Pete Cass wrote: > FL bending over backwards.... How on earth you camr to that > conclusion is > beyond me mate > 1. IF, and its a big IF, the Waccoe story is legit, the FL > RENEGED on its > promise
As you said IF and it's a big IF....plus if it is legit it is only LUFC 2007's take on it. Scenario could equally be:- FL: We need x,y and z before we can consider returning the shares. KPMG: here's the x,y and z you asked for last week LUFC: Can we have our share back? FL: Well we got x,y and z that we asked for from KPMG last week, we thought it would cover v and w but it didn't. could you supply us with v and w asap? KPMG: OK here's v and w that you asked LUFC for last week FL: Ah that's as we thought - now we've seen v,w,x,y,and z we see that we can't return the golden share after all. LUFC: Bollox!! > or > 2. If its all bollox its still the FL holding onto a share > when nothing > Leeds has done has been found to be guilty (theres a better > word somehwere) I did tell you before that it doesn't have to be illegal to contravene FL rules. > > So I seriously doubt anyone would realistically think its the > FL bending > over backwards to help Leeds (althi Im tipping I may get a > response for the > anti-Bates crowd later onthis evening) > It's not a matter of being pro or anti bates, LUFC 2007 have not followed FL rules and so can not have LUAFC's share. ONLY through an accepted CVA can the share be transferred - we've known this for months and yet everybody expects to be able to circumvent this rule. Paul _______________________________________________ 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
