The club needs to be run on a solid business footing because it is a business. If it is not run on a solid business basis it will go OUT of business. In theory, you are right: if the club does not start doing so the lack of money will force the club to do so. Of course that same theory has applied all along and we've essentially gone broke twice in the last three years. So much for theory. The same theory says that if you're walking down the street and see a bag of money sitting there, don't bother bending over to pick it up because if there were truly a bag of money sitting there someone already would have picked it up...so it can't be there. So, you gonna bend over? Like I said: so much for theory. We need someone at the helm who defines his best interests as the continued profitable operation of Leeds United as a football club. Period. We need it as soon as possible, agreed, but there is no part of that formula that includes Ken Bates. Michael Gardiner San Diego Whites In a message dated 5/30/2007 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not quite sure why it needs to be on a solid business footing to be successful? I'm also not quite sure how you equate Bates tenure as not being 'solid' and yet any other, as yet unknown, owner would operate any better? What we really need is an average home crowd of 8,000 then the lack of money from the fans will force the club to operate on a 'solid business footing' for League One. However that would mean becoming an average League One club and us settling at that level. I am glad we have potential for short term non-business footing operation in order for us to get back up asap. We can consolidate and get all cosy and complacent when we are back in the prem as far as I'm concerned. In the meantime I want us to do everything possible to get back there. We have no idea who will be in charge of the team if we have new owners. I personally think Wise and Poyet are good enough to get us back up, and we can attract the best players for League One, unless preseason is a wipeout due to the administration wrangling. I would therefore much prefer a quick short term resolution on Friday and for LUFC to be in the giddy position of Bates weighing up potentially lucrative offers for the club this time next season after we have just won promotion. If it doesn't happen on Friday then I hope we either get Revie or LUST in some form or another, together with the financial backing of a rich arab. Any other combination, in my opinion, is certainly no better than what we have now and most likely to be a whole lot worse. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 May 2007 16:35 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] Best interests ... FUCK next season > > > Now THAT's spot on David. And yes, Mark, you ARE missing something: > the > long term best interest of this club. The immediate future of Leeds > United > Football Club is not bright. There is absolutely no way to sugar coat > that or > see it otherwise. Next season we're more likely to go down again than > up. > Only the poor level of play in League One holds any prospect of > anything else. > > But we cannot afford to continue to wallow in sentimentality and > mismanagement. We cannot act for the short term or we'll find > ourselves out of League > Football. We must have management that will run this Club on a solid > business > footing. If we enter the season with 11 fit players and a couple > twits and > volunteers....so be it: a cheap price to pay for solid Club > management. > > Michael Gardiner > San Diego Whites > > In a message dated 5/30/2007 2:45:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LU] Best interests for next season > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > CL1EVS2.internal.cliffordchance > .net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Couldn't disagree more. Short termism of the worst kind. > > Option 1 - have a protracted potentially messy battle but which > ultimately > can get us ownership and management that can give us a proper and > concrete > grounding for truly rebuilding our club, albeit with a negative short > term > impact on planning for next season. > > Option 2 - stick with what we've got so they can plan for next season, > even > though existing management of the club have accumulated some > remarkable (in > volume and lack of accountability) losses, taken us into > administration and > our worst ever league status and still remain opaque as to who > ultimately owns > and funds us, in the hope (not supported at all by past behaviour) > that such > management may be able to be bought out at a later date. > > Has to be Option 1 every time. > > Cannot believe for a second that if Bates wins the vote, thus has a > relatively unencumbered club, with the options to buy the land in > tact, but with > debts to 'repay' to companies who subsidised the club to a very large > tune, he > would walk away if just offered 10m. > > The current 'back me or your club dies' posturing smacks of rather > unpleasant desperation and no intelligent fan will buy into it. > Surely??? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of thecasses > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:31 AM > To: Mark Humphries; 'The Leeds List' > Subject: Re: [LU] Best interests for next season > > > IMHO - 100% spot on > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'The Leeds List'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:17 PM > Subject: [LU] Best interests for next season > > > It appears that if Bates offer is rejected or accepted narrowly (and > thereby > attracting an appeal or whatever) we would remain in admin limbo even > longer. > > Which would mean no transfer activity. > > Would it not be in the best interests of the football club to vote > Bates > through so that we can get a squad together for preseason training? > The > last thing we want now with the unavoidable overhaul of the playing > staff is > to miss out on all or part of preseason together. > > I read somewhere that Bates is hanging on for a ?10m payout, wouldn't > it be > better for all these concerned fans who want to buy the club to > therefore > let Bates win and afterwards give him his ?10m to walk away? The > improved > offer to the creditors aint doing LUFC any favours, it just means the > creditors get more money. > > Or am I missing something? ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ 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
