----- Original Message ----- > I believe they could challenge a CVA and would want to do so in order to > get football to stand in line with everyone else. I also personally > believe that they > would be granted the right to challenge the fact that not all creditors > were > treated equally in a football cva, but I guess we wont know that until the > next CVA where HMRC are owed,
I will have to check my facts but I thought that this had already been tested and lost by HMRC. I don't think that they can challenge on this basis alone which is why legislation has been threatened. The new sports minister appears to be backing away from legislation, however, in favour of self regulation. This may be one very good reason for recent decisions by the FL. > None of the above negates the fact that Bates said HMRC told him that they > will challenge football CVAs, and I have still to hear anything official > to > refute that. Well OK but I have to ask why on earth HMRC would say this to Mr Bates. To say this to Bates appears to be out of step with established procedure. They might say it to the FL but I can think of no reason for them to say it to Bates. I can completely accept that they might have said that they will vote against football CVAs but that is not the same thing at all. This voting against could of course be described as a challenge which it certainly is, but a little misleading perhaps. > As I said, in the absence of a direct statement we will have to wait for > the > next football administration where HMRC are owed anything. A lot will depend upon the 25% threshold _______________________________________________ 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
