That is a natural point of view for a fan, but ultimately it is also very short term.
If Ridsdale had spent £12m on improving the ground rather than on Fowler then, if nothing else, we would have got more money when we sold the ground! And your point assumes we could attract what you would consider a 'decent' player. Finally, your point about spending money to keep Kilgallon is exactly the same financial folly that Ridsdale got into a few years ago is it not? You are presumably advocating paying him enough cash to make sure he stays (not that it would have been possible any way, if he is that good then he will want to play in the prem), or sacrificing £1.75m for the sake of 10 games of football. We are in the state we are now due to poor business management of the club. You cannot on the one hand criticise Ridsdale and on the other criticise Bates. Its one or the other. Or not maybe, because I personally think Ridsdale didnt do too much wrong in his time, he/we were just unlucky with the Bosman ruling and subsequent collapse of the transfer market. I also think Bates is good for the club, but I am not under any illusion that he is in it to make a few quid for himself. I think he is good for the club because I think that to make the money he wants, he needs a big and successful LUFC. I think the Killa sale is unfortunate, but that it makes sense financially and also in football terms. If he had 2 years on his contract left I would be saying something different. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael ALCOCK Sent: 09 January 2007 11:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] Kilgallon But's he's spending the money on 'ground improvements' though isn't he? On a ground he may or may not own. I've not been to Billy's bar, but I'd rather have a England U21 Centre half. I'd rather not have a hotel be built where the club shop is, I'd rather have a decent left back. I'm not denying that we've been ripped off in the past - but I feel that the very best you can say about Bates is that he may be 'less worse' than the previous shower and that is hardly a glowing defence is it? His record at Chelsea (by all accounts saved by Roman's cash) seems to suggest that he makes money regardless of what ever mess he leaves behind. Is that the sort of person who should be running the club? As for Bate's not taking money from LUFC well we won't know will we? Because we'll never see the accounts while he's in charge. As for the sale of Kilgannon - well given the quality of the incoming players (at the present - I wait to be pleasanty surprised before the transfer window shuts) I think it's a joke. The only way for Leeds to make money is to have a good team and fill the bloody ground, while avoiding the temptation to act like Peter Ridsdale again. Anyway, that's my tuesday morning moan over with. Back to lurkdom. Cheers Mike > The one main difference with Bates is that he isn't taking money direct from > LUFC, unlike everyone else previously involved with owning and running the > club an who have ALSO ripped us off. _______________________________________________ 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 'I am in shock,' said Ferguson. _______________________________________________ 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 'I am in shock,' said Ferguson.
