----- Original Message ----- > The footballing debts are only secure and to be paid, in full, if Leeds > United stays in business and wants to remain in the league.
That is correct but it is also true whoever purchased the club and wanted to keep it playing football. > Hence, if Bates bid failed and his, off shore cronies blocked the > acceptance of any other bids then, supposedly Leeds would be liquidated > and no longer subject to those debts being paid, other than along the same > lines as any other > creditor dividend.. This is where people have been allowed to misunderstand. It is true that Astor said that they would block any other CVA arrangement (other than Bates'), and KPMG confirmed that this block would apply even to the extent that somebody came along and was willing to pay everyone 100% of their money. In other words, Astor did not want their money back but preferred to lose all their money (except 0.5p in the pound) and have Bates continue to run the club. In reality KPMG would then have had to try to negotiate a way forward and ultimately would have taken control of the club themselves and then negotiated a sale on the open market. The purchaser would have had to take on the "football debts". One of the main assets of the administration of the previous limited company is the right to play football. This is a saleable asset. > > One assumes that is why Bates was touting the idea that he'd got strong > backing, for his plan from the PFA... It was also why he was so eager to > point out the likelihood of liquidation to the fans and especially the 20 > yr > ticket holders.. Under those circumstances they did stand the chance of > losing money just like all other creditors and so were entitled to a vote. The 20yr season ticket holders would only have lost out if any new owner declined to honour their tickets which was very unlikely. The PFA backing is a little stranger and warrants closer examination. At the first meeting the question was specifically asked about the administrator being aware of any side deals done with the players or the PFA but of course they were not aware of any such deals. > However, on the flip side they might all be viewed as creditors given > preferential treatment, which under the laws of administration would bar > them from voting.. Quite the ethical dilemma there... Why would they be considered to have received preferential treatment ? _______________________________________________ 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
