----- Original Message ----- >do you still believe the HMRC challenged this on the basis of securing more money rather than the using it as an excuse to challenge football being preferential creditors?
It is always difficult to be certain of HMRC/IR motivation but the best information available AFAIK is that this is NOT a test case of the Football creditors rule. Even if it was a test case of that rule the HMRC stance on this subject was KNOWN before the CVA and so management took the decision to take us into this situation in the full knowledge of it. You might as well say that Bates is pursuing a test case against HMRC to measure their resolve with regards to the football creditors rule and so is risking the life of the club because he wants a fight. >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. 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. 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. >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? I suspect that it made little or no difference to whether or not an HMRC challenge was made but that is not the only criteria. The fact that the same MPs made an appeal to the OFT shows that HMRC did not even tell them whether or not it was finally going to challenge. It might have had a significant effect in Bates increasing the offer to all creditors to 8p from 1p. Again a worthwhile result on its own, for the general public. It also raised other issues which have not yet been dealt with but which have not necessarily gone away. They are simply just not in the spolight at this time.They are very real issues. > Is the club now better off as a result of the three "Leeds fan" > MPs successfully sabotaging the CVA? 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. (Before you accuse me again of not being invited to answer you, a posting to a public list like this is in itself an invitation for any lister to answer. If you want a private exchange then there are other mediums). _______________________________________________ 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
