I thought we'd agreed to drop all this, in favour of football, but apparently not everyone got the memo.
[Mark H. wrote]. Bates is on record as saying that he was told that HMRC would challenge ANY CVA through to the high court. If there had not been anything done that could be regarded as 'shenanigans' HMRC would have challenged it anyway. [Nigel Holcroft] Bates is "on record" as saying a whole lot of stuff, much of which is utter nonsense and all of which tends to be self serving. HMRC may well have told him that, in his case they would challenge any CVA (involving Astor and one sided debt forgiveness) all the way to the High Court... [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. 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. 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.. Preferential creditor status is not such grounds. Once again, the challenge to the Leeds CVA was not on the grounds of football creditors getting paid in full; it was on the grounds of KPMG's handling of things and more importantly the roll of Astor, it's connection to Bates/Taylor and the mysterious debt forgiveness.. [Mark H finished] And as far as I know noone else (who might actually KNOW) has said any different. Why wouldn't they refute Bates' claims? It would certainly be in the FL interest to refute that claim, it does after all go to the very root of Bates' argument for not being penalised. [Nigel Holcroft] It is not beholden upon any other party to get into a public slanging match with Bates... 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. _______________________________________________ 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
