----- Original Message ----- We're in this position because Bates 'chose' administration as the way forward. >Whilst Phil Willis has never been slow on the self-publicity kick, the fact that 2 offshore companies with no link to the club wiped off £millions without seemingly blinking probably makes lots of people suspicious.
I don't know anything about Phil Willis and I have never spoken with him but in fact it was 3 offshore companies, two of which handed their debt over to the third. This third company provided a sworn statement that the relationship between themselves and the football club, which was admitted at the creditors meeting but which had not previously been mentioned by the administrator, had been severed in December. The accounts which provided evidence of the link had been signed in November. It is not that these companies are offshore which is the concern. It is that these companies are shrouded in secrecy and that nobody knows who is behind them. These companies could be offshore and still openly declare who is behind them but they have opted not to do so. Nobody knows why that might be the case and speculation on that point is dangerous. The concept that these offshore companies have written off millions of pounds of debt is also misleading. Of course that is exactly what took place on paper but consider that these companies put this money into the club with the intention of owning the club. What have they actually lost if they have not lost that ownership of the club. Do they not still have EVERYTHING that they paid for ? Is it worth less than it was worth before ? What have they lost in real terms ? The reality is that Astor Investments, who are one of the companies whose beneficial identity is unknown, has taken a course of action which cost HMRC a substantial amount of money in that Astor prevented a higher offer from being accepted. It is hardly surprising if HMRC might wish to think long and hard about that course of action taken by Astor. Also, before anyone wishes to line up the club and its fans with Astor, it should be remembered that it was Astor who DIRECTLY threatened the continued existence of the football club. Why should the fans be concerned if an authority takes whatever action it can against Astor ? >As far as the 10pts is concerned, hasn't the League already changed it's >rules for future instances? Very unlikely that any alternative 'punishment' >could be applied retrospectively, no matter what MPs may think. The rules >as they stood have been correctly applied. The ten point rule was not the only rule involved here. There was also the impression given prior to the vote that the Football League would insist on a CVA being passed before they would agree to the transfer of the golden Share. Astor wrote to the administrator that they would vote against any other CVA which meant that no other CVA could have been adopted. Without a CVA then no golden share was the implication and this implication might have swayed voters. That of course in conjecture and possibly no votes were influenced by this "threat" that the football club would be wound up as a result of voting against the Bates CVA. People will have to decide for themselves on the balance of the probabilites. The FL are very well aware that allowing voters to possibly not fully understand the FL rule on this point may have been used to influence the voting. Whether or not this is correctly applying the FL rules is something for the FL to decide. They may not have yet made a decision on this point. _______________________________________________ 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
