's nothing more than a number without the appropriate context – in this case, the context should be how that compares to the rest of the Championship. Before we get into all that, here's the quote in full from Ken Bates' programme notes; January is a month of the transfer window; excitement, rumours, misinformation, double-dealing and shadow boxing. All the fun of the fair. Meanwhile, the club's management have to cope with all this while still running the club. In Leeds' case, we have bought Danny Pugh, obtained the loan of Andros Townsend, extended Maik Taylor's contract and are in negotiations with a few players that are already at the club. "Where's the money gone?" is the latest chant from the vociferous few. Well, I'll tell them! Simon Grayson's player budget was £9.5m for the year. As I write, we have so far committed £11.722m, over budget by nearly 23 per cent. For anyone that doesn't understand what he means by "player budget", this is the collective total of all transfer money spent (and allegedly received) alongside the players wages for the year. Unlike most clubs, Leeds United's transfer kitty is included in the wage budget. With £9.5m to spend, Simon Grayson can theoretically afford to pay 25 players (an average Championship squad) £7,300 each, which sounds reasonable enough for a Championship player. The problem is, that unless Simon Grayson gets all his players for free, he can't actually afford to offer them that amount because every time he spends money it comes off the total budget. Spend £2-3m buying the quality additions Leeds United fans are demanding and you're left with very little to pay them. What's interesting is how this relates to our turnover. Plans are afoot to cap wage spending to 70% of turnover. Since our last published accounts were 2009-10 the £27m turnover I'm going to use is based on League One football. It's safe to say our turnover has increased significantly since then. Nevertheless, even when we use the League One figure against Ken Bates early season budget this only accounts for 35.2% of our turnover. Even with the "overspend", we're still a long way short at 43.4%. I strongly suspect turnover for last season was closer to the £35m mark which would reduce that percentage even further. You also have to take into consideration that The FA's guidelines do not take transfer fees into account, which is what Ken Bates has done here. That means other clubs could spend 70% of their turnover on wages and still pay for new players with other funds. How This Compares To Other Clubs As the last published accounts are 2009/10, I'm going to use a table published a while back by The Swiss Ramble – A renowned football blogger and financial expert who compiled the following using public accounts; As you can see, Leeds United's reported spending on wages is much higher than what Ken Bates is now telling us. This isn't because he's "cooked the books" or is lying to us now, it's simply because Leeds United's published figures are incredibly vague. The £14m above includes everybody – Ken Bates, Shaun Harvey, Simon Grayson, the coaching staff, the tea ladies etc… Knowing what we know now, and assuming our budget has risen somewhat since League One, I'd suggest Millwall (also League One figures) is closer to the actual spending on the first team that year – perhaps a million or so more in Leeds' case. Unlike Leeds, most other clubs separate their figures out to offer further transparency. Leeds are not the exception to the rule, but their accounts are amongst the vaguest I've ever encountered. Setting aside that figure entirely and using the figure Ken Bates gave us today, in 2009/10 only six clubs would have spent less than Leeds United on wages. In itself, that is a shocking statistic, but when you consider that other clubs have separate wage and transfer budgets, it gets even worse. All of a sudden, the £11.5m Ken mentions starts to sound less impressive. Simon Grayson has basically been left to lead a promotion charge with the budget for a relegation battle. So we'll ask you again Ken – "Where's all our money gone?" 188 Responses Dje January 21, 2012 I love how supporting Leeds United and its maladies has turned us all into part-time, semi-professional accountants!* [*apologies to anyone who is actually a full-time professional accountant] Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Dje I was just talking to my brother-in-law on phone and said the same thing. It's ridiculous. Reply Dje January 21, 2012 @TSS Least it provides an original answer to the girlfriend when she says, 'it's only a game'. 'Nope, dear, it's educational too'. — Leeds United Season Ticket holders should receive a complementary HND in Accountancy from Leeds Met at the end of each season. TSS January 21, 2012 @Dje I do enough number crunching at work and find it tedious, otherwise I'd take a degree in accountancy and buy myself a Porsche GT3. Dje January 21, 2012 @TSS I bet Shaun Harvey doesn't even have one of them. Not that he deserves one, mind. TSS January 21, 2012 @Dje He's probably got a Range Rover Sport. Trying to fit in with the lads. TSS January 21, 2012 I don't disagree with the £6-15k range for wages, but I'd say that's closer to 50-60% of our turnover which SHOULD leave some room for transfers (which we clearly haven't got). Reply Tare10 January 21, 2012 I fully understand these articles regarding KBs but where is the support for the playing team?. Unless there is somebody out there to have the urge to buy LU and preferably from local financing circles. For the possible buyer there is couple of things the she/he thinks of: 1. Number of followers of LU in domestic/international scheme 2. Club's stature in English football 3.Future prospects if n:o 1 and 2 are fulfilled. Tare Reply Dje January 21, 2012 @Tare10 I really hope the Leeds players, after a miraculous 3-1 win today, have better things to do on their post-match night than come looking for praise on the internet – only to be disappointed with yet another article offering in-depth business analysis of the Great Ken Bates con. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Tare10 I don't think we've ever written anything negative about the players? The general complaint is that I'm too complimentary of them. Same is true of SG. Hard to find much to praise today though I'm afraid, that was poor. But, instead of slagging them all off (like I'm sure other sites are) we just went on to a different issue. Reply Tare10 January 21, 2012 @TSS This team that is playing is all we have, I have now clue on your Football history but as a astute reader of Rothmans Football Yearbook the messages from past seasons will be just you to know numbers and names related in it. Tare Gryff January 21, 2012 @TSS@Tare10 You could always have a player's entrance and a fan's entrance on a front splash? On one, everything's all rosey, on the other everything's slowly going to hell. asbo January 21, 2012 as we all know that ken bates is a con man ……tell me have you stayed in hotel master bates built …in his word to bring in revenue ,,,,,,which will help him to buy more incontinance pads ……. Reply mattbb1 January 21, 2012 well put. Kens sensationalism may well be aimed to silence the masses, but dig not even slightly deeper, and there lies the truth. £9.5m would no doubt be his budget at start of FY, since then hes had £1.5M for schmeicel, £1.8M for Gradel, £2M for howon, and their wages off the bill so lets add conservatively £5.5m to that, and he is still underspending what ia available. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @mattbb1 Think Kasper was less than that. Considerably less in fact. As for Howson, there are now reports that the initial fee is £750k which makes much more sense to me. Couldn't understand why Norwich would pay £2m for an injured CM with 5 months on his contract. Reply mattbb1 January 21, 2012 i cant imagine a world though in which ken bates would tolerate an overspend… well not on football players. As i didnt go today i couldnt gauge what the atmosphere was like round the ground – are the fans finally ready to protest en masse? is there any truth in the snoddy rumours – ie an imminent transfer request? Gryff January 21, 2012 @mattbb1 The thing I don't get is that the average fan nowadays probably spends ages on Football Manager. Which in many ways is a bad thing, but also it gives them a general head for vaguely the going rate. Now when I got Leeds promoted (yes! I bought FM for this first time in 5 years this year!) o FM12 I did it with a significantly higher budget than Grayson had, and it was an almighty flog to get the players necessary. FM is wildly innacurate, but many fans will look at Bates' figure and go "that's not much" because they've played it. It's not the 1950s anymore where we're all flatcap farmers/factory workers… Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Gryff@mattbb1 You know were I stand on FM backed statistics. Yellow card. Gryff January 21, 2012 @TSS@mattbb1 No but that's my point TSS. It immediately makes the suggestible fans Bates is going for (the ones still in the Matrix) suspicious of him, not awe-inspired. FM isn't a good thing. But it's effect on the fans in relation to Bates' comment is what's interesting. Gryff January 21, 2012 It's shocking budgeting. In 08-09 it was 52% of turnover, 09-10 50% and by his own admission, it is almost certainly way below 50% now. There's a difference between overspending, sensible spending, and underspending. It's about time Bates read Dante again – underspenders wind up in Hell too! Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Gryff 2009-10 was probably closer to 25%. I think Millwall's figure is more accurate there, our accounts are incredibly vague compared to the rest and we have to assume the wage budget has increased since then. I'm guessing it was around £7m in L1 Reply DrD January 21, 2012 With gates of 25,000 Leeds can afford an average salary of £9000-10,000 per player. We have dropped to 22,000 coming in which means we need to sell to raise ~£3m. If Norwich and Swansea can get promoted and do ok, we should be able to with the current budget. We can't get rid of bates as he owns the club. Find a buyer who has £50m to burn on buying the club and another £50m to improve it. It is not going to happen. We just need to play against 10 every week and lady luck we may make the plausible offs. Reply GilFisher January 21, 2012 It is what it is. Leave it alone. Support the lads. Take it up again in the summer. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher And then in the summer we'll be waiting to see what signings we get, then we'll wait to see how things progress and before you know it, it's January again and another year of Ken Bates hell has passed with the rest of our key players shipped out. Doesn't matter when the campaign starts, there is never a good time. But it's necessary. Reply GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS It doesn`t accomplish anything. The fans can`t get rid of the owner. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher Of course they can. They can stop funding him. In the meantime, you need to win the PR battle or Bates will continue to portray himself as a master of finance, pinning all blame to any helpless individual he can, which in this case is SG – we should always back the manager first and foremost. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS You stop funding the owner, the teams ceases to exist. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS Bates is a dillusional idiot. PR battles have no effect on his intentions. He`s also very stubborn, he`s more likely to sell more players than less if the supporters are backing him into a corner. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher No it doesn't. At worst it ends up in admin, but Ken would sell long before that happened again. Just like he did at Chelsea when they were on the brink. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS It doesn`t end up in admin unless the creditors take it there. Guess what – Bates is the creditor. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher And he has nothing to gain by it going under. See my point? He'd sell. Exactly like he did at Chelsea. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS We won`t get to the point of going under until we`re in the conference. There are no external debts. Gryff January 21, 2012 @GilFisher@TSS Gil, how do you think Chelsea got rid of Bates? They genuinely saw him the same way as we did. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @Gryff @TSS Roman`s billions got rid of Bates. Which is how this ends for us. We need to continue to support the team, get back to the Premier League and have Bates sell the club. Which is what he wants too. