Hmmmm, I believe you proved my point there..There are lots of factors which can make a deal go through without the highest bidder winning. In this particular case it was Bates' stacking the deck, in advance and then manipulating circumstances to threaten others into thinking his was the only choice they had..
In the same way, why would we expect the sale of Healey to be any more fair to Leeds, especially now that Bates has announced to the world that we will not play him again and manipulated a lowering of the possible backlash, from supporters by reporting him (and only him) to be one of the 4 players (still no mention of the other 3) who refused to defer their wages to "help out the club's financial plight"..( Nothing to do with creating a situation where they were now owed money and would have an easily manipulated creditors vote eh?) So exactly my point.Highest bidder be damned.the real world doesn't always work that way (Not even on ebay, if you know how.) So thanks. Shame you had to go on to throw in the bits about all other offers being asset stripping, when we may never actually know and certainly don't at this time what the other offers fully entailed. T'was totally irrelevant speculation and just another pro-Bates aside. Sure, Morris (who let me say, again I have no great love for..though I believe it has been said in the past, by others that he did not agree with much of the kransortiums actions or plans) has said, openly that he wants to develop the site (I believe Ken has said similar stuff) and as part of that development he will build a new larger, more modern stadium.(Could be lying of course) Hardly asset stripping in the truest sense and seems to project a view forward of having a successful football team at the heart of it.. Bates plan was accepted before anyone else was even aware that they could put in an offer, of any sort, so naturally it was the best presented to KPMG in that 20 minutes window.. What many people seem concerned about, certainly encompasses, fair treatment of all the creditors but, above concerned with the good name of the club and having management we can trust not to treat the club or the fans with the same contempt, as for the creditors and Tax system down the road.. Or should I say a continuation of the way he's already treated the club and it's fans even before Administration.. Now with so much anti Bates sentiment being stirred up, by his actions amongst the other League members and the govt..don't expect the "Bes" way forward" to be made any easier, by those who hold influence while ever Mr. Bates is in charge. _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] Wage deferrals - Healy + who? >>Did the highest price and the best payback to creditors secure ownership of Leeds United.?<< Different scenario. The required majority of creditors considered it to be the best offer, and as the receiver knew the principal creditors could block any alternative, the deal was passed. The receiver might also have considered that the Bates deal offered the business the best chance of moving forward, rather than being asset-stripped by a property developer, which seems to have been at the heart of the five alternative proposals. Again, we seem more concerned about the best payback for the creditors rather than the best deal for Leeds United. And again, despite copious anti-Bates rhetoric, nobody has come up with a better plan than Bates. Or any form of plan, for that matter. Apart from lovely Mr Morris, whose previous plans included knee-capping our long-serving right back. _______________________________________________ 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
