> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel Holcroft > Sent: 31 August 2007 14:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] LU: Taxman drops Leeds Utd legal challenge > > I thought we'd agreed to drop all this, in favour of football, but > apparently not everyone got the memo. > > [Mark H. then went on to pull out this old chestnut] > I repeat, HMRC would vote against *ANY* CVA *AND* challenge it in > court. > > [Nigel Holcroft] > Repeating it (or adding the occasional asterisk) doesn't make it right.
I agree, but there is NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA on record to refute that claim. But no, because it came from the horses arse we have to assume it is horse shit. As I said before Nigel, if Bates said we were playing at home tomorrow, would you prepare for an away trip? Anyway, it is irrelevant, Bates is here and no amount of red cards or flyovers is going to stop that. The CVA was scrapped by KPMG for whatever reason (best interests of all concerned - or because they were in the pocket of Taylor), HMRC have dropped their appeal. Lets just see what they do for the next CVA. Assuming they are creditors of course. I suspect HMRC might be paid off before anyone goes into admin in the future!! > HMRC have not come out and said, that in any blanket statement. They > have > said they will vote against any CVA where football creditors are > treated > differently than the others, as should any creditor who wants to be > treated > fairly. Where did they say that (and only that)? > They have not and cannot say they will challenge every CVA in court as > any > such challenge is to the procedure and they would need to have grounds > on > which to mount such a challenge without being thrown out of court.. 1. Where have they said that 2. Try to understand this - the CVA is a flawed and illegal process as far as HMRC are concerned. That is what they believe and that is what they want to test in court and will do so over and over again. The CVA process can go through as cleanly as Snow White's knickers but the process itself is covered in cack, according to HMRC. Can you not see the distinction? > [Nigel Holcroft] > It is not beholden upon any other party to get into a public slanging > match > with Bates... It isn't a slanging match, a simple statement along the lines of what you seem to think has already been said is all that is required. A clarification of facts. A simple statement of intent or policy. No slanging match. > Of course, I'm sure HMRC are quite happy to let Bates scare the sh!t > out of > people, on their behalf in the hopes that it may have some future > benefit.. > Pure speculation on my part, of course! > I did; however read one report, posted on the SC website from someone > who > was, supposedly in the FL hearing that reported Mawhinney as assuring > all > the chairmen that the circumstance surrounding Leeds and the subsequent > 15 > point penalty did not set any precedent for future administration > cases. > Again pure third hand evidence, so take it for what it is.. That report > also > said that the 2 major problems the FL had were:1) the identity of Astor > and > 2) KPMG's lack of transparency, the like of which they had never seen > before, from previous administrators. If you think the FL are a credible or honourable organisation and put any store by what they say or do then you are as misguided as anyone who thinks Bates is a saviour. They are all a bunch of cunts. Football chairmen, the FL, HMRC, KPMG.... C'mon you pinks. Oops, sorry, taken my rose tinted specs off now.. c'mon you whites. _______________________________________________ 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
