1. Agree - Ignore this one 2. Thats a big number! Anyway, what difference does the value make? The HMRC still had a casting vote and rejected the CVA. That all they can do to us also. Oh and it was almost £8m, but again the value doesnt matter. 3. Not found guilty of tax evasion (dont forget, Rangers have not been charged with this). But they were heavily suspected of it (or at least avoidance) because of the very dodgy ownership from the Caymen Islands. See below: "As you’ll no doubt be reading in the newspapers and websites over the coming days, the committee is thoroughly unimpressed by the state of football governance in general; and it has several grievances particular to Leeds United. They have concerns about the previous ownership structure and Shaun Harvey’s explanations of it, about Ken Bates’ purchase of the club from the anonymous owners, and about The FA and the Football League allowing these situations to continue; and the committee is asking that The FA, “demonstrate its new resolve by conducting a thorough investigation and, if necessary, to seek the assistance of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/03/leeds-united-ken-bates-owner
See article above: Post 339. You also stated that Leeds have previously been found guilty of tax evasion (post 334). That was a lie. But I do advise you read post 339 as it completely blows your argument right out the water. And remember while you are reading it that HMRC have stated they will not to a deal with a business who have previously been found guilty of not paying tax. And they have also stated they will not do a deal while Craig Whyte is still at the club.
It doesnt matter, they dont need the consent of the creditors. If the HMRC refuse us a CVA, we can still do this.
It is correct this is what every **** on here has been telling you. I suggest that you revisit your research
YOU ARE ****ING MENTAL Seriously, **** off with your unadulterated pish you ****ing brainless moron. I thought ******s like Medro and BH were bad but they seem like mental colossuses compared to you.
Who has to agree to the sale? The administrators. Who do the administrators owe their first obligation to? The creditor They will refuse. And in a liquidation event..... no you can't.
Spot on.....except this is what Baldrick will be telling his pals; I went onto a Celtic forum and I told them the facts. Not one of them could put forward an argument to the contrary. One of them got so mad he told me to "**** off" in big letters. Our history is safe fellow bares. We know it... now Timmy knows it.
What was the source? It is lying to you. Here is total proof. Your source : "With a CVA agreed, subject to challenge, the Football League transferred Leeds United AFC’s league share to Leeds United FC Ltd under its “exceptional circumstances” provision." Official Source : http://www.scribd.com/doc/87980843/leeds-cvl (go to page 8-9) CVA was scrapped, never paid out and the football share had to be negotiated by the buyer and the football league.
A pre-pack ensures the best value for the creditors. Administrators do them without even consulting the creditors.
A Company Voluntary Arrangement CVA is a procedure which enables a company to reach an agreement with its creditors about how debt is to be repaid. The CVA may provide for partial or full repayment depending on what the company can reasonably afford to pay. Creditors do support CVAs if the alternative is liquidation with little or no return to creditors. The Proposal must, however, be reasonable and achievable. A CVA can only be proposed by a company if it is insolvent or contingently insolvent. The CVA requires the approval of 75% of the voting creditors. If approved, the CVA binds all creditors irrespective of how they voted and allows the directors to retain control of their company.
You are talking of an administration sell off. everyone else is talking about liquidation. Obviously you are not very business savvy
