thecasses wrote: > So if that correct, Leeds 2007 doesnt really exist or matter > > Its all back to the original CVA then. If thats the case the FL should give > the GS back immediately. Why? > A. The CVA was accepted by over 75% of the creditors > B. Even if the HMRC challenge the issue, the time is set for a later date, > Leeds must still be able to FULLY function up intil a LEGAL determination > has been achieved.
Pete, You are not quite understanding the situation. Yes 2007 is a bit of an irrelevance however............ A CVA has to be agreed by the High Court and it will not agree any CVA which has an acceptable challenge against it. The High Court did not throw out the HMRC challenge but deemed it acceptable thus the court case and obviously Ken Bates with a stalled CVA, this is a fact. KPMG complicated things further when it decided NOT to pursue the CVA with Leeds United Football Club (the) following the HMRC challenge. Instead, as we now know, they took the hapless decision to immediately put the club up for sale and they sold it to Leeds United 2007 who also cannot meet the FL's criteria. The only way Leeds United 2007 can get a CVA is by going immediately into administration. This is something which Ken Bates is very unlikely to do. Unless, of course, he no longer wishes to be a director of an FL club (two football insolvencies and you're out - again a very clear FL rule) and I'm 99% sure that this would not fulfill the League's requirements as they really need to see the first CVA succeed to give back the share. This will be why we have gone back to the first CVA. Leeds United in any of its current possible forms does NOT meet the FL criteria which would enable them to give back the FL share. The FL are therefore comfortably correct when they say that only Leeds United Football Club (the) with a CVA would enable them to move on. This has always been the case and KPMG plus Bates should know this as they are directly involved in a situation where they should be properly aware of the FL's current rules regarding CVAs. Whatever any of us think about the individuals involved, the situation has never been otherwise since the day Bates went into administration. Leeds are only ever going to be able to function in a limited way until they meet the clear criteria of the FL's rules. Having said that the FL's rules do allow for a club to function in a limited way for up to 18 months. To get to a CVA with the first company Bates could produce answers to the HMRC's court challenge out of court, answers which convince them to set aside that challenge. Otherwise Bates and his fellow directors will be involved in a week's worth of court case in early September, the outcome of which will either vindicate them or mean that the High Court will not approve his CVA as well as probably put the legality of previous proceedings in question. The opportunity to do this has been on the table since the day HMRC first mounted the challenge. Instead KPMG and Ken Bates looked for another way to do it. If it had been me I would have produced the substantiation for Astor not being connected (on the basis that I can) and shown exactly where the Yorkshire Radio debt occurred (same basis). I would have done this on the premise that I would then have got my CVA. There are now even more grounds for believing that ken Bates cannot do this as it seems such a simple way of getting what he says he wants: ownership of Leeds United without hindrance of debt. An interesting point was made to me today: Ken Bates is notoriously litigious. He never threatened to sue Tom Bower for his book and he has not issued any threats of writs to the Guardian's David Conn or Matt Scott after their 20 questions piece. Remember how quick he was to take on his tame local newspaper. I wonder why? More and more the Leeds United situation is getting like a Parish Council fight over a boundary fence between two neighbours and I think this is what will eventually sink one or more of the parties. As regards the infamous WACCOE posting earlier today I think it was in the main correct as regards what the FL had on offer it's just that Ken Bates couldn't take up any part of the offer because he couldn't do it within the stated FL rules. Over to Ken I think. But then we all know what Voicey used to say :-) Night Night all, I'm off to chuckle at tonight's rather excellent episode of Still game. Betty _______________________________________________ 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
