> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickD > Sent: 02 August 2007 12:45 > To: leedslist > Subject: Re: [LU] The final countdown > > HMRC make no challenge to the change in the law that put an end to > their > preferential creditor status. They have accepted that they have no > option > but to take the same deal as ALL other creditors. What they do not > accept is > a situation where another group of creditors (the football creditors) > are > excluded from the 'everyone gets the same' status quo. Why should they > accept it ?
Absolutely, but LUFC did not change the law to be that way, nor did they decide that football gets preferential creditor status. All LUFC have done is come through an insolvency legally. As I have said all along, LUFC are caught in the middle of this and ultimately if the FL want to appease HMRC then they should do so themselves/jointly. > It is also totally clear from the recent letter from KPMG to creditors, > that > KPMG, The clubs directors, and its legal advisers, were all fully aware > that > HMRC had adopted this position as standard, but they still put the club > into > administration and prepacked a CVA. They KNEW in advance exactly what > the > HMRC position was and yet deliberately followed this path. There you go again Rick, 'yet deliberately'. Anti-Bates rhetoric. If I were him and everything goes through I wouldn't touch LUST with a barge pole if you were involved with them. One could have as easily used 'but unavoidably' if one was feeling pro-Bates. Much the better way of saying it for an allegedly impartial body would have been to simply cut 'yet deliberately' from that sentence. They knew > that > HMRC would almost certainly vote against the CVA and presumably gambled > that > they would not then make a challenge. HMRC have not changed their > position > which was known prior to our being put into administration AFAIK. > The FL have similarly not changed their position which was known before > the > club went into administration AFAIK. > > The Guns were known about, were plainly visible, and the situation was > obvious before the leaders of the Leeds Brigade took us charging down > the > valley of death regardless of the terrible consequences likely to > result. 'Likely to result'? You know something we don't? If HMRC issue a winding up order, and you don't have the cash to pay them in full/up front (as is the way if you default on a repayment schedule, what are your choices Rick. Please do explain. As far as I know you have two - administration (which is there to protect a company from its creditors), or allow yourself to be shut down. Once you choose administration of course you are going to want to remain in control and do everything legally possible to do so, including wooing major creditors. Until proven guilty of doing otherwise, Bates & co have done nothing illegal. They followed a legal CVA process and won. HMRC challenged that on a technicality. KPMG decided that in the best interests of the club it would scrap that CVA and sell the club outside a CVA. They followed a legal process. Bates & co won that too. The football league is shitting itself because its pseudo altruistic rule (CVA, so the other poor creditors have a democratic vote over which offer to accept) used as a smokescreen to maintain its preferential status didn't work and now they are in the firing line. They want LUFC to bail them out and let the nasty wolf take a chunk out of its arm in the hope it will be satisfied and trot off home again. I maintain the villains of the piece here are, in order; 1. HMRC - if they want to challenge the football league then do it direct, don't use my football club. I wouldn't have thought it too difficult to challenge football's preferential status. 2. FL - scared shitless over HMRC, petty and vindictive over LUFC, spineless as they scratch around trying to 'be seen to be doing something' to LUFC. 3. Bates - a little too cocky/confident in expecting HMRC or FL to back down. 4. KPMG - although I don't expect they have ever had to deal with anyone like the FL in this context before. They stuck to the letter of the law, the football league live by antiquated private member rules. Just my opinion. Bates is arrogant and egotistical, however he has won both sets of bids legally, there is no legal reason that the FL shouldn't also go tell HMRC to go away and play with themselves except they are scared. I don't think there is any way that the situation with LUFC cannot be deemed 'exceptional', and they could easily invoke that rule for LUFC and grant the GS without being left open to legal challenges based on previous cvas. The only precident is a creditor challenging a successful CVA, it isn't like LUFC deliberately avoided a CVA and indeed the creditors got more cash out of it because we didn't go through the CVA. In my opinion of course. _______________________________________________ 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
