On Fri, July 27, 2007 2:24 pm, Mark Humphries wrote: > It means that the FL felt they were not in a position to allow KPMG to > sell the GS in the second sale. Which means the conditional offer was > irrelevant. > > I can understand them not wanting to do before having sight of the sale > documents, something that couldn't have been done before the actual sale > could it? > > More to the point, why on earth wouldn't the FL have the power to grant > any team membership to their own private members club? The only sticking > points would be the rules not allowing it, or the decision makers not > wanting to. The rule is there to grant membership which only leaves them > not yet wanting to. If they wanted to, they could. > > How is that wrong?
What you are not taking into account is that the FL have NEVER allowed a club the GS back without completing the CVA, which we haven't done. Their worry is most likely that clubs that go into admin in the future will also expect to be allowed to leave administration without completing a CVA. The FL might also be worried about legal action from other clubs that went through difficult CVAs. - Sean _______________________________________________ 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
