I had understood from some earlier postings (possibly from Betty regarding the involvment of various MPs - but I haven't gone back to check) that the Revenue were happy to go after Leeds/ Bates, forcing them into a cva, because it gave them an opportunity to challenge the current rules which protects footballers at the expense of the taxman.
If so, I think they will be happy to have to "lose" a substantial sum because of the leverage it will give them in Parliament (which MP will stand up to defend Bates?). If they'd have got say 75% they wouldn't have had the same leverage. Leeds, wrong time wrong place? Damian PS Bright Side #36 Leeds United AFC never played in the 3rd Division and never will :( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .... I understand HMRC have a duty to get the money, and they don't have to accept deferrals or holidays or restructured repayments. However, for the sake of a few months deferral they have lost the tax payer 99% of the debt, and even if one of the other bids had won they would have lost 60% of the debt. I don't think that is acting in my best interests as a tax payer apart from anything else. They have effectively spent 99% of the 6 or 7 million (whatever the figure was) to recover the debt. .... _______________________________________________ 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
