----- Original Message ----- > Erm, from EVERYTHING I have read over the last few weeks my understanding > was, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong..
Before you start please acknowledge that UNDERSTANDING requires more than knowing a series of facts. > 1. Bates wins vote, gets the club back, out of administration, football > league allow us to trade again (as from Wednesday), have a decent chance > of > getting the squad together Maybe. The football league are clearly unhappy that their rules have been used quite cynically and as a tool of manipulation of creditors. They do not have a good track record of standing up to these situations however, and perhaps given where we are today that is a very good thing for Leeds United. It should not be assumed that the FL would definitely have prevented player sales and if I had to express an opinion it would be my guess that we have an International striker at the club who could have been elsewhere by now if it were not for a certain impression being needed to be given. I very much doubt that his sale would have been blocked for example. > 2. Bates wins but result challenged in court, still in admin, cannot trade > until resolved - unlikely to be any time soon. Unusual circumstances. The lawyer from the football league mentioned unusual circumstances. It has always been the PRIMARY concern of the Trust that the club could find itself as piggy-in-the-middle as a result of the way this process has been constructed and as a result of the timing deliberately selected. When you poke people in the eye, they frequently react quite strongly. If this happens then the Trust would continue in the efforts that have already been taking place to try to ensure that the various powers that be, do their best to bear in mind that any punishment or reaction should be against the transgressor and not be against innocent fans of the football club. > 3. Bates loses the vote, Astor block any alternative bid, still in admin, > cannot trade etc etc. No. I don't agree. Astor would have blocked all alternative bids as they said, but that is not to assume that there is no way forward from there. It is my guess that the Football League may have been far more accommodating than the impression we have been given. It is significant to bear in mind that if somebody had turned up and offered to pay all the debts of the club 100% (one pound for one pound) then Astor would still have blocked it. I can only guess at the reaction this may have provoked from HMRC and also suspect that we may have seen legislation being proposed in the absence of decisive action on the part of the football authorities. > Have I missed something again? Why didn't the football league bloke not > say > they WOULD allow LUFC to trade? Why the "might"? Would we be relying on > the goodwill of the football league members? If you have to ask that question then there is no understanding. You are also assuming the contents of your "we". Goodwill to who ? Be precise. > As KPMG said, their acceptance of Bates bid was in no short amount due to > removing the uncertainty currently hanging over the club. The uncertainty was deliberately created. Don't forget that it was ASTOR who made an overt and direct threat to the continued existence of OUR football club. As far as I am concerned that is crossing way over any line in the sand and is not something to forgive and forget. We may find that Astor fade away from the scene and are replaced by another similar entity but who cannot be blamed for directly threatening the football club.They will not be missed. >Yes, I actually believe Bates winning the vote was the only way for the >club to be able to have a stab at a decent team building and preseason. The whole process and the whole situation was deliberately created so that it would be easy to hold this belief. In that sense it worked perfectly. > Another thing, how much extra (in % terms) were the other bids actually > worth to the creditors? We cannot be certain because the process did not allow the bids to be put (following Mr Taylor moving the goalposts). The last I heard it was 49p but that could very easily be wrong. Further payments made have been contingent on other things. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