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher He's in it for the cash. He isn't going to let his business be devalued by relegation. He'd sell first, I guarantee it. Regardless, I aren't paying him another penny. It's gone on too long and he's taken it too far. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS The cash is selling a Premier League club. Its north of 100m quid for this club in the Premier League. THat`s Bates goal, but he`s not going to invest more than he has to on the way. Gryff January 21, 2012 @GilFisher@TSS Yes but the fans were making it awkward for Bates and threw a hissy fit over not owning their stadium (sound familiar) eventually losing masses of revenue for him, boycotting his Chelsea village making it unprofitable and forcing him to get Stamford Bridge to the club which gave him (allegedly, for the lawyers) a one-off sum but no reason to stay at the club. That's when he sold to Abramovich. By Bate's own admission he has multiple approaches per month from investors/takeovers that he calls "timewasters". Yeah, just like the fans are morons. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @Gryff @TSS They`re timewasters because they think they can pay pay Championship prices for Leeds. He wants to sell it to someone who values it as one of the top 5-10 clubs in England. He needs to get to the Premier League to do that TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher A club that owns no assets is not worth £100m. But this is irrelevant. We've tried it Bates' way for seven years and enough is enough. Nothing will change my mind on that, I aren't funding him any further. If that forces financial trouble he'll sell. He'll have no choice. The only alternative is to invest his own cash or go into admin – where he stands nothing to gain. That's the only way he'll leave. Oh and this idea he'll sell in the EPL is nonsense. He doesn't want to sell at all, he never wanted to sell Chelsea – he was forced through financial difficulties. Gryff January 21, 2012 @TSS@GilFisher Apart from anything else if we get under his skin and annoy him (and he does get annoyed, even though he plays to it in public) he might get stressed, have a heart-attack and retire to Barbados? lol GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS Well he owns the stadium. He has one of the largest supporters bases in the country with some of the highest ticket prices. It isn`t saddled with debt and long term contracts. My view since day one has been that he saw an opportunity so take Leeds, restructure them, get them back to the Premier League and sell them for a mint. I`ve seen nothing in 7 years that is inconsistent with that. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @Gryff @TSS There`s always the heart-attack angle. Surely he can`t live much longer. GilFisher January 21, 2012 Fact remains. We have to get behind these lads and not let Bates distract us. At least for a few months. Let`s go get this fucker in spite of Kenny. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher Of course something is inconsistent with that – past precedent. He never wanted to sell Chelsea, he loves being involved with football at the highest levels. He won't sell up – ever. Unless forced by financial issues. Gryff January 21, 2012 @TSS@GilFisher Megalomania is you lots' term I believe, TSS? I agree about getting behind the team, though. But when the players complain and look uninterested on the pitch we're blaming Grayson. When Grayson is doing the right things we're blaming the players. If we don't highlight Bates as the virus in this club then we turn on our own. It's best to run the anti-Bates line and also get behind the lads, otherwise Grayson will be sacked, Snoddy will leave anyway, and we'll be left blaming whoever the next generation of poor saps are. We do really need to get behind the lads on matchdays though. Really get the chants going. Only by going up do we make LUFC an attractive target to buyers, given ER/TA isn't owned by us and we've expectations and (so Bates would have buyers believe) not the income to support it. GilFisher January 21, 2012 You maybe right, but that was before he bought Leeds. I still believe that his intention is to make a mint on a turnaround project. Time will tell. I won`t root against the club to get rid of its owner. TSS January 21, 2012 @Gryff@GilFisher "My lot" find your use of that term acceptable and your response on the whole, excellently put. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @Gryff @TSS We can`t have protest be the focus of matchdays. TSS January 21, 2012 @GilFisher A turnaround project requires quick investment and quick sale. Plenty of clubs have seen that. Leeds are profitable, it's more like buying property to rent – constant income stream. GilFisher January 21, 2012 @TSS I don`t doubt that he enjoys the income provided by the investment. I think he`d enjoy the 9 figure sale price too. Nothing to say a tournaround has to be a couple of years. There`s no reason why it has to be, what with the nice income it provides in the meantime. ChicagoWhite January 21, 2012 @GilFisher@TSS even if LUFC ceased trading the assets could be purchased e.g. Name, players registrations by an alternative owner. If Bates even tried to do this I suspect the FA/FL would look positively on keeping Leeds United alive because of the fan base & the fact were one of the biggest & most successful clubs in England. The FL actually helped us previously when Bates played hard & fast with the rules they made a special circumstance for us which of course Bates/Harvey/Taylor screwed up even though we had a 15 additional points deduction levied they offered us immediate acceptance or penalty or immediate appeal which they said would looked upon favorably, of course we accepted the penalty & then tried to come back & get it revoked. Anyway as others have said he would sell & for much less than the 100M he wants for LUFC currently & thats sans ER & TA. NorthEastLoiner January 21, 2012 @GilFisher@TSS If Bates sees a threat to his cash cow then he may be more likely to sell. So not spending money will pressurise him and with season ticket holders we can still support the team. We need to target Bates alone and not Grayson (though that could be difficult unless he rediscovers tactical nous) or the players. Chareose January 22, 2012 @TSS@GilFisher incorrect, there are loads of creditors, we will be paying tax, wages, transfer fees, ambulances, electric bills, construction bills etc etc, As soon as ken realises hes not receiving any profit from leeds he will do a runner TSS January 21, 2012 £12m is still only 35% of what I reckon our turnover currently is (circa £35m). We should be looking at, at lest 50% on the squad since 70% of turnover is generated by ticket sales from fans who care about nothing else. Reply Gryff January 21, 2012 I'm going with "like" simply because I thought you were a nutjob (with a valid point) until your last sentence! Howson apparently wanted 25k p/w but definitely I think Johnson & Kilkenny would have stayed. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 But if his numbers are to be distrusted (which is a solid argument), he's trying to make the point that he's spent loads. He will have exaggerated them if anything? If that's the case, then things are even worse (and it's pretty fucking bad already!) Reply Gryff January 21, 2012 @TSS Or else he purposefuly quoted lower knowing we'd take the bait and then releases the figures next month (I believe) which are higher. Either way, I'm sure he's hardly spending massively. And it would point to wages being stupidly high for non-playing staff whch would make him look even more stupid? Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Gryff He's quoted it now. It was his own stupid fault. The accounts will be vague, so if it says £20m wages, we can only conclude that £8.5m of that goes to non-playing staff CasWhite January 22, 2012 If he has exaggerated them, then you'll be able to write about it in 12-14 mths when the accounts are released. If he hasn't a wonder if we will get an article or if it's shown other clubs have slashed there wages. Reply Shawn63 January 21, 2012 Bates is a fraud and we have known it for years, but when one of our best plays says he is no negotiating a contract due lack of ambition, that really proves it. The demo's need to really step up now, I would be there with you, living in the US and having cancer don't help my cause. Good luck guy's your goona need it ! Reply Gryff January 21, 2012 @Shawn63 Best of luck with the fight, Shawn. Can only echo your comments on Bates. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @Gryff@Shawn63 Ditto that. Good luck mate. TSS January 21, 2012 All speculative. BP's was invented by the fans. Alex Bruce is credited to a Yorkshire Radio employee. How on earth would he know? Aidy White and Jonny Howson could be true considering when they signed contracts, but still no evidence. Reply henrymouni January 21, 2012 TSS " I don't think we've ever written anything negative about the players? The general complaint is that I'm too complimentary of them. Same is true of SG". Perhaps you should!! All new players are chosen by Simon and his team. KB leaves it to them and their choices have been poor. The team is coached and motivated by Simon and his team! Most of the time they are a shambles and are not worth £1,000 per week! We are annoyed by lack of investment but do we really think it will be well spent?? Mr Townsend played well for the first game, but I doubt he will remain in the first 11. Our boys from Finland are not up to it. We all know how many other members of our squad are not up to it. Ken is his own worst enemy, but he is not responsible for our limp and rudderless team!! In short we are not getting the best out of what we have, and this has been true for several years! Unless we back the team, they will continue to stagger and slip!! There is no rich buyer waiting in the wings!! We are not a big club anymore!! Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @henrymouni I didn't mean in it the way it's come across. I meant I'm not one for singling players out for Twitter-esque levels of abuse then holding a grudge against them for months. If someone was poor, I'll write that, but all players have bad games and fans are often very over-critical of them and will be on their back from kick-off. I think you win and lose as a team and you can generalise a bit in most cases (eg. the team was poor, aside from…). No need for personal vendettas basically. Reply Chareose January 22, 2012 @henrymouni Ken is reponsible ………… The atmosphere at the club is his fault, the players wanting to leave IS his fault and all that will effect the team , be sure of that Reply henrymouni January 22, 2012 @Chareose Ken is responsible for the atmosphere. Calling fans (customers) morons was typical of his arrogance and lack of sensitivity. Dictators are always right!! Simon is responsible for the team and its performances. He seems to support Ken's budget policy, and he should have done a lot better with what he had. We are going backwards! If you look at the struggling teams in the Premier League – Wigan: Bolton: Wolves: Blackburn: WBA: QPR etc They are ALL 5 times better than us. At least 10 teams in our league are better than us!! Teams with much smaller crowds, and incomes, have put together these better teams!! Maybe not better on paper, but better on the field of play!! Chareose January 22, 2012 @henrymouni@Chareose well lets agree to disagree mate, personally i think grayson has done miricles to get us close to the playoffs two seasons running with the lack of backing hes had from his chairman. The only thing that does annoy me about grayson is his repeating of bates propaganda Mark45 January 22, 2012 @Chareose@henrymouni I don't agree he has performed miracles at all. It is not just the bates budget that is the problem, it is equally down to Grayson's judgement in the transfer market that we have the squad we do (i.e. not good enough). I completely agree with your point about Grayson repeating Bates propaganda and that is where i loose all respect for him. He is not the victim of Bates parsimony as many Leeds finds believe, he is a fully paid up member of Bates management team and is complicit in everything that is happening to Leeds. If Grayson genuinely believes all bates smoke and mirrors then he is as much a part of the problem as Bates himself, if he doesn't believe in all Bates shite then we have a self serving manager putting his own welfare before that of the club he tells all he loves so much. I would love to see Grayson stand up for the supporters of Leeds United, it would show real leadership and bottle and galvanise support for him and the team. It may