----- Original Message ----- > And let us not forget that Rick himself was told by a FL lawyer way back > when, that being in administration did not mean LUFC would not get the > golden share.
You misrepresent my reporting of events (which is no surprise really). The creditors meeting was told that in contradiction to the position being stated by the Club and KPMG/WM, that the FL rule re the regaining of the GS, required the club to go through a CVA unless there were unusual circumstances. I pointed out that the FL sent a lawyer to attend the meeting and he made a point of TWICE stating what the rule actually was. Nothing has changed in this respect. If, however, you think that the FL might be less than happy that their own rules were being selectively quoted and used very obviously as a weapon then I would find it difficult to argue convincingly against you. You might also think that what you are seeing at present is a FL still irritated by those who sought to use the rules in a particular way. You might of course just prefer to heap blame upon the FL for no reason at all. The people who were most visibly shaken by this "unusual circumstances" factor were Walker Morris and it was very obvious from their reaction that much depended upon this. For this reason and for other reasons which I am not prepared to discuss at this time I suspect that this small clause is crucial to what has happened since and to where we find ouselves right now. If the FL did not wish to invoke the unusual circumstances get-out then why did they mention it in the first place ? What or who has stopped them using it and why ? Who stands to gain so far, from preventing it from being used ? What has the effect been so far of it not being used ? I suggest that the failure to allow use, for whatever reason, of the "unusual circumstances" clause has negated all of the conditional elements of the bids to purchase the club. This amouts to millions of pounds lost. It also may change any decision about which bid is the best. I cannot give you facts on this because I don't know them. Even though it reminds you of school there is no alternative but to think for yourself. > This was passed on to the list in response to Bates saying that any > challenge to the CVA (ie him not winning the vote) would delay the process > and delay the golden share. No it wasn't. It was put on the list to negate the claim that without the CVA being approved (and with Astor saying it is Bates' CVA or NO CVA) then the club might have to go out of business because if no CVA was possible (due to Astors intransigence) then there could be no regaining of the GS. > In other words it was alleged that Bates was scaremongering. > The CVA was challenged, and months later, do we have the golden share? The club hasn't even asked yet for the transfer so I'm not sure what that proves. > So, who was right and who was wrong? Bates? FL lawyer? Rick? All of them were right. You work it out. _______________________________________________ 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
