Here we go again..
You really answered your own question, but then tried to miss out half the phrase to twist a factual statement to mean something to support you're erroneous assertion, when you quoted: "HMRC had voted against the CVA in accordance with its policy to vote against CVAs that provide for "football creditors" to be treated differently from the general body of unsecured creditors." The crucial words are "in accordance with its policy" See the whole of that "crucial phrase reads: "HMRC had voted against the CVA, in accordance with its policy to vote against CVAs," which makes for a slightly, but crucial difference to the assertion, no? HMRC policy is to VOTE AGAINST any CVA, just as they did ours which gives football or anyone else, I'd imagine preferential treatment. Why would you expect them, or any other, run of the mill creditors not to do so? Even Bates didn't expect that to happen, hence he had to stack the deck in numerous ways. Of course for HMRC to have a vote, in the first place the club would have to have not paid their taxes or, worse failed to have handed over money that they'd collected on behalf of the taxman, then misappropriated. Having voted against a CVA, yet lost to the majority vote, they have no policy, nor right to challenge it, for no good reason. Once again.try to pay attention; here they did NOT challenge our CVA on the grounds of the football creditors having preferential treatment nor status. They challenged it on the validity of certain parties' (non football) ability to vote and the amount of that vote. So I'd say that as long as whoever puts their club into administration and tries to buy it back out through means of a CVA does so in a transparent and honest fashion, there'll be no problem with a challenge from HMRC. Are you serious when you ask how I know that the actions of our chairman brought, on us the threats from HMRC and the FL? Have you been on the planet, at any time during this whole mess? Just whose actions do you believe sparked such suspicion and investigation? You and your buddy have lauded Bates' underhand manipulation of the rules and skirting with the law, as fine and admirable as long as he can get away with. You have repeatedly said things implying that he may be shady but nothing illegal has been proven. While you are 100% right on the last point (with the addition of a crucial, "yet" I suppose) others; amongst them the authorities and their investigative arms seem to disagree with your stance. Anyone who tries to break the rules and conducts his business in a shady fashion is always likely to attract the attention of and trouble from the authorities. The challenge from HMRC was to the suspicious nature of certain creditors and the way in which their debts were calculated and the way they tried to manipulate the vote. The FL challenge was to the equally shady way in which Bates then got around the CVA challenge and its opportunity to establish once and for all if there had been anything illegal taking place, by questioning whether his attempts to claim exceptional circumstances were avoidable or even created by him for his own gain. Neither would they want to be seen as supporting or encouraging clubs to follow similar tactics as that might well lead to the taxman and other authorities taking a much deeper look into football in general. So yes you are the whiner, bleating on about how everyone in power is out to punish Leeds and it's the authorities that are a threat etc. No, just like I have to learn to live with KB as the chairman of the club for the foreseeable future, you need to learn to live with the consequences, to the club and its supporters of his actions, you supported for the foreseeable future.. While we should all spare no effort in trying to get the penalty reduced or overturned, we have no given right to expect it, just as we had no inalienable right to the Golden Share under the circumstances we found ourselves. Yes my side is Leeds United and the overall good of the club,. Doing things right on and off the field. Something, I seem to have more faith and confidence in that than certain others, hereabouts. _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] Time to get back to the footy >>Why do you continue to see those entities, doing their duty/job and trying to enforce clearly established rules as a threat? They are clearly not a threat to anyone who follows the rules.<< I suggest you read the KPMG document. FL says only acceptable way out of admin is via CVA. HMRC says it will challenge every CVA because of football creditors rule. Courts will therefore not approve CVA due to HMRC challenge Club can therefore not exit admin. So fi you follow the FL rules, you cannot exit admin. The administrator has to sell the club instead - which breaks the rule. That means HMRC is a threat to any club entering admininstration, for whatever reason. Can't you see this?? >>The actions of our chairman are what brought the threat down upon our club... (when not threatening to close us down, himself).<< How do you know? And remember that a lot of what Bates comes out with is pure bluster... >>HMRC may, or may not challenge every future CVA. Only the future will tell; however, I doubt that they will be challenging many, if any on the same grounds as the ones on which they challenged ours.<< Read the KPMG document. "HMRC had voted against the CVA in accordance with its policy to vote against CVAs that provide for "football creditors" to be treated differently from the general body of unsecured creditors." The crucial words are "in accordance with its policy" So every time, not "may or may not". HMRC used to enjoy preferential creditor status - claiming 100% of their debts, while the Bob's Disocs of this world got nowt. Now Bob's disco at least gets a few pence in the pound, same as HMRC. But footballers get the lot - and HMRC don't like it. Hence the "policy" to challenge all CVAs. You're quick to pull up others on facts, yet you, as usual, spout forth your usual anti-Bates rhetoric without concern for reality. >>No mention Football creditors, (regardless of what, you believe to be their ultimate motive) just a challenge to the basic honesty and validity of some very suspicious voting rights. A court could have sorted that one out, if allowed; but, again we will probably now never know.<< Again, read the KPMG document before speculating - it shows pretty clearly that the position was made impossible through HMRC's "policy". >>It's over...your side won...You no longer have to deflect the criticism from your leader and unfortunately our chairman.... His tactics worked, albeit with a little collateral damage to the team and supporters.<< My side is Leeds United. What's yours? >>The thing that matters now is that what has happened is unfair to players and supporters and as a group we can campaign for better treatment all around. Still whining about the very people you need help and/or sympathy from is, as you are so fond of saying counter productive.<< Who's whining? The only whining is from the anti-Bates brigade. Is your letter to Lord Mawhinney in the post yet? >>We all now seem to be moving in the same direction, if not quite marching in step.<< Let's hope so. We still have a strong chance to overturn or substantially reduce the 15pt penalty if we do the right things, and find the right targets, Mark _______________________________________________ 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
