>>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.<< And more importantly, HMRC policy is to challenge CVAs in the courts, so ensuring the CVA cannot be approved. This means no club entering a CVA will be able to exit from admin via CVA. Get this into your head. It is not about Bates. HMRC would have done the same thing no matter who was chairman. HMRC wants a test case to challenge the right of 'football creditors' to retain their preferntial status - a position HMRC has recently lost. Hence also Mawhinney citing all the other 41 receiverships as being via CVA - these pre-date HMRC losing its preferential status. I repeat - it's not about Bates. It's HMRC vs Football - and we're in the firing line. Maybe Bates didn't expect that. Equally, maybe he did... 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
