>>...so how do you see the appeal going for us? All points, some points, > no points... ? > > I truly have no firm grip on this. The BBC have had sight of the LU side
etc etc etc Im sorry Rick but dragging in the Yorkshire radio stuff it totally irrelevant here and I wonder why you did? It appears that I have seen no more on this than you, and my take, based on that sports lawyer's opinion is quite simply that the FL have punished the club for a decision they had no control over. KPMG were the ones in charge of the CVA/administration, they are the ones who decided to scrap the CVA. Bates or the club did not make that decision, and could not legally have made that decision. The reasons why they made that decision are irrelevant to this case, aside from perhaps providing some proof that indeed it was the HMRC challenge that caused KPMG to scrap the CVA, and not Bates/the club. The second major argument is that the FL allowed other clubs, with clear conflicts of interest, to vote on upholding the penalty. I'm not sure if any form of contract law is involved here but I am sure you know that punitive damages are not acceptable in contracts - so a reasonable view on whether an extra 15 points in this situation is punitive or not may also come into play. How a 25 point deduction for going into administration and not being allowed to come out via a CVA by the administrators could NOT be seen as punitive, especially given the feverish sanction of that penalty by other clubs, I do not know. But then I am biased and I openly admit that! _______________________________________________ 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 DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!!