very well cost him his job, is it worth keeping if you have to abandon your integrity and the hope and aspiration of all the tens of thousands of people you do the job for. Whether Grayson is a good enough manager "on the field" is the subject of heated debate between supporters (my own view is he isn't quite good enough). however "off the field" there can be no argument, his performance lacks any real leadership, integrity or bottle and for that alone a Leeds United manager he is not and never will be. ChicagoWhite January 21, 2012 Aidy is actually on 2KPW he's been offered a 4 1/2 year contract on 2.5KW which he & his reps have politely declined LUFC have not got back to him since Reply The WhiteLizard January 21, 2012 I think KB's article in the programme was the start of the coffin door creaking shut on SG. I can hear it now "Look at how much money he's had & the team still doesn't perform. He had to go" Reply TSS January 21, 2012 @The WhiteLizard It was definitely aimed at SG I feel. Just a little silly of him to think we couldn't compare that figure to other clubs. The man really is deluded. Reply ChicagoWhite January 21, 2012 @TSS@The WhiteLizard Birdseye doesn't believe in reality or consistency but I think many have started to realize this now only taken 7 years Tyler75 January 21, 2012 @TSS@The WhiteLizard I agree; I think this was preparing the ground for sacking SG if we had lost today we had lost today. Interesting comments by Warnock on football focus; he said he had been having 'conversations' with chairmen about jobs. Tyler75 January 21, 2012 @TSS@The WhiteLizard Agreed and let's be thankful as I suspect SG would have gone today and Warnock would have been in on Monday with a week left of the transfer window. Apart from everything else, Bates is also, fundamentally gutless and risk averse – he should either back his Manager or sack him but he does neither preferring to let him try and make a purse out of a sow's ear while taking income out of the club to fund god knows what. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Tyler75@TSS@The WhiteLizard I think luck has been on his side and I for one want to see him here till the end of the season. The SG doubters are 100% correct in stating he has bought some complete dross (they forget he has also picked up some real talent for next to nothing as well) but the article above explains why he is constantly hunting in the relative bargain basement section for talent. In some ways I feel sorry for him, the obvious (and understandable) pressure to succeed from fans, the demands to succeed from the owner/chairman/board and the hands shackled behind his back by finances. Chareose January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK@Tyler75@TSS@The WhiteLizard agree but i just wish he didnt come out and repeat ken bates lies, as suggested he needs to grow some balls TSS January 21, 2012 @ChicagoWhite Because they're pointless Colin. Even if they are true (I'm sure they are at times) unless you have evidence, there's nothing you can really do with them. It's hearsay at best. It's like me saying that Ken Bates categorically owns Elland Road. I suspect he does, but I can't prove it so would never write as such. I may write a piece using that as a theory, but without evidence that's all it is. You have to be careful with this kind of stuff because the truth quickly gets distorted otherwise. We end up with Eric Cantona shagging Lee Chapman's wife becoming certifiable fact (or SG shagging OB's) and other such nonsense. Reply ricobumf71 January 21, 2012 need you ask where it's gone , i thought it was glaringly obvious ; THE EAST STAND !!! Reply ChicagoWhite January 21, 2012 @TSS AOB fiance dumped him because she was appalled he asked her to sign a prenup, I just don't understand where the BS comes from about SG tapping her or that some LUFC would perpetuate this rumour. SG as anyones personal life is private in my book & should be respected as such. Reply Taekwondo_white January 21, 2012 My friends sister works for the marketing department at ER and I'm still working on ways to get her to bump captain Birdseye off when he's in the office! Reply Taekwondo_white January 21, 2012 My friends sister works at the ER marketing department, we're both still trying to get her to push Birdseye down the stairs! Reply Tyler75 January 21, 2012 @Taekwondo_white Try harder; maybe we can have a whip round – Love Leeds, assassinate Bates. Reply TSS January 21, 2012 Couple of good tackles and a decent run. We were bypassing the midfield again, that didn't help. Reply phi1888 January 21, 2012 This is all so disheartening, even the manner of our victory today was saddening, not to mention Snoddie's stand point. So to condense what i'm reading all over the net, a 'vociferous few' ( feels like there are rather alot of us) are entirely dissatisfied with the running of OUR club. This has been festering for 7 years but is now a fully blown infection. We are agreed that the chairman has no respect or kinship with the morons who are his customers, he lies without conscience or remorse, he dictates which journalists are allowed at ER and all that is broadcast on YR and generally behaves in a blatant dictatorial manner, well aware that the dissidents are too dimwitted and disorganised to do anything about it. None of us wish for a repeat of the financial fiasco that put us in this situation, but what are we going to do about it? Can we do anything about it? Would KB cut off his nose to spite his face and liquidate before letting anyone else get their mits on his Beeston project. Our enemy is well trained and experienced in this manner of situation as well as completely deluded if the above figures hold water. There is no cure for a virus but they struggle to thrive if the host is healthy enough. Leeds UNITED. Reply Chris Clingo January 22, 2012 Interesting spin on the finances this boss! Begs the question will Leeds ever be transparent?! Reply DubaiWhitesNo2 January 22, 2012 The rumours that Snoddy has now broken off contract talks has got to be worrying if not inevitable! Promises, Promises Promises…..its not only us he lies to but his own staff too. It's interesting that the article (broken in the UAE suprisingly?) says he's also a little pissed at the fact he hasn't been made captain after Howson's transfer – and on this i think he might have a point. Is he now Leeds' longest serving 1st team player? i think he would handle the responsibility well. Lonners only came in the summer and generally Goalkeepers dont make good full time captains (myself excluded!!) TSS why dont you run a vote for who the next Leeds Captain should be? BATES OUT!! Reply TSS January 22, 2012 @DubaiWhitesNo2 The decision has been made now. I should have done it before it was announced, to do it now is just calling SG's reasoning into question and whilst I agree it should have been Snoddy, I don't know how the lads are in the dressing room and why AL was chosen. He may well be the best player for the role. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @TSS@DubaiWhitesNo2 My preference would be keeper or CB (at our club that negates CB as they're too young). Leave Snodgrass to concentrate on what he does best. Just my opinion and I respect other peoples views. Gryff January 22, 2012 @TSS@DubaiWhitesNo2 Snoddy's been trying his heart out and I'm told he was hanging around the pitch after everyone else went applauding the fans. He seemed good mates with Howson and taken in with our history – I'd be surprised if he isn't hurting a little right now… Even last season when he was one of our key underperformers at times, it was always through fatigue not lack of effort. Great player, great work ethic, and if he goes any time soon I actually can't imagine the reaction of a lot of the fans… Gryff January 22, 2012 @TSS@DubaiWhitesNo2 I see Pugh as more useful than I think a lot do. White's a great talent but I don't think we should rush him. Have him in a few games, then give him time out to keep his perspective and let him digest what he's learnt. Agree about Thompson with Beausejour. TSS January 23, 2012 @Gryff@DubaiWhitesNo2 I agree and I fully understand Simon's reasons for resting him – he is very young remember. Also, there's a tactical element to having him on the bench. Pugh is a sure enough bet to have at LB, he'll do a job for sixty minutes while everyone tires, then you unleash the pace of White and the opposition are left rattling – which to some extent, is exactly what happened. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 Depends what you mean by a quiet game. As a creative force he wasn't the Delph I remember. He played a lot deeper than before but his tackling has improved immensely, he hardly wasted the ball at all and even though he has been out for a while he still looks to have a great engine – given a choice between him and Brown I'd take him every time on this showing. Let's be honest Howson has been played out of position nearly all season due to the emergence of Clayton as an attacking CM and the failure of Brown to do what he was employed to do. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 One of the key reasons we are unable to invest is we have wages on expensive contracts not contributing to the 1st team. Paynter, O'Brien and Connelly are on good contracts and would aid the cause significantly by freeing up their wage bill else where. We could also do with losing some other fringe players like Bromby, Parker and Bruce even if their wages are not significant – if they're not going to play let them have a chance somewhere else – your only get one playing career, do they want to spend a good proportion of it playing in the stiffs ? Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 One of the biggest problems here is that some of the higher wage earners are not 1st team regulars – you cannot end their contracts and therefore the 'real' 1st team players get less than some of their counterparts in the reserves. The wages are skewed because some came on free transfers and were therefore able to demand large wages to offset no transfer fee. False economy really especially if the transfer fees come directly out of the wages profit and loss. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 The one thing that is nailed on fact about the article in the programme is that Ken Bates knows the fans are unhappy. He likes to state things like vociferous few but he knows it's not a few and that it's dangerous waters he's treading. When he has to answer questions (which he doesn't like doing) you know whatever we're doing is having an effect. We have to keep it up. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 Looking at the table teams like Forest, PNE, Bristol City and Ipswich are spending more on wages than their turnover which explains why they are able to attract the best players – if however they don;t get promoted their gamble could cripple their clubs. Even teams like Palace, Watford, Coventry and Cardiff seem to have their mathematical models completely wrong. You would think a wages to turnover ratio of 60-70% would be sensible but most clubs in this league seem to be gambling the family silver for the chance of promotion to the promised land. Reply Chareose January 22, 2012 @ricobumf71 Rico if thats the case why not tell us thats why ??? why try and hide it ?? Reply AdsHG1Leeds January 22, 2012 Because it is owned by a company in the British Virgin Islands – ie a tax haven. He can pull the rent out of Leeds and pay himself (he clearly owns the company based in the Virgin Islands). The income will not be subject to tax either. If he admitted that he owned the ground then he couldnt pull the £2 million plus out of the club!! Pure scum Reply Chareose January 22, 2012 TSS do these figures include the 10 to 15 million in transfers we received for players over the last few years ? Reply TSS January 22, 2012 @Chareose Our turnover is the bottom line of everything so that should include the player sales for 2009-10. Whether Simon Grayson's £9.5m budget includes any player sales is open for debate. Ken claims it does, I'm not convinced. If it does and SG had £9.5m at start of season then the sales since would not make him overspent by £2m. Reply Chareose January 22, 2012 @ChicagoWhite@TSS no wonder poor old Aidy wants to leave……….thats a rediculours wage for a half decent footballer Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 the fact is and i said it earlier it works on this equation 2 million in (howson ) new player in (joe public) 10k per week in wages 3 years deal ==1.5 million quid joe public transfer fee 500k therefore joe public is a shite player transfer kitty and wages have to be 2 seperate budgets Reply CasWhite January 22, 2012 Only problem with these figures is it doesn't mention those with parachute payments (although this is easy to work out). As for not being able to say out of the figure quoted what we gave to players, why did the individual who came up with the above figures not try doing a bit more research as from memory it was on the club website a figure of £7.7m was mentioned for players. As for the above again it's all historical. I understand for example Barnsley's figure for this year will be closer to £9m. How many other clubs are reducing funds whilst we are increasing. Also using the turnover figure is also a bit misleading unless you know how that is raised. As we have many other activities that raise our figures above the normal ticket sales, tv, merchandise, then these have inherent costs associated and this is why our our wage bill increases to the figure mentioned. In the accounts is should also be noted for this year quoted, we held £3m in cash at bank (what about these quoted), had paid £2m to build a pavillion for the benefit of the club (incl fans), given £250k to the administrator. