Thanks for that piece of info on Boston, which I'd not seen before... I'm assuming they were able to include that caveat because they had more than 25% voting rights and so able to block any other terms?
The other interesting and unusual situation with Boston was, of course: >Boston's financial problems led to charges for former manager Steve Evans and ex-chairman >Pat Malkinson of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. >Evans was given a one-year prison sentence, suspended for two years after admitting the >offence, Malkinson was given a two-year suspended sentence after admitting a similar >offence Now there was a good motivation for punishing the club. Glad to hear we are clear of that sanction prior to the possibility of Bates being found guilty of any such wrongdoing... -----Original Message----- From: Simon Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [LU] Bates' letter "It" being HMRC's motivation. "The Inland Revenue put a caveat on that CVA that Boston could not pay football creditors." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/boston_united/6738469.stm Plus they hate Bates... it's a win win. And his dodgy dealings gave them a opening for a challenge when they failed to affect the CVA. - Si _______________________________________________ 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
