I'm quite happy to believe that HMRC would be reasonably confident that as a result of their failure to confirm that they were not challenging the CVA then more money would be offered. That is what happened because Bates apparantly upped his offer by 800%. This apparant increase was very late in the day and close to a deadline for the challenge. HMRC would need to be CERTAIN that it was a watertight offer (and I suggest applying in this case far more than their usual levels of caution) so that the deadline did not slip past. Either it was not watertight enough OR they then adopted the position that going ahead with the challenge would yield even more. Mounting the challenge HAS yielded even more, in fact an extra 200% on the initial offer or 25% of the increased offer.. You also ignore that there may well be other factors yet to come out in public (in fact it would be astonishing if there are not other factors which would be part of any court case). Just to mention a few, these might include the Astor loans and the Astor debenture. The stock position. The debtors position. The timing and process of the debenture. The source and application of funds. The fact that owners who were unable to make agreed and projected payments to HMRC are apparantly able shortly afterwards to guarantee sufficient funds to run the football club for two years. I don't KNOW the position on any of these items but if I was in a position to have a look at them then I certainly would. All of these things might very well be perfectly in order but could still very easily be part of any challenge. We may never know. I am able to deduce that HMRC would not have challenged simply on the basis that a better offer was probable because in order to obtain more money it would have been necessary to overturn some of the structure of the CVA. They would be very aware of that. It would not have taken the wisdom of Solomon to have a shrewd guess that further steps might be taken so as to ensure that the club remained with Mr Bates' friends. I fully expected that KPMGs decision one way or another would be to sell to Mr Bates. I'm sure that HMRC would be in a better position to anticipate that then I ever would be. Surely you expected it yourself ? I'm not aware that a judge delayed proceedings in any way. It was my understanding that considerable efforts were made to get the matter into court at the first possible opportunity. You appear to know far more about the basis of HMRCs challenge than I do so please would you advise what you know in terms of the challenge to voting rights and the subsequent balance of power.
You appear to have given no thought whatsoever as to WHY the FL "refused" to confirm the GS to for example the Pearson bid.. Do you imagine that Pearson is in any way ignorant of FL procedures and even of the mood of the FL at this time ? Who gains from the FL not giving the nod to Pearson ? Why would they want to do that ? Pearsons bid would only have been voided if it was 100% conditional, and if it was 100% conditional then you would wonder why a man with his inside knowlede vis a vis the FL would do things in this way. Did he set out to fail or did some other factor intervene which prevented his conditions from being met ? How would you call it ? I did not state that the GS is irrelevant for running or owning a football club. Please stop making things up just so that you can demolish them. We have had all this before from you. Very obviously the GS is critical when deciding how much anyone would be prepared to pay for a football club. You attempt to make some contradiction which is simply not there. Once again you revert to asking me what I want when we are talking about the facts of the matter and not about personal preferences. I have never said that the current situation and its recent past is not damaging to the club. Where we differ is in identifying the causes of the damage. You appear to wish to ignore the cause or at best put a sticking plaster over it and hope that if you cross your fingers and wish to wish to wish as hard as you can then it will all be allright. It won't. I point out how critical the GS issue really is (and why) and you argue back and tell me that your point is that the GS actually is quite important. (sic). No need for me to say more on that, I think. What tax is paid on transfer fees ? Will those transfers not now happen. Will nobody be paid taxable wages as a result of some mysterious process ? _______________________________________________ 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