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @CasWhite KB has pointed out that the £7m invested in stadium development is loaned from a bank – something he cannot do for player purchases. Unfortunately it's a strange comment because a) they would also loan the money to re-purchase the stadium to reduce our rental charge and b) we have to repay the loan which means every year it's another fixed fee that comes straight off the profit and loss (and unless we're in the premiership won;t pay for themselves) Reply CasWhite January 22, 2012 Woody, I haven't heard how they have funded the development. Previous improvements, like pavillion, Billys bar, moving press lounge etc have been from club funds. This obviously was a bigger deal, but someone mentioned to me some of it is being funded by Caddicks with a repayment plan. Not sure how true this is. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @CasWhite repayment plan to Caddicks, repayment plan to bank the same is true of both, it has to be repaid and isn't self financing which purchasing the ground back would be but thank you for the information. KB seems genuinely happy with Caddicks, one of the few groups of people he's ever been happy with. TSS January 22, 2012 @CasWhite The turnover figure is what The FA are basing the 70% rule on so that's the figure we have to go by. The vast majority of Leeds' turnover (about 70% if memory serves) is ticket sales. All in accounts. As for it being historical, it has to be. You publish accounts for previous year. We don't get 2010/11 accounts until April. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @TSS@CasWhite Gates for the last lot of figures were roughly 11.5mil – which is what Bates says Grayson is spending on the entire playing side of the club. That leaves the multi-million sponsorships, TV revenue, etc. to pay for the tea-lady, board, coaches and rent. henrymouni January 22, 2012 @Gryff@TSS@CasWhite The tea ladies are on £1,000 per week!! Ken has given them squad numbers. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Gryff@TSS@CasWhite Leases for ER and TA, business rates, policing, advertising, ground maintenance, salaries for non team members, lawyers fees, accountants. The fact is that we spend approximately 50% turnover on player salaries and if we're only making £1m a year profit our overheads are staggering. Gryff January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK@TSS@CasWhite Lawyers fees, especially! We've spent £7mil on the East Stand. Either that's £7mil that could have gone into the squad, or an expensive loan on completely pointless improvements that Bates insists he is not about. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Gryff@TSS@CasWhite £7m to improve East Stand or £13m to buy back Elland Road and stop the £1.5m a year drain of cash. I know where I'd have spent the money. Others would prefer it going on transfers and wages but I still believe we would be better served long term doing a Swansea or Norwich and scouring League 1 for the best young and hungry players for reasonable transfer fees and affordable wages. If our coaching staff can't improve them further into excellant championship players then they're not doing their job. Gryff January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK@TSS@CasWhite Sure, I'd buy back ER instead of upgrading it as well. Think everyone would. Also don't mind looking at young lads from League 1. But the problem is we had a few – Snoddy, Howson, BJ, etc. and we didn't spend enough to keep them. When does it end? Can it end? If you keep on getting in quality and then selling them on you'll end up risking demotion and never having a real chance at promotion. TSS January 23, 2012 @WoodyUK@Gryff@CasWhite Totally agree. I'd have no problem with the club taking out a mortgage to repurchase the ground (£2.5m rent) or TA (£1m rent). The fact they haven't yet continue to sink money into them regardless is highly suspicious. Chareose January 22, 2012 There is another problem we havent covered on these blogs, im currently living near Portsmouth and one of the issues they have is that different parts of the ground and site are owned by different people………. My fear at Leeds united is that even if a buyer came in to buy the club Bates may still want to keep some of the other facilities , hotels that hes used our money to fund…….. we could end up being charged extortionate rental rates for the stadium (that Ken bates probably does own)…… And this will put a lot of buyers off buying the club…….. Reply CasWhite January 22, 2012 Or he probably doesnt own ER or TA and we are being charged extortinate rental already. That's what's already putting off buyers. Whoever owns TA bought this from Krasner and co before Bates was even looking at getting involved with the club. ER was also sold by Krasner and co, but I understand was then sold again. Again the first sale was down before Bates involvement. Don't forget he tried to by Wednesday before Leeds so why would he have an interest in buying these assets. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Chareose The club have the rights to purchase the stadium and if a buyer was found those rights would not have changed. The club also still retain the rights to purchase Thorpe Arch but no longer at a preferential price – now at the true value. I do not think it would put a buyer off. If Bates has purchased Elland Road the original legally binding contract is still in place. Makes me wonder if he will ever sell prior to that arrangement expiring. Reply CasWhite January 22, 2012 Woody, don't think even Bates can live that long. The original agreements will have about 17/18 years to go. There again maybe he's hanging on for a card from the Queen. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @CasWhite Very true for the stadium, I thought Thorpe Arch agreement was much shorter. Also that is where the money will be made as maybe some of the land there could be used for residential dwellings in the future. CasWhite January 22, 2012 Sorry, for any confusion. The agreement for TA is the same length as ER, ie 25 years. Difference with ER is the preferential buy-back agreement lasts for this period, whereas for TA it was only 5 years. You are right it doesn't stop us buying TA though if we put in an offer. The use of TA would come down to the Council in the end and I always was of the understanding they didn't want it to be residential. But things always change, apart for our love of the Whites. MOT Chareose January 22, 2012 @CasWhite Cas, he owns or atleast partially owns ER, Bates wouldnt spend money on extensions if he didnt. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Chareose@CasWhite Possibly. Many people believe that he owns both Elland Road and Thorpe Arch but it doesn't make it a fact. It's fine as a conspiracy theory but that's all it is. The club (not Bates unless he has a new legal contract set up between himself and the club as a company) has a legally binding contract option to purchase both sites. In theory he can spend money on improving the asset as the club has the option to buy the asset at a fixed price as part of it's sale agreement. This agreement has not expired so unless he decides he isn't buying the ground then this is not improving an asset that belong to someone else. If however he lets the agreement expire it's money down the pan, as he has done with Thorpe Arch which must now be purchased for going rate. As I've said before my priority would have been to purchase the ground, then improve the squad and only then to upgrade the facilities. Others think squad first to get promotion and then they don't care or would demand further improvements to stay in the premiership but all of that is gambles with no guarantees of success. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Chareose The figures for the arrangement are that LUFC can purchase back Elland Road for £13m. We currently spend £1.5m a year leasing it plus a further £1m a year for Thorpe Arch. Spend the £13m on buying our home back and it pays for itself within 10 years. How many years will it take for the executive boxes, museum etc to pay for themselves ? GypsyJoe January 22, 2012 Just a passing comment here but I compared the spending on Our squad too that of Middlesbrough in terms of transfer fees(yes I have too much time on my hands) and have found that Boro have spent a whopping 11.2 million on their current squad whilst in the championship and we are still only three points behind them. Just imagine what Larry could do without Bates cutting his legs off from underneath him. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @GypsyJoe Maybe slightly one sided view as in the past 3 seasons Boro have sold players for a gross sum of £52 whilst indeed spending £12m on replacement. Incidently so far for 2011/2012 they have only had free transfers incoming. Steve Gibson is an old school Chairman who loves his club and has sunk a fortune into it to try to make it successfull. I consider Boro's fans to be fortunate to have him as a chairman/owner. Reply GypsyJoe January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK As they should. It probably helps that Gibson is a Boro fan and not some nutcase who is hellbent on sucking the life out of our club. I need to add that Boro have just bought Lukas Jutiewicsz for 1.3 mill. Nice to see some owners still invest in their club. TSS January 22, 2012 @GypsyJoe Did you never see this that we publlshed: http://www.thescratchingshed.com/2011/11/simon-grayson-a-bargain-at-56320-per-point/ Reply GypsyJoe January 22, 2012 @TSS cheers for that. Don't know why some people slag Larry off so much though as by following that he is the best manager in the league. It would be nuts to sack him. Gryff January 22, 2012 @GypsyJoe@TSS THE NUMBERS ARE NOT ACCURATE! There's two or three for each club which are questionnable/just plain wrong. I will not stop banging on about this Gryff January 22, 2012 @GypsyJoe@TSS But for all that, the 9.5mil budget shows Grayson IS indeed good value per point TSS January 23, 2012 @Gryff@GypsyJoe No entirely, no, but they're a good enough guide and the best option we have in this cloak and dagger football world we live. WoodyUK January 22, 2012 Not sure if mentioned anywhere but update from Paul Dews is that the Snodgrass story is complete rubbish but then again as well as his title of chief sports writer for the YEP he is also the Leeds United media officer. Probably why we never get any real investigative journalism from them. True conflict of interest job roles for a journo being employeed by a single city football club and being the chief writer for the cities local rag. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 Oops my bad Phil Hay is writer for YEP, now why in God's name did I think it was Dews. Must be having a brain meltdown. Reply CasWhite January 22, 2012 Your ok Woody. Dews was with YEP before he took the job with Leeds. TSS January 22, 2012 @CasWhite Also, if the story was false I'd expect Dewsy to have dismissed it by now. It's allowed to build if he doesn't. henrymouni January 22, 2012 I am desperate for Simon to be successful with us, and I am grateful that he got us out of Div1 – by the skin of our teeth. Once we hit the Championship we were all expecting a big push for promotion. A decent investment in the playing squad. Many of our players were out of their depth in the Championship. Before the season started the 'War chest' was first mentioned by KB. The whole thing was mismanaged by KB & his team, including Simon, who maintained that we did not need to spend big money (or even small money, as it turned out) to get promotion!! Look at us now ! Further away than we were last year, playing terrible football for the last 18 months, for the most part. At least the present unrest cannot be blamed for the teams poor performances. They have been under-performing for ages!!! All there is, is NOW!! Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 Have to admit Villa's result was one of the first Prem results I looked yesterday (for obvious reasons) and I smiled when I saw the scoreline. Saw Duncan Castles tweeting we are also getting Lichaj on loan from Villa (have been told he's a reliable tweeter but have my doubts after Paul Dews statement yesterday). Now I would be happy with Delph and Lichaj in on temporary contracts plus Pugh permanent. Still would like another CB plus either Keogh or Hulse but maybe I'm being greedy. What would definately make me happy would be seeing Paynter, O'Brien, Bromby, Bruce and Connelly leaving and getting 2 or 3 new players but it'll never happen. Kilkenny was a sulky, whinging git but he did know how to pass the ball and pick out players – still glad he's gone though, Clayton is better. Reply ellisno9 January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK i heard bruce is on somewhere between 10 and 15k a week! Reply TSS January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK Agree, he does seem a little panicked. He's mentioned season ticket boycotts twice in the last week. Starting to sound a little desperate to me. Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @TSS Add to that the club rolling out it's 'popular to fans' mouth piece in Lorimer and Larry's recent statements the club are having to 'explain' the situation daily. On the back of this more rumours are being generated than normal (I am sure some of it is mischief making). More transparency and it wouldn't be required. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @TSS@WoodyUK What I've taken away from Bates recently (though not a pscyhologist) is a slightly stunned reaction to the fans seeing Grayson sell and instead of banging on about Grayson not being good enough, we're getting to the root of the problem. And the old bastard has only made matters worse for himself by giving us cold hard proof that Grayson's missing out on targets is 95% Bates & the Board. @WoodyUK I agree with you about spending a bit too much and then being crippled for a few years, but the thing is we had Delph's sale + 1.5mil and put it into an East Stand. For that, we could have kept Bradley Johnson, Jonny Howson and Robert Snodgrass and gone a long way to replacing Max Gradel. That would give us a similar team to the one that nearly got automatic promotion last season – instead we've a much worse team. It's not a matter of sensible spending. Bates is spending on a stadium that will always be there over good young talent that will move on and will have to be replaced somehow. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @TSS@WoodyUK Speaking of which, did anyone else see Nimely for Coventry on the FLShow? I knew he was a rated youngster but he has tidy footwork, a massive header (better than Becchio's) and a good finish on him. Worth a look? Reply GypsyJoe January 22, 2012 I think Bates just says these things in order to get under our skin. I bet it brings him great pleasure thinking about us complaining and picking apart what he says. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @GypsyJoe It took about 2 minutes of picking for most, Joe! Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 and Scummer. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK I've never seen a Duncan Castles tweet that hasn't been very plausible. I can remember one or two instances when he was wrong but deals fall through. He seems quite conscious of the quality of the rumours he tweets and he is (after all) an investigative sports journalist… Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @Gryff Grayson says it's complete rubbish, Dews says it's not accurate so I'm assuming Castles information is wrong (he tweets what he hears but that doesn't make it correct). My problem is where is he getting some of his information. He states no player is on > £18k a week, no one but the board, human resources/payroll and Grayson should know what every player's salary is. He's adamant the Howson fee is £750k plus variables but doesn't know what the variables are – this intimates the news isn't from the club, Howson or his agent (all of which probably do know). Reply TSS January 22, 2012 Why do we have less TV income now than in League One? Think you'll find we've been on quite a lot this season. You get more money for being in the Championship anyway (like you get more for being in Prem.) You said yourself sponsorship is higher, crowds aren't actually up but prices are so that's an increase. No idea why you think wages effects turnover – your understanding of that term is obviously wrong. Turnover is total income. Outgoings aren't figured in. We don't take wages off the turnover then decide our wage budget based on what's left – how would that make sense? We've already paid them! So basically, all income has gone up yet the £27m turnover in League One hasn't? Our wage budget – by Ken's own admission is £9.5m. If turnover has gone up (which I'll bet you any sum you care to wage it has) then 30% is probably about right. Regardless, I never actually mentioned any turnover based on estimations, I used the turnover from League One and current wage figures meaning the percentage will be less than what I actually stated when our turnover is revealed. Reply TSS January 22, 2012 Why do we get less TV income in the Championship than in League One exactly? We've been on about the same amount of times, if not more, and Championship games cost more (so pay more). Also, the Championship as a competition pays more to teams – just like the Premier League does. If sponsorship and ticket sales are higher, then turnover IS higher. Wages have no bearing on turnover, you clearly have no idea what the term means. Turnover is your total income. You don't deduct everything first then come up with a figure. We don't take wages from our total income, then use the remainder to pay wages – how would that make sense? You obviously misunderstood the above completely and have jumped in ranting without the foggiest clue what you're talking about. I never once said 25% nor did I base that on current turnover. I said current our wage budget that Ken Bates revealed in his match notes was 35.2% of income based on the turnover of 2009/10 – a turnover that will have since risen due to promotion (the same as it does for all teams). Do you need a calculator? Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 @TSS i think bates also said that tv revenues were up and are not in any budgets .leeds have done well this season for tv games so thats more money Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 THE fact is for those in the table that are paying more than they are getting in ,in wages well frankly its suicidal . especially as the likes of bristol etc are not likely to ever get promoted in the near future . 20 k per week is a million quid a year, i would guess that none of our players are near that and right now apart from snodgrass i do not believe they should be Reply TSS January 22, 2012 @number1inyorkshire Wouldn't disagree with that. But we'll lose Snoddy, like Howson and BJ before him because we won't pay reasonable enough wages to keep quality players. We don't have the funds to bring quality in either. Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 @TSS the thing that winds me up is the budget for leeds includes wages for players as well as transfer money ,The wage bill would be poor anyway and could increase %wise another 10% say ,but the way bates does it it would,t make any difference . What should happen is the wage budget is 11-13 million fair enough but the buying budget is 5-6 million plus what you make from sales, sales obviously make wages available .. That would allow grayson to decide how he wants to spend his money, 2 miilion on a striker a million on a defender etc ,and would mean that instead of panic buying we could add 2-3 quality additions every year and sell the same ,that would allow for a settled squad .. You just do not get quality for the money we are spending , interesting that he also said since he has been at leeds he has spent 20 million on building projects . i have to say elland road of the pitch is a better place to go over all ,but because of whats going on ,on the pitch there are fewer people going to E R .. Simon Roberts January 22, 2012 Not while a certain person 'owns' this club. There is a huge amount of money swishing around and it doesn't go towards getting players in. Work it out yourself! Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @number1inyorkshire I'd be careful on the countries angle Colin. The only reason countries like Ireland and Greece haven't been liquidated is because of IMF, & other countries stepping in. If that happened, it would spread like wild fire. We've been unportrayably fortunate the crisis wound up as it did (so far). LUFC is nowhere near similar to countries' economies. Reply Gryff January 22, 2012 @WoodyUK Or else he was simply told it was 750k plus variables when he asked but isn't told anything more than that. He's reasonably reliable. When he gives a rumour I take it seriously. But you're right it's still a rumour. Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 To be fair to Bates colin he did that with Beckford and took a a hit, although as Newcastle were in the champs at the time he never wanted to go there .I also believe that it was grayson who sanctioned the sale of howson and i do think he does make team decisions ,However and its a big however he is tied by the constraints of the budget he is given . howson would not have signed simple as that and because of his injury which might be 1 week or 6 weeks or rest of the season he might not have played for the rest of the season ,it was better to sell him, than him walk for free ,i agree with that . But for bates to say that grayson gets that for his transfer kitty is wrong and misleading and if i have to be truthful is almost a lie. in real terms what has happened they have got 2 million + wages . the wage bill has gone down so he should be able to go spend 1.5 million on a player and then his wages will replace howsons in the already agreed budget .the budget is the same for wages we have a new decent player for 1.5 mill and there is 500k to add to snoddys wages . But the bates way for 2 million quid we get a 500k player it makes no sense moving forward Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 well thats what we are been lead to believe by leeds 2 million quid .obviously his wages are what we will not have to pay for him if he leaves ,but i bet we will have to pay the remainder of his contract as he never asked for a move ??? I agree with showing ambition by keeping the better players, its what should be done ,however the said player aswell has to want to sign ,beckford, howson never wanted to ,funnily enough the only 1 that did was Bradley johnston or did he .i think some players price themselves out to get a move .. its the Bates way of player transfer/wage budgets that is holding us back because of the amount mentioned in his program notes you have take of the amounts paid for players bought ,which makes the actual wage bill smaller ,which is why Grayson is trying to get frees so he can pay them the going wages Does that include agents aswell do we know ?? Managable debt is ok ,we all know about credit scores etc ,we should have some loans now should we not ??.But debt for the sake of it is ,well pointless Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 Surely the 20 million pounds spent on building projects in seven years would have bought the ground back by now . that surely would have made more sense what is the amount we have to pay to get the ground back now does anyone know ?? Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 wow thats seems a lot ,so bates has spent half the value of the ground on repairs and he does not own it , That howards restaurant is a f@#$ing eyesore i expect Jack and Vera Duckworth to appear from it at any min its like a zit on a super models face Reply number1inyorkshire January 22, 2012 looked at that stadium to day it is fantastic went to watch rugby 7s in commonwealth games ,it is fantastic place ,mind so is mk dons stadium . i do like the new stadiums my fav place to watch footy is wembley .not that we as leeds fans get there often lol but i go watch England matches Reply WoodyUK January 22, 2012 @number1inyorkshire £13m to buy back Elland Road and (if they'd done it in the correct time frame) £5m to buy back T.A. (now we have to pay market rate to get T.A. but we do have exclusive rights to buy it until the lease runs out). Reply number1inyorkshire January 23, 2012 @WoodyUK thought 35 mill was a bit high ,thats probably its value .. so instead of bates whingeing about the rent he has had to pay because of krasner etc ,he should have just bought it with the 20 million he has spent, he could of had both buy now a.built training ground where it used to be on the car park and sold thorp arch for building . ive said it before this man is an idiot .. Reply econ January 22, 2012 @number1inyorkshire in plain terms, your a fool, as an economics graduate from York uni, i can tell you being in debt and an acceptance of debt is what has led to this global financial crisis, and is what will cause a collapse in the way football is run. Your argument for the way manchester united is run is how Leeds united got into its debt problem initialy, because your loan is not secured against a tangable good such as a building its against a tempermental 20 something year old. the idea of borrow now pay later when in the Prem is essentialy a form of gambling as it relies on you staying up and matching increasing expectations which are being fuelled by players only there due to your increasing debt. Ultimately debt has led to people losing persepctive with the true cost of running a football club, and leeds united is just one the few being run as a business rather then a play thing. Reply TSS January 23, 2012 @econ@number1inyorkshire Debt is necessary for most businesses to exist and grow and is always a gamble. The global recession was caused by an American mortgage crisis that had a knock-on effect. It happens. Economies have ups and downs as I'm sure you know, that doesn't mean the lending that builds economies needs to stop entirely – it means people shouldn't lend beyond their means. So long as projected turnover is higher than loan repayments, that's a sound enough gamble I work for a major highstreet retailer. If we want to build 200 new stores, we don't save up for a few years until we can afford it. We borrow from the bank, build the stores, increase profits by doing so and repay the loan. This is perfectly healthy business practice that benefits the economy all round. The banking industry benefits, we create new jobs instantly, our total profits rise (hopefully), builders are put to work, everyone is a winner. All this requires lending however. But we're gambling just as much as a football club is by doing that. They're relying on the players to perform and we're relying on trade. Hopefully, we've both done our homework and can minimise risk, but there always is one. Businesses fail every day just like football clubs, that doesn't mean you just stop trying and happily accept the rut we're in. Anyway, all this is besides the point. The point is, our turnover should allow for a much bigger player budget. We should be able to compete with other clubs and retain key players but can't. Reply number1inyorkshire January 23, 2012 @econ managable credit is not the same as debt ,it only becomes that when you can not afford to the repayments e:g manu , the problem i have with economics graduates is the move on to become MP'S and its them that get us into this mess .can;t wait for you to have a go lol i will also assume you are replying to colin not me .. i thank you Reply number1inyorkshire January 23, 2012 @TSS@econ can we get replys sorted out LOL i got called a fool and we all know thats colin lol .. only joking colin whats funny is it was by a graduate tax dodger !!!! Reply number1inyorkshire January 23, 2012 @TSS@econ thats a good argument tss i agree with every thing you say THE only thing i would say is that .football clubs are over spending because alright a few administrations but none has disappeared yet .it might do for football if 1 or 2 did go altogether ,there always seems to be a knight in shining armor at the last min . i felt pompey would have been the 1st 1 and still might ,it might help football a little and rid football of that big fat smelly git with all the tattoos etc LOL Reply Gryff January 23, 2012 @TSS@econ@number1inyorkshire You're right TSS – it happens. It'll happen again if we keep accepting debt as a wise thing. To a very limited extent it can help reinvigorate a business, or tide it over a bad time, or help it do something like buy a property. But this isn't the kind of debt we're talking about either in terms of countries or football clubs. It's less than 100 years since there was no concept of debt in boom-times. Governments would run up surpluses in good years, and then wrack up debts in recessions or wars. Then they'd build up the surpluses again. When they were in surplus they cut taxes and invested in the country; then when they were in recession they'd raise taxes and cease a lot of the investment. And that was a good thing. It's only 130 years since Gladstone damned the Conservatives because their warmongering meant the income tax had gone up from 2p to 5p in the pound(!!!) Now we're used to massive rates because spending has to always go up and taxes, if anything, always have to come down. And the answer? Debt! That wonderful thing that makes budgets balance – until the next loss of confidence. It's entirely the Emperor's New Clothes. Reply TSS January 23, 2012 @Gryff@econ@number1inyorkshire There's nothing wrong with debt. The word has just taken on extra meaning recently it seems. People buy homes because of debt, businesses are started and grow because of debt, most big companies (LUFC included, I'm sure) have enormous overdrafts on their current account because money doesn't always come in at a steady pace, yet they have the same outgoings every month – think ST renewals for LUFC with players wages, rent, utility bills etc… coming off monthly. The mismanagement of debt, an over-reliance on debt and this culture we have of consumerism debt may be problematic, but that's people abusing an otherwise necessary and important thing. You'll never change it in this country either. It may be managed better now, but Britain's economy is built on the financial sector. It'd be like Germany shutting down it's car industry or China ceasing to make shit plastic pieces of crap. Reply Gryff January 23, 2012 @TSS@Gryff@econ@number1inyorkshire That's what I said, though. Debt is okay as a very limited boost – to buy a property, to tide you over if you have a short-term shortfall. What Colin's point was, was that we should all embrace living in a constantly indebted club (and country). That's wrong – that's the wrong use for debt. And I assure you the "extra" meaning of debt existed for a century before the 1920s, then came back through the 30s, 40s and 50s, and only slowly disappeared again under Maggies "who gives a f*ck" yuppie government. Reply TurnDevil January 23, 2012 We have 1 big problem which creates 2 others. The 1 is Bates, and the problems he creates are short sightedness, and bad practice. He sells players in order to report a profit, which is justified by saying they want to much money. To me, if a player is worth £20k (ie JH) then its better to pay that for 2 years than to take a million now and simply use it to paper over the P & L. A wage of £1m a year is simply easy to justify if we get promoted as he will be worth more simply for been a premier league player. He's worth £2m now (but we sell him for £1m), £3m+ in 17 months in the Championship and £5m if we get to the premier league. Either way we have sold him for half price now when we could have used him for anither year or two and then sold him to cover the wage we offered. Some think this will get us into trouble, but it's all about CapEx which is how all business function (long term write off), and as uncle Ken keeps telling us that this is a business then he needs to stop attending the Risdale school of Exonimics and step aside so someone with vision and a business brain can run LUFC. Lets face it, if we have too many people on the books, or pay too high a wage on a select few – it's Uncle Kens fault not ours or SG. Reply TSS January 23, 2012 That's been largely discredited due to the fact it's a voluntary survey sent out to all pro footballers. A pro footballer is classed as anyone on a professional contract, so anyone earning money from the game basically. Most clubs will have 20+ youth players earning token sums (by comparison to the "big" players) so this massively distorts the figures. Furthermore, the highest earners may be less inclined to reveal salary than those on low wages. It's fundamentally flawed either way. Reply TSS January 23, 2012 Besides, we're comparing our wage budget to other Championship clubs. There is no better point of comparison I can think of – you? Reply dess January 23, 2012 Nice looking chest, I guess Ken's retirement fund is in there. Where's the egg cup for Simon's player fund? Reply TSS January 23, 2012 @dess The chest was dropped on. It's crushed. Reply henrymouni January 23, 2012 Aaag!! "No Problems Over Snodgrass Deal" Grayson. "Norwich submitted a bid of around £3m for Snodgrass last summer – an offer which Leeds refused – and the winger turned down the offer of a new contract from United soon after, leading to what Grayson claimed was an amicable and temporary suspension of negotiations." Grayson said: "His contract talks have not got going since the summer. We turned down a bid from Norwich and both parties agreed then that we would leave it until it suits us both. It's not as if we've got round the table in the last 10 days and things have stalled. "There've been no negotiations for four to five months and that was agreed in the summer. He still has 18 months on his contract so we're in a good position. We'd like to keep him longer, which is why we offered a new contract, and when you turn down a fee from another club it's courtesy to offer a new deal. "We didn't have to do that in the summer and that's why we've left it. Whoever's come up with the story saying talks have broken down is talking rubbish." The idiot has just confirmed that talks HAVE BROKEN DOWN, and Snoddy will be gone at the end of this season!!! " amicable and temporary" = broken down!!! " He still has 18 months on his contract so we're in a good position" Good position my a…!! Now is the time to sort it. Reply Chareose January 23, 2012 @henrymouni agree Reply Gryff January 24, 2012 @henrymouni What more can Grayson do? Reply henrymouni January 24, 2012 @Gryff Warm greetings Gryff my friend! 1. He must get the team playing winning football – that is his job! I think you will agree that we are still under-performing, and he must arrest the slide and get a grip!! Our recent form has been terrible, and imagine where we would be without those flukey victories!! 2. He must not let this transfer window go the way of all the others, with hard luck stories and bull….! He has money and KB's support (Aaaggg!) to bring 2 or 3 players in!! He claimed in December that he had players lined up – where are they?? 3. He must stop pretending we are playing quite well, as this insults our intelligence. 4. He must stand up for himself, if he feels he is not getting full backing from KB. 5. KB has said he wants promotion this year!! So Simon knows what more he needs to do!! I really hope he can do it!!! jigzy84 February 18, 2012 Case and point potsmouth at number 1 in the wage table says it all really!! Reply jigzy84 February 20, 2012 Allow me to highlight that out of the 24 clubs in the league 16 are more than likely recording a loss year on year according to the data out of them 6 clubs spending are over 100% of turnover on player wages meaning instant accrual of debt, and 10 other clubs spending over 80% of turnover on wages meaning very likely accrual of debt. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Your email address will not be published. Name* Email* Website Comment


text:
So naturally, I'm *ahem* over the moon over Two Faced cosmetics's Galaxy Glam Eye Shadow because it looks like this:
Out of this world. Picture from sephora.comIs it really eye shadow, or did someone snag a part of the galaxy with her butterfly net and set it in a silver case? Where MAC's Flashtronic mineralize shadows gleamed in the pans like planet surfaces, the Two Faced Galaxy Glam shadows make me feel like an astronaut orbiting the earth in a shuttle. The Galaxy Glam Shadows come in four shades:
- Deep Space - black with cobalt blue
- Moonbeam - black with laser light green
- Shooting Star - black with galactic gold
- Supernova (shown) - black with peach and pink

subset: commoncrawl


text:
WEST COVINA — Underground water contaminated with volatile organic compounds has been found beneath a residential neighborhood south of the BKK landfill in what regulatory authorities describe as the first evidence of polluted water leaving the dump.
