The latest twist in the ownership saga
Ex-Leeds commerical director wants success with current rugby club, Hull FC. Phil Hay on the latest twist in Leeds’ ownership saga.
Adam Pearson brought attention on himself when, in an interview with Yorkshire Business Insider on February 7, he talked of returning to English football’s front line and named Leeds United as the ideal club to buy.
Through coincidence or not, the article was published in the same week as rumours of impending investment at Elland Road grew legs, some of them naming Pearson as a possible figure behind a firm offer to purchase Leeds. But the ex-Hull City chairman backed out of the spotlight yesterday, claiming the chance to run the Championship club was “not for me.”
Pearson’s latest comments were equivocal enough to imply that his interest in running Leeds is dormant rather than dead but they appeared to rule out the possibility of him featuring in or actively influencing on-going talks between potential investors and existing owner, GFH Capital. Suggestions that the Dubai-based firm is on the brink of selling a club it purchased less than nine weeks ago remain unconfirmed.
GFH Capital announced on February 10 that it had rejected a bid for a majority stake in Leeds, three days after Pearson appeared to express an interest in acquiring the club.
The offer was Yorkshire-based and, despite claims of Pearson’s close involvement, is believed to have been driven by local businessman Steve Parkin, the chairman of distribution firm Clipper Logistics. Parkin denied fronting the offer when contacted by the YEP but several sources have indicated that it was he rather than Pearson who made the grab for a large share in the Elland Road club earlier this month.
Pearson, who presently runs rugby league side Hull FC, sought to clarify his position yesterday, saying: “It’s a funny one because Hull FC is mine. I own the club, it’s my baby and I want to grow and develop it.
“Football is my business and I’ll always get rumours and connections in football as that’s my industry.
“Leeds is a club that I live close to and I’ve worked there before so I understand how big it is.
“But at this minute in time, it’s not for me. My focus is completely on Hull FC and my other business interests.
“There’ll be no movement to Elland Road in the near future.
“I’d like to squash those rumours once and for all. I’ve not made a single comment in the press about it and all my focus and financial backing is on this club (Hull).
“Certainly I won’t be leaving FC until there’s some silverware and we’re established as a top Super League club.
“I want to win something and try to get into the top four.”
Pearson was commercial director at Elland Road for a period of Peter Ridsdale’s reign as chairman and he has worked as chairman for both Hull City and Derby County since moving on from United.
He hinted strongly at an imminent return to the English game on February 7, saying: “I’ll definitely get back into football. I would like to go in with a consortium with a club that has huge potential. The one that stands out is Leeds.”
Both Pearson and Parkin have been involved in previous attempts to buy Leeds, with a Pearson-led consortium failing with a bid while United were in administration in 2007 and Parkin mounting a long but unsuccessful effort to gain control at Elland Road midway through 2004.
Led by Ken Bates, the Forward Sports Fund (FSF) became United’s new owner in 2005 before Bates himself bought a majority stake in April 2011, 20 months prior to the 100 per cent sale to GFH Capital.
Speculation about a third takeover at Elland Road in the space of two years has been encouraged by consistently sceptical analysis of the financial position of GFH Capital’s parent company, Bahraini investment bank Gulf Finance House.
Gulf Finance House’s result for 2012 – published on its website on Friday – showed an annual profit of less than £7million while appearing to show that GFH Capital paid around £21million to acquire Leeds from Bates on December 21. Executives at GFH Capital have faced repeated questions about how the firm financed its buy-out and how it intends to fund its strategy for United at a time when the club are suffering from cash-flow pressures.
GFH Capital injected a seven-figure sum into Leeds last week in order to “stabilise the club’s cash position.”
The company is open to the option of selling a 30 per cent stake in United in return for a substantial cash injection but, responding to questions submitted to it by the YEP last week, GFH Capital denied that it was interested in relinquishing control of United.
“We consider the club to have very good potential and wish to benefit when that potential is realised,” it said in reply.
Asked if Leeds would face unmanageable financial pressure without immediate investment, the company said: “No, it won’t. While we have the funds to take the club forward without the need for additional investors, we are of the belief that building a strong consortium of strategic investors will better serve and protect, and build our great club.”
GFH Capital also confirmed that the Yorkshire-based bid for a majority shareholding in Leeds had been rejected but United are still the subject of interest from that party and one other, a Saudi Arabian individual who hovered on the fringes of proceedings while GFH Capital closed out its own takeover in November.
United’s present owner continues to insist that it will remain in charge in the long term, and representatives of the firm – David Haigh and Salem Patel – took part in the first official board meeting since its takeover at Elland Road last Monday.
The meeting was followed by Leeds’ home match against Blackpool for which the club drastically reduced ticket prices and pulled in a crowd of more than 25,500, 4,000 up on this season’s average for league games. The club have not published comparative figures but gate receipts from home supporters are understood to have exceeded those for midweek clashes against Hull City and Leicester City earlier in the term – games which attracted attendances of 19,750 and 17,717 respectively.
