> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel Holcroft > Sent: 07 August 2007 14:15 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] Time to get back to the footy... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark > Humphries > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: [LU] Time to get back to the footy... > > > >First point old chum, I didn't call your mate an idiot because I > disagreed > >with him per se, > > No "old chum," you called me an idiot 'cos (a) you'd run out of logical > answers to challenge anyone who disagrees with you and (b) 'cos you're > slightly out of reach and can thus get away with it, but I digress..
Ha ha. Ok, to be precise I called your post idiotic. It had nothing to do with arguments or being logical, it was to do with you alleging that Mark shouldn't have been asking Rick to do his work for him. The point being he didn't ask Rick, he was trying to clarify what Rick was asking for and I will repeat - he was responding to Ricks request. By the way, did this letter protest ever happen? > Either > way or both it's not a good way of conducting yourself; or debate and > does > kinda make it all the more difficult for opponents to be friends, in a > common cause later. > > As with your "mate".... I believe you have, seemingly lost the ability > to > read...or acquired selective blindness disorder. No, again the point was the actual HMRC challenge in court, not what KPMG said in their statement. I have read neither statement but I always assumed the HMRC challenge was over the voting rights of Astor. In other words at one point we agreed on something. However Betty, having read the court papers, pointed out a few days back that actually the challenge was always on the preferential status. I (naively? Sheep-like?) believed what he said. So you were arguing the toss based on, presumably, your interpretation of the KPMG statement. It would seem that Mark's interpretation was indeed correct if Betty was not fibbing to us. That is all I said to Paul - he seems to accept that the HMRC challenge was over preferential status so I asked him to 'have a word' with you and put you straight because you don't listen to a word we say because clearly, once you have argued over something, there is no agreeing ever again. Do you understand now? I am trying to tell you that Betty has confirmed that the actual court case is about preferential status. If you take that on board and read the KPMG statement, does it make sense now? > > And while my own aging memory is not infallible, perhaps someone could > post > a copy of the HMRC complaint for the court case, to see, exactly what > the > grounds for their challenge really is. (Yes I'm too lazy to dig it up > and I > have to rush out to a client meeting (selfish [EMAIL PROTECTED]@rds. that > they are, > to > interrupt my fun here.). > > Then it can be time for a quick and hearty Mea Culpa, at least on this > point > and perhaps we can all march on... No reason for self flagellation, it is easy to miss pertinent posts on the list and I have tried to tell you a couple of times that Betty had already given the information you seek above. > > Whatever their reason for the challenge, if one is to believe the, > earlier > article, the Taxman is still out to get Bates (No mention of the FL) > and is > determined to push forward with that challenge in court.. Could be > that > trouble is still dogging us, every time we think we are pulling clear. > Well, that is their prerogative, I don't personally see how they can challenge a takeover that never happened but there you go. If they want to investigate Bates personal tax situation then so be it, the only worry I have with this is that they will settle on attacking the club (again) because Bates is untouchable. But again, I cannot see how they can - the law is the law. Time will tell. _______________________________________________ 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
