The way they left their challenge until less than 1 hour before dealine instead of issuing it immediately smacks of vindictiveness that should have no place within HMRC.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lewis, KM (Kevin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Leeds List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:05 AM Subject: [LU] I Guess it is down to what the chairmen believe > Regarding today's vote. > > It seems like we are split into 2 camps about what to believe regarding > the HMRC challenge to the CVA. > > 1. They are using it as a test case against the 'Football Creditors > Rule', and will therefore challenge any CVA that comes up in the future. > Mark H said that they had stated this, although this is the 1st time I > have seen such a statement. This would mean that any club going to > admin in future SHOULD be dealt with in the same way. 10 point deduction > going into Admin + a further 15 coming out of it without an agreed CVA. > > Or > > 2. They are trying to get at Leeds/Ken Bates in particular because they > don't like the way he went into Admin in the 1st place, what with the > Astor loan, manipulating the 10 point deduction into last season, and > also because of Bates' previous record. > > It doesn't matter what each of us thinks, it is which camp the > individual chairmen fall into which will count. > > Of course there are also the other self-interest factors to take into > consideration. > > The other thing is that there is a 3rd possible outcome. If a straight > majority is required, how do they vote on this, not knowing what the > mid-ground is. > In meetings I have been in, any amendments are voted on first. If > carried that becomes the motion. > So in theory somebody could propose a revised deduction (either up or > down). If carried that would be the new deduction. Let's hope someone > doesn't propose a 30 point penalty. > > However, this is meant to be an appeal against a specific punishment, so > that doesn't easily equate with the idea of voting on a proposed > amendment. > > If anyone is still with me, there is a compromise that would not break > the rules or create to dangerous a precedent. > > That would be to reduce the punishment to a 5 point deduction. > > The FL could say that Leeds were deducted 10 points last season for > going into admin, and 5 points this season for coming out of Admin > without a CVA > In future, the extra 5 points could be used as a precedent for teams > coming out of Admin without a CVA. > Teams going into Admin would know that a challenge to the CVA or an > uncompleted CVA would mean an extra 5 point deduction rather than > risking 25 points in total. > This would not break any rule that was in operation at the time. Of > course now the rules have changed all 5 points would be deducted in the > same season according to the new rules. > > Just a thought. > > KLKOT > > _______________________________________________ > 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