Authorities said they are confident the contaminated water can be removed and poses little, if any, danger to the area's drinking water supplies.
Ray Delacourt, senior engineer with the regional water quality control board, said the probable source of the contamination has already been identified and eliminated.
He said the contaminants apparently came from condensation in pipes that extract methane gas from the dump for incineration. Delacourt said dump operators formerly allowed the liquid to drain into a sump and percolate into the ground. There was nothing wrong with that practice, Delacourt said, as long as the dump was thought to be capable of containing hazardous waste.


text:
We are shocked by Cecile Richards response because we are Christians and we aren't used to hearing the Jewish viewpoint. But all she did was enunciate what nearly all Jews believe. On this subject, the Jewish viewpoint is indistinguishable from the secular viewpoint. Christians believe a human person begins at conception, Hindus and Buddhists argue that human beings pre-exist conception, Muslims define the beginning as a certain number of days after conception (depending on whether the child is male or female). There is a fairly wide range of opinion on the subject within the Jewish community, but Reform Judaism is the largest bloc in the United States; they generally argue that life begins at first breath. Unless you understand other people's arguments better than they do, you won't succeed in changing their minds.
People who argue abortion often make little headway because they compare apples and oranges. Here's a scorecard to help you keep track of what the subject is. Arguments about abortion generally revolve around three areas:
1) being alive vs
2) being a human person vs
3) the rights inherent to a human person.
1) Being AliveWhen people say "We don't know when life begins", they aren't making a statement about evolution.
The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the fertilized egg is alive. the embryo alive. All of it is alive. When we discuss abortion, we aren't discussing when "life" begins. What people really mean to say is "We don't know when the human person's life begins."
But, since you DO know when the human person's life begin, and they claim not to know, they actually mean, "We can't agree on when the human person's life begins." Correct them immediately and verify that this is what they meant. Definitions matter. This is why:
2a) Personhood: Biological testsIn almost every case, they will then insist on some biological test to establish personhood. Some popular biological tests are listed below.
- Size – is it too small?
- Appearance – does it look human?
- Heartbeat (not all living persons have heartbeats, yet all living snakes do)
- Brainwaves (you don't need brainwaves, to be alive. Cows have brainwaves but are not persons)
- First breath (Jews believe no child exists until the first breath after birth infuses the soul)
- Physical suffering: Cannot feel pain, so killing is justified (neither can surgery patients)
- Viability (depending on time period considered, none of us is viable)
- Birth defects (what counts as a birth defect? Two X chromosomes?)
These are all external tests. None of them really demonstrates personhood; at best, they are all merely proxies for personhood. After all, if external tests were sufficient to know a person, then the most efficient way to get to know someone would be to meet them, and then immediately vivisect them: slice open their chest, examine their stomach contents, crack open the skull and verify brain structures, etc. Every biological test - stethoscopes, EEGs, MRIs, etc. - are all forms of painless or virtual vivisection by which we verify the integrity of various bodily structures.
Yet, for some odd reason, people rarely take their first dates to an MRI scanner or have their EEGs checked. If these tests were really efficient tests for determining the quality of personhood, everyone would subject each other to these tests all the time. If you want to know what a person is, consider whether there can be such a thing as a person who has absolutely no brain. Such persons do exist.
2b) Personhood: Communication testsMost people don't even realize that they require a communication test for personhood. They think they are demanding some inherent quality of being, such as:
- Self-Awareness
- Social capability: can embryo make decisions?
- Rationality vs. non-rationality
- Sense of morals and/or ethics
- Presence of Ego/soul
- Sense of humanity
Unfortunately, it is impossible to demonstrate any of these attributes unless the entity is capable of communicating. Someone who possesses one or more "inherent" attributes but cannot communicate them to the outside world will be judged a "non-person". Many people who were thought to be in comas turned out not to be - they simply were unable to move the muscle systems necessary to establish communications with others, and so were misdiagnosed.
Persons can only be known by self-revelation. You can't know if I like Snickers bars simply be examining my stomach. You might see that I have eaten one, but you don't know if I like it until I tell you. I have to reveal myself to you.
One of the reasons the Romans considered everyone else to be barbarians is that no one else spoke Latin. They couldn't communicate with them, therefore they considered them subhuman. This was a common conceit in early history - most peoples considered themselves human and everyone else subhuman barbarians for the same reason. Modern people make exactly the same judgement: if you can't communicate, you aren't a person.
One of the reasons the Romans considered everyone else to be barbarians is that no one else spoke Latin. They couldn't communicate with them, therefore they considered them subhuman. This was a common conceit in early history - most peoples considered themselves human and everyone else subhuman barbarians for the same reason. Modern people make exactly the same judgement: if you can't communicate, you aren't a person.
The triumph of Christianity was exactly the realization that communication doesn't matter - others are fully human even when we can't communicate with them. What matters is the presence of the human soul, which is comprised of the human intellect and human will. Whether the soul can successfully use the tool of the human body to communicate is irrelevant. Non-Christians don't understand reality well enough to accept this understanding, so they revert to a variation of the pagan view: "If you can't talk to me, then you aren't human."
In fact, this is arguably why the "biological test" for personhood is so popular. The culture would like to retain the Christian insight (communication doesn't matter), so it uses tests that do not require the subject to communicate (EKG, EEG, etc). Unfortunately, by treating the subject as an object, those tests throw away one central aspect of personhood: self-revelation.
However, this raises another problem. What if the entity can talk to you, but it isn't a human person?
In fact, this is arguably why the "biological test" for personhood is so popular. The culture would like to retain the Christian insight (communication doesn't matter), so it uses tests that do not require the subject to communicate (EKG, EEG, etc). Unfortunately, by treating the subject as an object, those tests throw away one central aspect of personhood: self-revelation.
However, this raises another problem. What if the entity can talk to you, but it isn't a human person?
Within a few years, we will have a different kind of misdiagnosis: the Turing test. Machines may soon be able to communicate in ways that make them hard to distinguish from persons. If a machine does communicate in this way, is it a person or the illusion of a person? We can create auditory, visual and tactile illusions. Would this be a kind of logical illusion? After all, the machine is really just following a program written by a real person or group of persons. So are we communicating with the machine? Or are we communicating with a group of persons, some who may even be dead? Is a computer that passes the Turing test really just an interactive book, a cell phone conversation once removed, or is it something more?
And given the fact that the machine is created by a group of persons, will it be a walking, talking example of a corporation, the "legal person" idea dreamed up by lawyers and judges in the late 1800s? To Christians, it is obvious that computers which pass the Turing test are really just rather complicated phone calls to recording machines. But others won't see it that way.
3) Personhood: Rights
Even if you can agree on how to define the existence of a person, what rights does a person have? Are rights inherent to the individual (e.g., granted by God or ontology), or are rights granted by society?
- Does society grants rights?
- Can we kill it if its existence would make us feel guilty:
- for refusing to care for it as we should (it would suffer)
- for not being able to care for it as we should (it would suffer)
- if someone else could care for it as we should have (e.g., abort rather than adopt)
- That is, do others have a right to make us feel guilty by volunteering to care for it?
