----- Original Message ----- >I think the deciding factor today could be Bates' revelation that HMRC have > stated ON THE RECORD that they will, as a matter of POLICY, block any CVA > (if they have sufficient voting rights) or challenge any CVA all the way > to > the high court. If football maintains its preferential status. > If it is indeed on the record I think that information would be too > compelling and too worrying for the other chairmen to consider penalising > a > club an additional 15points.. there but for the grace of god and all that.
The HMRC policy of voting against a football CVA was KNOWN ABOUT and on the record BEFORE LU went into administration. Bates thought that he could ignore that because of the structure of his CVA so he took us into administration knowning that HMRC would vote against. He Knew that, Taylor new that, KPMG knew that. You also knew it but presumably didn't believe what you had been told. If HMRC have 25% or more of the voting rights this means that no club can meet the 100% payment to football creditors rule and this has been the case for quite a while. Boston ignored it for some reason. Always challenging a CVA in court is a separate issue and has anybody seen this stated anywhere on the record ? If so, please could you direct me to it. _______________________________________________ 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
