----- Original Message ----- > 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.
That was the situation at the creditors meeting but when KPMG announced that the club was again up for sale and invited new bids, AFAIK Astor could no longer veto the sale to another party in this way. For that reason other bids did now have a chance of success. I am willing to be corrected on this though. In this new situation Astors debenture and the conditional/unconditional elements of the new bids became the relevant sticking points. > 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% ? I don't fully understand the question. > 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)? The actual ownership would NOT have been in dispute.The CVA would have been immediately failed (non compliance), and the club immediately sold to the new owners. I mean, is Bates current ownership in any way in dispute ? If it isn't why would ownership by a different party in the current situation be in dispute ? > 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? I think I can guess your source for this supposed and imaginary scaremongering scenario. As Bates recently said -you have to have a basis for a challenge. Just because you don't like who won is not enough. How would Bates have challenged the new ownership ? It would have been sold and bought perfectly legally. > 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? I don't have cast-iron information about how the P/W bid was constructed. I would expect there to be conditional and unconditional elements within it. There are obvious reasons for this if the condition is the regaining of the GS. I'm finding your questions to be a litle confused as you appear to be mixing up legal ownership, GS considerations, and theoretical challenges to something or other by Bates. They are all different issues. What is does do however is highlight just how critical the GS issue was in terms of millions of pounds of money for the creditors and for investment into the club. Who prevented it and why ? What additional tax revenue would have been generated that is now not going to be generated. _______________________________________________ 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
