> As I said, it is irrelevant to both the exit of administration and also > irrelevant to the 15 point penalty. The football league did not dock 15 > points because of YR or any other creditor, they docked the points because > we did not exit administration via the CVA. They clearly didn't care or > take into account why!
I agree about the 15 points being deducted because of the lack of a CVA. I don't know if they cared or if they took into account why. It is certainly not clear. They may have cared very very much. I don't think they could have been described as being very happy about it at the time. What would you accept as an indication that they cared or that they took into account the reasons why ? I'm not certain that it is irrelevant to the exit without a CVA because I also don't know the causation of the events that lead up to it. It may be deemed irrelvant to the arbitration but I don't know that either. For an irrelevant subject it appears to be generating heat beyond its merit. > The FL docked us 15 points as a penalty for not completing a CVA. LUFC > argument is that they have been punished but they weren't the people who > decided whether to scrap the CVA or not, they did everything they could to > exit via the CVA (increasing offers, attempting to appease HMRC) but > ultimately KPMG (the insolvency experts with prior football administrative > experience) decided to scrap it. Why were the football club punished? I have not seen the LU argument, but the new football club began life with a 15 point deduction BECAUSE there was no exit from administration via a CVA. There is no argument on this point from any quarter that I am aware of. If I employ an accountant to submit my tax returns and they get it wrong it is still my responsibility. I still pay the penalty personally. You could possibly argue that I could take action against my accountant but I don't think I could take action against the tax man. If Bates et al wish to take action against KPMG then that is their perogative. It would be very interesting to watch that one. Like I said before there was no CVA so there was no entitlement to the golden share. You can argue from there what should happen but that much is agreed surely. If Bates put things into the hands of KPMG and they were not up to the task, as you argue, then that is hardly the fault of anyone outside of the narrow circle of Bates and KPMG. It does not sudenly become somebody else's fault just because one ot these two parties made a bad call. We had a football club, or at least Bates and his backers did. We did not have a golden share and quite clearly we had absolutely no entitlement to a golden share. Again surely there is no disagreement on these points. > As an aside, do you not agree with most of the rest of us who think the FL > were making it up as they were going along and trying to use a back door > method to punish the club because it (legally) circumvented the point of > the > 10point penalty? No I don't. I don't buy the weight of numbers argument either. You don't know what most of us think and neither do I. There could not be a pre-set tariff for the reasons which have been clearly explained. There could not be a NIL penalty for reasons that have been clearly explained. If there is no pre-set tariff and no precedent then it requires a first decision. That much is logic. By your definition every time anyone makes an initial or first decision on any topic then they would be making it up as they go along. You use emotive words to make a point which simply is not there. > The FL were being vexatious and using any excuse to punish the club. No, I don't think so. If they really wanted to do that they didn't even have to talk to the men without the golden share. My belief (stated before the decision about the 15 points) was that the only reason we didn't get relegated again was because there was too little time for bottom division clubs to arrange to cope with the influx of Leeds United. I could be absolutely wrong of course. I probably am. The thinking in professional circles around Leeds (or at least in as much as they were prepared to let me in on) was that we should be grateful for small mercies and shut up and make the best of it. It could very easily have been so much worse. Most people in fact thought that LUs owners got away very lightly in the circumstances. On the other hand, I do believe that there was considerable vexatious behaviour last summer. Maybe in the days of Alan Hardacre there was merit in this line of argument but I didn't see it about LU prior to our most recent troubles. > I am afraid it is relevant. LUFC are, I believe, seeking to establish > they > have not been treated fairly in the whole process, or am I wrong? Have you seen the paperwork ? I have not. If the appeal to the clubs was unfair then that has been corrected by the appeal to the arbitration. Nothing changed so there is nothing to undo or to put right as far as LU is concerned. > The question is, why didn't the FL want to give > the club AND US FANS the benefit of a fair/independant appeal? We had no entitlement to the Golden share. None whatsoever on any basis. If you think we had any such right then please explain what that basis is. No independent body could decide that we had such a right because we did not. You wish to appeal against the price which was accepted by the club in its desparation. Are YOU making it up as you go along which is the crime that you accuse the FL of ? The fans tried to appeal, without any right to do so, on the basis that it was unfair on the fans. That is undoubtedly true. It is unfair on the fans. >> They did not increase the actions that had already been taken so they >> did not alter anything. >> If they had changed anything then you would have a good point, I admit. > How ridiculous is that statement?!! Because they didn't increase the > punishment they weren't all acting in self interest? This bluster is not worthy of the strong arguments that you have been making up to now. Because the clubs may or may not have acted in self interest does not mean that any such alleged self interest had any effect whatsoever. What was the position prior to the meeting of the clubs and what was the position after it. Exactly the same. You can allege as much self interest as you want but the fact is (even if it is 100% correct) it had no effect on the 15 points. You can win an argument that they were an inappropriate review body but it won't change anything about the 15 points. > Please explain, from the FL's perspective, why it SHOULDNT be? What are > the > FL trying to protect here? I have already explained in this thread. If it was the same then it would remove any requirement to exit administration via a CVA. In other words no club would ever have to bother itself with the CVA mechanism ever again. >Why should the club be punished for giving the creditors more? I thought that you had strongly argued WHY the club were docked points and this was NOT your reason. Have you altered the basis of your argument ? Giving the creditors more was not some sort of altruistic gesture, at least not as I remember it. >Why couldn't the FL take a view on how football and non football debts >would have been settled inside or outside a CVA, and if all > the creditors were no worse off in either case why should the FL give a > shit ? The FL laid down a mechanism for recovery of the Golden Share. The onus is on the club to meet that requirement. I have been listening to the radio recently so I know how this argument works (thank you Mr Harvey). In any event that is a very big "if". My answer to your question is that they could take a view and they did take a view. The problem really is that you don't like the view that they took. > We are talking about the 15 point penalty. This was made up by the FL > because we didn't exit administration via a CVA. Not why we didn't. > Unless > you know different? Of course, if you or anyone else believes Bates et al > were the people who decided then you also clearly believe that KPMG are as > bent as arseholes and/or grossly negligent of their professional duty. If KPMG have been negligent in the duty to which they were appointed by Mr Bates than that is a matter between Mr Bates and KPMG. I don't see what KPMG had to gain from this so you will need to explain your allegations more fully. Run out of time. ESPN starting. _______________________________________________ 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!!!!