- Can we replace it?
- We have already granted society the right to take away other people's lives (death penalty).
Arguments about death penalty vs. abortion are merely arguments about whether society's right to take human life is limited (to the guilty) or unlimited (government can kill whoever it chooses). For instance, the Chinese agree that women are persons, but deny that women have the right to choose the number of children they bear. The government does. Belgian doctors agree you are a person, but you don't choose when your life ends. They do.
So, Planned Parenthood doesn't really care about biological tests nor communications tests. By their lights, personhood is granted by society through society's delegate: the woman who gives birth. If society (the woman) denies you personhood, then you are a non-person, subject to whatever future society (the woman) deems appropriate.
If one person mentions brainwaves while the other insists on a woman's right to choose, the two people are talking past each other. One wants to know what constitutes a person, the other wants to know what rights a person has. Point this out. Ask them to settle on one discussion or the other, and then stick to that discussion.
If you are trying to define when personhood begins, then don't discuss personal rights until the definition is agreed upon. If you want to discuss personal rights, there is no point bringing in a discussion of when personhood begins. They don't care when personhood begins - they just care what rights a person has.


text:
Big Sale On Rav Yaakov Weinberg Book! Only $10!
Due to a large sponsorship, Forever His Students is now available at a massive discount of over 60%!
Click here for more informationPrepare for the High Holidays with the profound thoughts of Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisrael Baltimore, of blessed memory.
Order yours today, and receive an autographed copy from the author, Boruch Leff.
Click here: link
Mussar Kallah VI -- New York -- November 16
The extraordinary gathering that is the Mussar Kallah will take place on Sunday November 16 at the JCC in Manhattan in New York. This is your opportunity to learn from some of this generation's foremost teachers of the profound and ancient Jewish spiritual discipline of Mussar, and to gather with the growing community of people walking a Jewish path with heart.
Click here for more informationWhether you have little or no knowledge of Mussar or if you are an experienced student, the Mussar Kallah is your opportunity to meet and learn with:
... among other sweet and deep souls who will share their wisdom and experience with you, to help you guide the journey that is your life.
The theme of this year's Kallah is "Lifting the Veils to Relationship." The day's full program of sessions will focus on learning, insight and practice to remove the obstacles to relating to yourself, to other people, and to HaShem.
Though little known outside the Orthodox world, and even neglected there over the last decades, the embers of Mussar have continued to glow, and this tradition is being reinvigorated today. Mussar addesses the spiritual yearning that is arising in every corner of the Jewish world today.
Only 200 places are available! Register now to reserve your place.
For more information and to register, please visit the JCC website or email firstname.lastname@example.com.
If you are coming to New York from out-of-town, or if you are already a student of Mussar, you are invited to join in the rich and intimate Shabbaton that will precede the Kallah. Information on the Shabbaton is also available at the JCC website, where you can register as well.
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement.)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Announcements #054: Big Sale on Book & Mussar Kallah VI
Big Sale On Rav Yaakov Weinberg Book! Only $10!


text:
Apunipima was incorporated under the Corporations Act in 2013. Apunipima is able to have up to 10 Elected Directors and three skills-based Directors under its constitution.
Elected Directors represent the four regions of Cape York; the regions are based on cultural linkages and kinship, community populations, health profile and geography. Board representation is determined by the number of members in each region.
Board members must be a member of Apunipima and undergo a nomination, selection and election process before they can become a Director on the Board. Directors serve a term of three years.
Directors do not receive remuneration for their services but do receive travel expenses.
The Board holds eight meetings per year - four face to face and four via phone and video conferencing.
Becoming a Board Member
Cape York residents wishing to join the Board must first become a member of Apunipima.
Members are able to nominate themselves for Board positions by filling out a nomination form prior to the Board elections.
The form (which is posted to all members) asks nominees to outline their skills, experience and what they will bring to the role.
Nominations are assessed against selection criteria by an independent nomination assessment panel. If nominations meet the criteria, the nominee becomes a candidate for the election.
Members for each region are then sent a profile of their regional candidates along with a ballot paper. Only members are able to be nominated or vote in the election.
Once all of the votes have been cast, a count is undertaken by officers of Apunipima with the outcome reported to the Board. The newly elected Directors are then sworn in at the next Annual General Meeting.
Elected Directors
Region One: Bamaga, Horn Island, Injinoo, New Mapoon, Seisia
Patricia Yusia, Bamaga
Patricia Yusia is passionate about health and has dedicated most of her life to building community development initiatives to improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
In the past she has successfully advocated for indigenous issues through participation in many different non-government organisation boards and at a government executive level.
Demonstrating a keen interest in the health and wellbeing of our children, Patricia currently holds the position of Director of the Child Protection Peak body and is also a Director for the Remote Area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care Program.
With over 26 years' experience in health, not only as a senior health worker but also as a senior executive at Bamaga Hospital, Patricia is committed to involving community in the development of initiatives and programs designed to improve their own health.
Region Two: Aurukun, Kowanyama, Mapoon, Napranum, Pormpuraaw, Weipa
Thomas Hudson – Kowanyama
Thomas Hudson was elected Chair of Apunipima Cape York Health Council for five years after spending a number of years as Deputy Chair. He has been a proud part of the Board for many years.
Thomas also is Chair of the Kowanyama Health Action Team and has 27 years' experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, Indigenous councils and as a health lobbyist.
For 18 years Thomas managed Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council's Community Development Employment Projects Program which develops skills and improves the capacity of job seekers living in remote communities.
Aileen Addo - Chair, Mapoon
Aileen has worked in the health service arena for over 30 years and is currently a councillor for Mapoon Shire Council, holding the position of Mayor.
This experience combined with previous Board directorships have led Aileen to develop effective communication, negotiation and influencing skills that will support Apunipima to position itself as the lead agency for health service delivery through community control across the Cape.
Region Three: Coen, Laura, Lockhart River
Ethel Singleton- Lockhart River
Ethel Singleton is Coordinator of Lockhart River's Pytham Women's Shelter, Chair of the Lockhart River Community Justice Group and Chair of the Lockhart River Health Action Team.
Her interest in health was sparked through holding the role of Chair with the Health Action Team and the high incidence of chronic disease in her community.
Ms Singleton believes community controlled health services have a positive role to play in improving health in remote communities and wants to see more people taking responsibility for their own health.
She was elected Director of Region 3 in 2016 and is looking forward to further contributing to the health of Lockhart River, Laura and Coen in this role.
Region Four: Cooktown, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge, Wujal Wujal
Lionel 'Paul' Gibson – Cooktown
A long-standing, well-respected Board Member, Paul is not afraid to challenge and provoke debate about the critical issues facing community members in his region. Paul is looking forward to taking Apunipima to the next level via its most recent Strategic Plan.
Trevor 'Shane' Gibson - Deputy Chair, Cooktown
Trevor Shane brings a broad range of skills and experience to the position of Director. Trevor has worked as a Director of an Arts and Culture Centre, BRACS Community Radio and as a community police officer.
As a traditional owner, Trevor Shane is well aware of the health issues of his people and brings community heart and spirit to the Board. Trevor sees his role as standing up for the people of Mossman Gorge, Cooktown, Wujal Wujal and Hopevale to ensure they get the health services they deserve.
Skills-based Directors
Professor Robyn McDermott
Robyn McDermott has extensive experience health services management and clinical and public health leadership roles with a focus on strategic research and program evaluation in health services focusing on chronic disease prevention in rural, remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.
Robyn is a former Director of the Heart Foundation (Queensland) and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and has had senior management positions on universities (Pro Vice Chancellor and Vice President, Health Sciences, University of South Australia (2004-9), and Foundation Director South Australia /Northern Territory DataLink in SA Health (2009-12)) as well as membership of the Inaugural Health Performance Council of South Australia (2007-11).
Greg Barnier
Greg Barnier is an experienced human resources executive with a background in the public, private and not for profit sectors in Australia and the Pacific region. He has held various HR Director roles in retail financial services and has led a large shared services business. Greg has also managed a business providing business coaching, human resource management consulting and career transition services to senior executives, business owners and not for profit organisations.
Greg has been a member of the Apunipima Cape York Health Council Board as an ex-officio member and then as a director since 2007.
Greg is currently the Chief Human Resources Officer for a NSW Government Agency and is Chair of the NSW Public Sector Community of HR Professionals Advisory Board.
In addition to his extensive corporate experience, Greg holds the following qualifications:
Greg Mitchell
Chartered Accountant and Registered Company Auditor Greg Mitchell has over 20 years of experience as an external auditor and corporate advisor. Greg undertakes all forms of statutory audits in both the public and private sectors and specialises in working with listed entities, public companies, large family businesses and not-for-profit entities.
Greg also provides corporate advisory services to a wide range of businesses. He assists clients in identifying key issues, performance indicators and monitoring financial performance. This includes financial modelling and forecasting, refinancing, cash flow management and feasibility studies.
Greg has a Graduate Diploma from the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is a member of the Australian Institute of Management.
Company Secretary
Wayne Massey
Wayne Massey plays a key advisory role to the Board as Company Secretary.


text:
And maybe I didn't get to revel in my accomplishment of finishing my first semester of nursing school, right after finals were finished, because maybe I was suffering from yet another migraine.
We even went out to lunch after the finals, but by the time we finished I felt like an ice pick was twisting into my brain above my left eye. It was all I could do to arrive home safe and climb into my bed with a cold, damp washcloth on my forehead, after taking my pain reliever.
Now I am feeling much more like celebrating, but am opting for a more sedate type of celebration.
The rest of the evening will be spent relaxing with my family and then tomorrow I will set off my plans in motion...cleaning, shopping, baking, organizing, etc.
Never thought I'd be so happy to be able to clean with no other worries!