----- Original Message ----- I suspect that your post (and your arguments) is based mainly upon a lack of understanding of the process from appointing the administrator and the DIRECTORS providing the administrator with a list of known creditors, to the invitation to unknown creditors to make a claim, and then to a process of approval of the "voting" amount of each creditor. I was very much aware that new creditors can appear after the initial list of creditors and that many of the voting papers were adjusted in both directions by the approval process. I do not believe that there is any significant "audit" undertaken by the administrator in the way that you presume. These two particular creditors were closely linked to the company in administration which makes them more "interesting" to commentators than other creditors. You might wish to argue that there is no basis for this increased attention but that would be your opinion. KPMG and Walker Morris appear to agree with you as they did not feel it worth mentioning to the creditors meetings. You may feel that this also vindicates your position. In one case the debt to the company linked to the club director Mark Taylor increased from approx £59K by approx £220K MORE, and the voting amount for Yorkshire Radio changed from not even being on the list submitted by the directors at all and ended up at £480K. Some would argue (including Mr Harvey) that three quarters of a million pounds of increased voting power in the hands of the Bates bid was not significant in the margin of 0.2% of the vote. Others would argue that to raise ones eyebrows at this is to display an anti-Bates agenda or that it suggests only a clash of egos. I remain unaware of any anti-vote that was in any way similar to the situation with the Yorkshire Radio vote but I also remain open to hearing about any. You question about my awareness that other votes being called into question is a little strange. Are you not aware that questions have been asked about the 20yr season ticket holders votes ? Are you not aware that Krasner questioned many of the voting figures ? I understand that there must have been something wrong about a large claim in Krasners hands because this was declined for any voting power (or that at least is my understanding). I have heard say that this may have been a claim for voting power from Morris but I have absolutely no evidence to support what I heard on that point. It could easily be incorrect. I am not aware than any have been legally challenged but I could very easily be uninformed on that point also. Nobody but yourself, as far as I am aware, has suggested that there were significant levels of voting power denied to the yes vote. That there will have been some adjustments downwards on that side is to be fully expected but it is the significance which is important in my opinion, though you may disagree. If there is any factor which is "shady" in any of the anti votes then I for one would be surprised that the club has made no comment upon such matters. I am personally not aware of anything of the kind but that means nothing.
> 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? There you go again making things up. What are these aims that you use as evidence for your arguments ? If I tell you that it is raining is that less than the whole truth because I don't mention that it has sometimes been sunny and not raining and that in all probability it might be sunny again at some time. > Did you know about the other (anti Bates) debts increasing at the last > minute? No, I'm not aware of them other than my explanation of the normal process above. I am not aware of any significant increase to the anti-Bates voting power but the only way to be aware of this (if there is any) would be to check on differences between the initial creditors list and the final creditors voting list and then to check which way they voted. Maybe the question should be are YOU aware of any such late increases as you appear to imply that there are some ? Have you run such checks so that you can advise us of these things of which you speak. > Did you know about the extra provision for the creditors on promotion in > Bates offer? Yes of course I was aware of it. I was at the creditors meeting where Taylor suddenly introduced it as an amendment having openly borrowed the idea from the Morris "bid". I am also aware of proposed amendments to this amendment. I have discussed this part of the subject openly and several times. Are you aware that an amendment which increased the anti-embarrassment clause to the same length of time as the timespan for the extra creditor money was rejected by Astor ? Will you please consider why this should be rejected before you extol the virtues of the extra money. Why offer one and at the same time reject the other ? > 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? No. I did not "not mention it", deliberately or otherwise. There is no dilution of the facts in the way you claim. > 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? I DO know the facts of which I speak.(as far as is possible) and considerable effort by myself and by others goes into checking and balancing the information in order to come up with a best attempt at a balanced view and accurate knowledge. It is not perfect and nobody claims that it is. I do not however set out to find things which support what I WANT to be true. Can you say the same ? I'm very unclear on what you are suggesting that I should have known that you are also saying that I did not know. I also point out that the choices you gave me above as to the yeses and nos only make sense if what you think are the facts of the matter are correct. I suggest that they are not correct which makes a bit of the nonsense of your whole construction. I have though tried to answer your construction as accurately as possible. > 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. We long ago established that I have no obligation to you but why on earth do you feel the need to say it every once in a while. What is your purpose in repeating it. What do you mean by "people like myself" ? I do, of course have an obligation to some people so you are not correct in what you write. > 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. A straight bat would exclude emotive language, it would exclude your no-obligation statement, and it would exclude artificial constructions on your questioning. I suggest that it would also exclude your attempt to get me to accuse KPMG of negligence. Listers might wonder why you tried that last one ? At the end of the day if there is a challenge of some kind it is not going to be made by myself and the Trust itself has no position on this. The Trust works with anyone who owns the club (as far as it is allowed to). If a challenge comes then there is a very difficult task to attempt, and that is to try to influence whoever the relevant authorities are, to remember that the fans are wholly innocent in all of this and to direct any "punishment" or "sanctions" directly towards the perceived "guilty" parties, whoever they may be. Almost impossible but we have to try anyway. _______________________________________________ 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
