Kev the KOT wrote: > > I agree here. When Leicester did pretty much the same thing, and got > promotion the following season, there were a few people who thought > they'd pulled a fast one, which is why the 10pt penalty was > introduced. > What Leeds have done is certainly no worse, and what Bates has done is > not much different to Lineker's 'Rescue'.
IMHO there are some quite major differences between Leicester's rescue and Leeds'. Leicester City's board put the club into administration because budgeted monies (i.e. ITV Digital) were not received and only after they had spent 3 months trying to restructure their debts. Finally entering administration when talks with creditors failed to reach a conclusion - As far as I am aware apart from asking HMRC for a payment holiday they were extremely unlikely to permit, Bates decided not to ask any other creditors for temporary assistance. Neither Lineker nor any of his consortium were previously members of the board - all of the new board were on the old board. Lineker's consortium then spent SIX WEEKS scraping together £5M to complete their rescue - KPMG took a little over 20 minutes to accept Bates' CVA. Leicester City's debts were £50M and therefore Lineker's CVA was 10p in the £ - Bates' CVA pays 1p in the £. > > However, it is all much higher profile, and creditors may have got 20 > times as much if one of the other offers is to be believed. Why do you say 'if they are to be believed'? The offers were made to the administrators AND proof of funds were supplied. Why do you doubt they were genuine? 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
