> 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.
My common sense belief is that the FL (and/or influential members thereof) werent happy for two principal reasons 1)The FL werent happy that we incurred the wrath of HMRC and therefore jeopordised football's preferential creditor status. Whilst they insisted on a nice fluffy creditor-friendly exit from administration then less heat would be applied to this status. 2)LUFC used the rules to take the 10point admin hit when it effectively didnt matter (apart from league prize money). A stable door they closed soon after. When making rules up (as they did) it is not advisable to have fuzzy, value judgement based criteria for points penalties. They therefore came up with a carte blanche 15 point penalty for not exiting via a CVA. >> 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 > > I have not seen the LU argument, but the new football club began life with Nor have I but that sports lawyer made direct reference to this point. > 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. And perhaps this is the stance the FL will take. However, a rather salient point here is that there is no guarantee the new owners will be the same as the pre-admin owners. Are they still deemed responsible? If your accountant submits dodgy tax returns and then you sell the company, are you also selling responsibility for all prior company decisions? > 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 Hold on a second, the FL were also involved with discussions with Bates, HMRC and KPMG. So if Bates is responsible then so are the FL to some degree? They werent innocent bystanders in all this, they were involved, one might argue responsibly, as soon as the CVA was threatened. but in any case, refer to my previous point - the 'new' club suffered a 15 point penalty, not the 'old' club. >> 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? > > There could not be a NIL penalty for reasons that have been clearly > explained. But why a points penalty? What footballing advantage did the club gain over its competitors for not completing the CVA? Why is a points penalty a fair and just penalty? I dont think it is, and I hope the arbitration judge agrees! > 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. Yup. absolutely. > You use emotive words to make a point which simply is not there. It is there. Put it this way, if this hadnt been Leeds, Bates, we hadnt avoided a proper impact of the 10point deduction, if it wasnt HMRC causing the problems and if there wasnt all kinds of accusations regarding the legitimacy of the voting levels then I dont think the penalty would have been 15 points. My personal opinion. I also dont think the decision would have been so eagerly upheld by the rest of the FL chairmen if this had been, for example, Rochdale and the 15 points might have threatened their very existence. Do you? > >> 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. What, and allow Leeds United FC to drop out of the FL? > 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. So what? The decision may well have been 'fair', we will see what reasoned people think on that next week, but the process, specifically the appeal process certainly was not fair. 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. Again, the football lawyer has said so. The arbitration is a fair appeal, but what did the club have to do to get that fair appeal? That alone speaks volumes as far as I am concerned. Why didnt the FL agree to this 6 months ago? Too busy playing golf? >> Please explain, from the FL's perspective, why it SHOULDNT be? What are >> the >> FL trying to protect here? > > > In other words no club would ever have to bother itself with the CVA > mechanism ever again. And?!?! What difference does that make to the FL? Why is the CVA so fantastic and a 'normal' sale not? Why are the FL so enamoured of the CVA route that they want to threaten clubs with financial problems into relegation or oblivion? > >>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. I say this as I assume that the reason the CVA is seen as the preferred option is because the creditors get a better deal, and therefore are less likely to create a stink and therefore threaten FL's preferential status. In this instance, however, the creditors got more outside the CVA. Or is there another reason the FL want clubs to complete a CVA? > 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. Irrelevant. They got more. They were better off because Leeds could not complete the CVA. > >>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. We all know that, I am asking WHY. What is the reasoning behind it. Rules is rules blah de blah, so fair enough if a rule was broken then a club suffers the punishment. My point is that in inventing a new rule/punishment (clubs not being able to complete a CVA) the FL should surely look at what exactly they were trying to achieve here. Again, this argument is based on the FL wanting above all else to protect their preferential status and therefore appease the other creditors AND/OR a club not gaining an advantage over its competitors by, for example, deliberately and wantonly spending above its means. In our case neither is true. The punishment is unwarranted (kpmg's control) and inappropriate (this is a financial issue, not a playing issue). In my opinion. I say again, why SHOULD a club be punished for not exiting via CVA, who says that is the correct way for these things to work. Just because they do or did, doesnt mean it is right, that it is justified or even legal. As I said, lets see what happens next week when the experts get involved. The only reason this has all blown up again is because you piped up with RL stuff, in my opinion that was just being mischievous or arsey - only you know which. > 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. No it isnt. This is a new club, a new entity. It just so happens that Bates is the old and new owner. The people who seem to have the biggest beef with us not being bought via a CVA is the FL, THEY should take it up with KPMG, LUFC are just the buyers in the middle. All they can do is buy the club off the seller. The seller was KPMG. The buyers have no control on HOW the club is sold. _______________________________________________ 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!!!!
