>>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?<<
In which case the emhasis would be on "football" to change its rules for the
future.
HMRC might very well say - "look at all this money we lost while
millionnaire footballers got 100%".
Bear in mind HMRC used to have preferential creditor status in receiverships
but that has been changed recently - now the tax man has to stand in line
with everyone else.
There would be nothing to gain from Leeds' case here - but there would be
something to gain if "football debts" lost their special status.
This would create major headaches for football administrators, but shouldn't
affect us with our nice clean balance sheet.
It seems Bates' attempt to push the legal envelope is resulting in changes
to legal loopholes (see also 10-point deductions). But these are unlikely to
be retrospective.
I appreciate that HMRC can retrospectively enforce its rules, but how would
that affect us in this situation? Surely HRMC would be chasing the players
who got an "unfair" distribution from the receivers, not the club?
Not our problem. Danny Mills' problem.
Mark
_______________________________________________
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
