> > Yes, good point. > > And fair enough for HMRC if they had the bigger picture in mind. > > But if that is the case then those moaning about the poor > taxpayer losing > out, and all the little creditors losing out remember that - > HMRC decided it > was for the greater good, not Bates or the administrator. >
Hmmm..... I think you'll find that HMRC decided that issuing a winding up order for a debt for which repayment appeared not to be forthcoming was for the greater good. Kindly advise how long YOU think HMRC should wait before deciding that someone is taking the proverbial urine. Pretty sure that it was Bates et al that decided on the repayment of 1p in the £. Pretty sure it was also Bates who refused to offer an embarrassment clause for more than 6 months. I read his refusal to say that he intends to sell the club by xmas and will thus receive many millions for his £350K investment, a profit made purely from the ripping off of Leeds United's creditors. I find it amazing that you can accept Bates claiming that he intended paying all his debts over a period of time until the HMRC intervened. If so why was his CVA for 1p in the £ and not for £1 in the £1 over 5 years? I'm sure you in Bates' inner sanctum can answer that simple question and I look forward to your reply, Cheers Paul _______________________________________________ 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
