> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickD > Sent: 13 July 2007 10:42 > To: leedslist > Subject: Re: [LU] LU:Today's lesson > > ----- Original Message ----- > > >We are told Bates offered 8% unconditionally at the last minute, HMRC > >turned > that down to continue the legal challenge to the CVA. 1. How much more > in > cash terms above that 8% did they expect to get from another bidder? > > Substantially more was available from at least two other bidders so > long as > the golden share did eventually get reinstated. The HMRC were entirely > correct if they guessed that other arrangements would yield more for > the > creditors so that alone vindicates their challenge.
This is not strictly true is it Rick, because Astor said that they would vote against any other bid, so effectively KPMG only had 1 bid that had any chance of success. I could have offered 90% but it is irrelevant when I need 75% of the creditors to agree to it. Out of interest, do you know to what level the Astor/Bates % falls from & to if HMRC had won the challenge that they weren't independent? Would it still be >25% ? > > 2. Did they know that this action would (or might) extend beyond the > start > of the season and therefore threaten the very existence of the club? > > This is simply WRONG. The club can trade in order to build a squad of > 20 and > can begin its fixtures. It can play all the way through next season > under > the CVA if necessary. It might even suit Bates to be limited in having > to > spend money on players as there is no evidence that such money is > available > to him at this time. Aren't you also assuming that the prospective new owners would be willing to pay the ongoing costs of running the club when the actual ownership was still in dispute (ie until it comes out of administration)? For example would Redbus have been happy to step in and pay for the running of the club for 18months during a legal challenge by Bates, and then having to hand it over at the end of it? If it is a foregone conclusion and of little consequence then why did the Pearson/Wilkinson bid contain the condition that the golden share be granted? Do you know more than they do/did? > > 4. How much more money have they got now? > > The best information available at this time is that HMRC will receive > at > least 10p in the pound. This is TEN times what Bates offered and what > they > would have received if they had immediately accepted the CVA. Again > this > fully vindicates their actions. First, what they were initially offered is irrelevant, they turned down 8p. So assuming the figures are correct thats 2p more. About 2 days worth of their new IT project I suspect. In other words it's a lot of money to you or I, but peanuts to them in the grand scheme of things. Second, and somewhat crucially I would suggest, is that had they accepted the 8p and not challenged, the subsequent transfer activity would have earned them much more in tax revenue. I do not believe for a second that HMRC's actions were economically motivated. > > >So I will ask this question again, which noone else seems to have > >answered - > why did the MPs raise the question in the first place if it made no > difference at all? > The situation is not caused by the MPs. If you have to ask this sort of > question then you need to take it back a little further. I never once said it was caused by the MPs. What myself and others have been saying is that they stuck their noses in and that was never going to result in an earlier resolution to the administration/golden share and therefore never going to help us on the pitch this season. _______________________________________________ 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
