> > Speaking for myself, the reason that I could not mention it is because > I > openly admit right here that I don't know anything about any anti-vote > that > worked in exactly the same way as Yorkshire Radio vote. You seem to > know > sufficient about it to post it on here so I would be grateful if you > could
Quite simple Rick, as you well know. It was made public that debt values rose for those 2 companies just prior to administration. It was suggested that this was dodgy and done simply to give more weight to the 'pro takeover' vote. It was an example of more shady business by Bates. Actually it now seems that other debts also rose at the last minute, which gave weight to the 'anti takeover' vote. The legality/validity of the YR debt increase was called into question. The legality/validity of the other debts has not been, unless you know different? Should we assume that the anti votes had nothing 'shady' about them also? Did KPMG not audit all such increases in debt, regardless whose side they were on? If they did an incompetent job, then that affected both 'sides' did it not? Do you think KPMG were negligent Rick? Do you think admin procedures were not followed correctly? > >That's an excellent point Tim, and precisely the kind of thing I had > issues > with when the 'news', or quasi inside information, was being posted to > the > list previously. > > Hopefully we can all agree with your mutual back-scratching once you > have > explained what the point actually is. I'm really and honestly looking > forward to reading the explanation.. > > Please, please let us have the explanation so that we can agree with > your > vindication. What is this lack of truth that you talk about ? Share > your > revelation and that way we may be all able to agree with you. Happy to oblige. I said 'whole truth', in other words postings to the list which told the whole story, not just the side that suited your aims. I am not saying you (or others) had any obligation to do so, but now I have answered your burning questions can you answer me a few? Did you know about the other (anti Bates) debts increasing at the last minute? Did you know about the extra provision for the creditors on promotion in Bates offer? If yes to either or both of those questions, did you deliberately not mention it as that would have diluted the impact of the facts you did decide we needed to hear? If no to either or both of those questions, do you think that when purporting to speak with authority on the facts of the whole saga you ought to have known those facts also? Again, not saying you had any obligation to anyone, least of all people like myself, to tell us anything at all, but it would be nice to know. And I also think I have answered your questions with a straight bat. My questions are supplemental to my answers. Please do me the same courtesy. Thanks. _______________________________________________ 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
