I seriously am not looking to argue with you Nigel but, aside from the fact his letter seems to indicate pretty much exactly the scenario a lot of us were saying, you really do need to try and be objective on this.
The attack on the football creditors rule is not just his interpretation, and the evidence he presents demonstrates this beyond any doubt whatsoever. He has given us more information than we ever had before, and I was actually surprised at just how compelling the 'case' against HMRC is - as I said, it is actually beyond any semblance of doubt. Before I go any further can I just say what HMRC are/were trying to do is perfectly valid - they want all creditors to be on an equal footing. Unfortunately for them the law isn't on their side, at the moment at least. Above all the single most damning piece of evidence was the fact that Leeds offered to pay the creditors exactly what they would have got had football not been preferential. That alone should be enough for Leeds to have been given the GS and given a BONUS 15 point award. We were willing to pay off HMRC so that football kept it status. The fact HMRC turned this down proves beyond any doubt it was not the money they were after. It was not Leeds it was after. It was football it was after and it was willing to turn down better offers and spend taxpayers money in order to get football. The fact that Leeds were being toyed with in their attempt pissed me off then and it pissed me off now. Leeds did not antagonise HMRC, they tried numerous times to appease them but HMRC simply weren't having it - they weren't interested in going away - they weren't interested in LUFC - they weren't interested in us fans. So, you see that I was right all along - HMRC had an issue with the FL, we were being used by both and suffering as a club and more importantly as a group of fans. Whether Bates deliberately took us into admin when he didn't need to, whether he did everything legal (albeit morally shady) to win the CVA etc etc is irrelevant. HMRC would have challenged regardless. They have said as much themselves. They will challenge future CVAs. It isn't the money, it is the principle of football creditors they want to attack and they will do so at every opportunity with no regard to the football club itself. They are hoping that the amount of hassle and costs they create each and every time will force the FL to give up its preferential status. As Bates rightly said, the HMRC can afford a lengthy high court battle - it has a bottomless pit of taxpayers money, but by default a club in administration cannot afford that, and indeed the impending court case will put off potential buyers in the CVA process, thereby costing other creditors money (from a higher bid). The CVA rule is effectively a lame duck now. No club can go through one successfully unless they are prepared and able to fight a high court case with HMRC - and let us not forget, whilst doing so they will still officially be in administration so will be subject to all the constraints throughout the process (only 20 professional players etc). What the FL have to do is accept this, scrap their CVA rule and allow the administrators find a buyer for the club and basically mind their own business. Once a club has new owners they can jump through whichever hoops the FL require (proof of funding, fit and proper person declarations, funny handshakes) and then they are allowed back into the FL. No penalty aside from the original 10 point deduction. Or scrap the preferential creditor rule. In some ways it is lucky Leeds is such a big name for this to happen to, I suspect one of the smaller clubs would simply go out of existence under such duress. For that reason the other FL clubs should vote to remove the sanction. As Bates has said, Leeds have broken no rules (he isn't that stupid), they weren't allowed to go through the CVA because of HMRC's vendetta against football, because of a rule Leeds had no say in creating and had no power to change. Any other club will go through the same process in the future. If they do not vote against it they are effectively voting for the points deduction for administration to be 25points. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel Holcroft > Sent: 08 August 2007 17:25 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LU] Bates' letter > > Well mark it seems you and I did read and understand the same > publication of > the challenge. > > All spelling and grammar apart. Bates' letter seems a fairly well > reasoned > argument, but it is one sided and even his most fervent supporters tend > to > agree that Bates' record for truth and veracity is not a great one. > Fortunately, for him (and us) his opponents will not be there to argue > the > other side at the meeting and vote. > > All that aside, please note that Bates, himself clearly states, that > the > challenge, from HMRC was based on the voting rights of 3 entities (the > off > shores, Taylor & Yorkshire Radio)) and while he goes on to imply that > it is > really a disguised attack on the football creditors rule, that is his > interpretation alone.. The evidence he uses to support that > interpretation > is flimsy. For the "reasoned argument" to garner enough votes to > overturn > the 15 points penalty, the voters must accept that implication rather > than > the hard copy of the filing itself. > > The fact that he apparently gave the Revenue what they asked for, in > the > shape of extra money to match what was being paid to the football > creditors, > surely means that it was not the issue they really cared about. .. > > They seem to want Bates, whether for his past tax dealings, in general > or > for his, perceived fraudulent manipulation of this process... Given > what > has transpired since the challenge, the latter seems to be the most > likely, > logical reason for the taxman to pursue the challenge to a dead CVA.. > He > opened a door, for them and they are jack-booting there way right on > through > it. The best laid plans..... > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
