Mark, Apologies fro the delayed response, damn those work responsibilities and the international dateline/timezones.
My point was simply that once again someone on your side of the fence was stating that it was the policy to "Challenge" and the only place that has been said is here by you folk or by Bates.. All other references to the HMRC policy have clearly stated that the policy is "to vote against any CVA" (you even use that in your final paragraph, though immediately try to twist it) It's a subtle but significant difference. I believe the lister who has an inside line to HMRC also confirmed that as the policy along with confirming that he'd heard the Revenue were out to get Bates. (Apologies, to said lister and all readers if I'm misquoting that.) I infer, from you sarcastic remark, regarding venues that you believe I think the mere fact that Bates' lips are moving means he's lying. Not quite, but pretty close. If it is anything that might benefit him, or anything important to me, rest assured I'd check, with other sources before accepting it as fact. The announcement of a game a Tranmere does seem to have sufficient credibility when compared to the official League fixtures and other reliable sources,.. Of course, I did doubt strongly his claims, up until last week, that we might not be playing at Tranmere, this Saturday or anywhere else this season... Does that count?? It's a shame you choose not to check many of his other claims, in similar fashion before blindly subscribing and touting them like some bible of common sense.. As for the vote, I put forth a hypothesis, clearly stating it was, "just a thought." "Lied" is your word, not mine, though I accept the implication might be there, but not necessarily for the Chairmen. I said that, (why does one always seem to have to repeat points, following your misquotes or misrepresentations) it seemed unlikely that such a large majority of the assembled chair persons would, willfully vote against Leeds if the evidence clearly pointed to a scenario by which they'd be voting against their, collective best interests (cutting their own throats) and so could it not be that they had decided that the investigation carried out by the FL panel had indicated, by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no imminent threat, from HMRC to football and that Bates was clearly at fault, for his own and the club's problems.? If they felt that the panel had done its job well and the results pointed to Bates' argument being bluster, over stated or even lies then, while they might feel sympathy toward Leeds, they would still be slapping the league down by voting against their ruling. Hence the "vote of confidence" comments... We may never know (I believe I said that too!) Certainly no one came out and said frankly, or even hinted that indicated the vote was meant as payback to Leeds nor to Bates, nor that they were risking the future of football...so what is your point? But, apparently you heard someone announce that it was the Lge 1 Chairmen who voted in callous fashion "simply to scupper our season." Got to stop watching your news on "The Paranoia Channel." Finally, "Where did I work that out from?"...Hmmm simple mathematics maybe? Yes HMRC will always vote their full voting rights against any CVA that does not treat all creditors equally (Clearly stated Policy) and so, yes (as I said before) will automatically block any CVA where they have or can muster in excess of 25% of the vote. That's the way of the financial world; however where you get from there to the bit about "challenging, in court any other, on the basis of not all creditors being treated equally, I have no idea. They have to have a legal basis for a challenge and as "preferred creditor" status is fine under the law, they have no such basis for a successful challenge, in fact I'm fairly certain no self respecting judge would even entertain the case.. Of course if others are stupid enough to follow the Bates doctrine, then they are indeed inviting a challenge and the further 15 pointer and will thoroughly deserve every single one of them.. Can't say they haven't been warned. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Humphries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:58 AM Subject: RE: [LU] LU: Appeal Lost/The Letter Nigel, do you KNOW any different? Indeed, do you know anyone else involved who has come out and said that this is NOT HMRC's policy? If Bates said we were playing Tranmere tomorrow, would you plan a trip to Doncaster instead? None of the chairmen interviewed yesterday said anything like that. One came out and said that basically voting against the FL chairman would be seen as a vote of no confidence in the FL and he wasn't prepared to do that. So that might have been how many more chairmen saw it. Clearly it is in the self interest of clubs in League 1 to scupper our season. But no, it's because Bates lied to them isn't it? Only logical explanation. How did you work that out? They will automatically block any CVA if they have over 25%, if they don't then they will challenge the process based on the fact they didn't get an equal share of the cash paid to buy the company. That will always be the case in a football CVA. Always. Until/unless football drops it's preferential status requirement. _______________________________________________ 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
