Phil Hay: Battle lines well and truly drawn between Leeds United and Bates
YEP 30/11/13The final documents for Leeds United Football Club versus Kenneth William Bates were due to be submitted by close of play on Wednesday so the battle lines for their courtroom tear-up are well and truly drawn.
Barring a settlement before the new year they will see each other in the High Court to claim and counter-claim over Bates’ sacking as club president. The allegations are wide-ranging and colourful, laid out in papers lodged with the chancery division.
The case over United’s decision to dismiss Bates for gross misconduct on July 26 – 26 days into his three-year term as president – will centre around the private jet contract negotiated by him for his time in the job.
The contract committed Leeds to a bill of almost £500,000 over three years and was, according to the club, arranged by Bates for his “own personal benefit”, in breach of the terms of his contract at Elland Road. The 81-year-old, in papers outlining his defence and counter-claim, denies the claim, as he does the many other assertions made against him.
An expensive private jet deal is by no means the only allegation put forward by United as they seek to recover money they believe they are owed. Their court submission concentrates heavily on Bates’ expenses account, for which he was given an annual limit of £228,000 after GFH Capital bought the club from him on December 20, 2012.
Between the date of the takeover and the date of his sacking, United say that Bates claimed a total of £136,163, of which the club paid more than £89,500. Leeds claim to have “independently approved” £57,092 – in other words accepted that Bates is entitled to that sum – and admit that a further £5,059 is due to him. The remaining £79,070 was, they allege, “not properly payable” to Bates.
Among the costs which Leeds dispute are a £14,500 bill for a return flight to Portugal for Bates and his wife Suzannah ahead of the Football League’s annual general meeting; £1,630 spent on a chauffeured vehicle for Bates, his wife and his housekeeper in Monaco; a Sky subscription totalling £391.50 and a lunch for journalists which came in at £2,662.88.
United also say that Bates claimed without justification for more than £31,100 for two dinners held on April 28 and 29 – one a “thank you” dinner for staff at Elland Road and the other for “corporate guests and friends”. Bates admits that both bills were wrongly claimed but says they were submitted to Leeds by catering firm Compass without his knowledge. He says he has never seen either invoice and did not expect United to reimburse him. There are other sums which United list as “unreasonable expenses” but have not paid: almost £20,000 for a housekeeper in Monte Carlo and £7,000 for “further entertainment expenses”. They also dispute an attempt by Bates to recover the cost of personal tax advice, albeit only £200.
Part of Leeds’ argument is that Bates’ expenses were effectively passed without approval by anyone senior to him at Elland Road and that he failed to supply proper documentation.
Bates rejects that suggestion, saying his contract with United contained no guidance or provision for how expenses were to be claimed. He says he submitted receipts to Leeds’ finance director – Yvonne Allen – and gave them the chance to review his expenses before repaying him. He also argues that the payment of many of his expenses by Leeds essentially endorsed his claims or classed them as reasonable.
Additionally, United have taken issue with an historical claim for “February and March Monaco office expenses” which came in at £10,208 and were paid to Bates on March 22. They do not believe that the bill was incurred as a result of Bates carrying out his duties as club chairman, the position he held until June 30.
Furthermore Leeds allege that on the last day of January, Bates arranged a bank transfer of more than £5,000 from their accounts to himself, saying his expenses allowance entitled him to the money.
The club go on to claim that in early March, Bates asked a club employee to deliver him £2,000 in cash from a till at United’s club shop and in April asked another employee to take £5,000 in cash from the club safe at Elland Road and bring it to him. In both instances he is alleged to have said that the sums could be charged to his expenses account.
Bates denies all claims of gross misconduct and is counter-suing Leeds for wrongful dismissal, saying they had no grounds for terminating his presidency.
Leeds accept that Bates was due to be paid £250,000 a year for three years in the post but say he agreed to “waive his entitlement to receive the fee until and unless his appointment as chairman or president comes to an end other than for a permitted reason.” Successful action from United’s former chairman could land the club with a pay-out of up to £750,000.