> ----- 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.
You seem to be getting your timelines confused? We are talking about HMRC issuing a legal challenge to the CVA in the last moments before the 1 month claim period, despite a last minute upping of the offer by Bates. It was only after the pre-court hearing when the judge delayed proceedings that KPMG decided the best thing for LUFC was to scrap the CVA. At that stage you would be correct, but unless you are suggesting HMRC predicted the following chain of events, up until KMPG once again chose Bates, HMRC did not have an effective bid other than Bates' bid. > > > 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. HMRC challenged the rights of certain creditors to vote, and if successful would have reduced the 'pro' vote to below the required 75%. Flipping it on its head, assuming (big assumption) that all other creditors apart from the Bates crowd voted for someone else, would the revised voting allocation for Bates be >25%. In other words, even if the HMRC challenge was upheld and there was a new vote, would Bates + allowed creditor have enough to block 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 ? If he believed the process was illegal or not followed correctly and had some grounds to support this. Whether this could have happened or not I don't know. > > 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. No I'm not. It has been stated in the press that Pearson's bid was conditional (perhaps amongst other things) on getting the GS with the club. The FL said they could/would not do this (as it wasn't a CVA). Therefore Pearson's bid was voided. You have stated that the GS is irrelevant for the running/ownership of the club. Clearly Pearson didn't think so or else it wouldn't have been a condition in his bid and therefore lost him any chance of owning the club. My point is that the GS actually is quite important. Would you want wise to sack 5 youngsters on the books in order to replace them with 5 seasoned pros, just so we stay under the 20 player limit? Would that not be damaging to the club and its (playing) future? 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. Tax on the fees for 7 seasoned pro's to rebuild the squad this close season & their wages? Having more than 20 lots of footballer's wages? Tax on season ticket revenue? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
