> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Emmott > Sent: 31 August 2007 11:46 > To: McWilliams, Brendan, VF-ES (bmcwill) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] LU: Taxman drops Leeds Utd legal challenge > > On Fri, August 31, 2007 11:26 am, McWilliams, Brendan, VF-ES > \(bmcwill\) > wrote: > > ...but HMRC were challenging the CVA on the grounds of football > related > > debts being preferential creditors > > No. HMRC voted against the CVA on those grounds. They were going to > challenge it in court on the grounds of a possible connection to Astoe. > > > - the -15pts voted on by the other FL > > Chairman remains a kangaroo court display of justice, regardless of > KB > > being a knunt or not. > > Agreed, but the reason that court existed in the first place was Bates > shenannigans. > > - Sean > -6 (but with superior goal diff ;)
Not according to Bates, whom I presume has had more contact with HMRC on this matter than anyone on the list. Bates is on record as saying that he was told that HMRC would challenge ANY CVA through to the high court. If there had not been anything done that could be regarded as 'shenanigans' HMRC would have challenged it anyway. I repeat, HMRC would vote against *ANY* CVA *AND* challenge it in court. According to Bates. And as far as I know noone else (who might actually KNOW) has said any different. Why wouldn't they refute Bates' claims? It would certainly be in the FL interest to refute that claim, it does after all go to the very root of Bates' argument for not being penalised. _______________________________________________ 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
