> > "But Mr Taylor said the only reason Leeds had originally > survived winding-up > threats from HM Revenue and Customs over unpaid tax was Mr > Bates's takeover > in January 2005. > > He told Mr Willis that Mr Bates had subsequently introduced > the investment > from the offshore companies adding: "Let me make it clear, > without that > investment the people of the city of Leeds would not have a > football club in > Division One or anywhere else. The club would have ceased to exist."" > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds?articleid=2959797 > > Does anyone here know any different? I was under the > impression that (at > least) one other option was available or was about to be available. >
Of course there was but why should Mr Taylor, coincidently a director of LUAFC Ltd and of LUFC (2007) Ltd, care about the facts? It's best to conveniently forget the existence of alternative rescue packages when making claims like those above. I mean one could also claim that without that investment the creditors could have voted for a far more attractive rescue package than the one Bates and Taylor had assembled. Like Mr Humphries, I fear he's inventing facts to fit his version of history. I remember Krasner claiming that without them we wouldn't have had a club too. Why, for instance, would administration in January 2005 have been any worse for Leeds United than administration in May 2007? It quite clearly wouldn't. We were actually less in debt then. The frequently used smoke screen of being the only game in town is at best blinkered and at worst dismissive of the intelligence of a lot of Leeds United's supporters. 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
