On Tue, June 5, 2007 11:30 am, Mark Humphries wrote: > Nice spin. > > > We are told that a nudge and a wink from a football league lawyer prior > to the creditors meeting meant that we might be able to trade even if > still in CVA. If we can't trade even if out of CVA (pending appeal), then > the football league liar must have been blowing hot air then?
Presumably, I don't know anything about that. I wasn't there and I have no connection with LUST (other than trying to relieve Betty of his ironing fixation). The arguement on here that was pro-Bates was that even though nobody likes Bates, his offer was the only one with a proper plan behind it that would see us nicely set to start building for next season without getting left behind by other clubs. Of course, this is what Bates needed voters to believe so his deal would go through. Only now, after the vote, we're told "oops, we still can't trade in players for another 28 days anyway". If Bates' deal hadn't gone through, Astor holdings had told KPMG they would block any other deal anyway... just as bad, if not worse, as any of the current creditors taking legal action > And by the way, this (if it happens) was option 2 on my list of potential > outcomes, which I said would be bad news for the club. > > So you agree now then that it is bad news? That was my point, possibly not clear in the written word... I've never done sarcasm very well, I'm afraid. > Mark > > > PS I expect we will be given the green light tomorrow to trade anyway.. > but the possible legal action does now mean its not a foregone conclusion. I'm hoping, but who knows? - Sean _______________________________________________ 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
