> I am not making things up to suit myself, anything I post on here is > either > what I believe to be fact (e&oe) or speculation based on what I believe.
Please try to remember what you have speculated so that you do not later mistake it as fact. > The context of the discussion was ( I thought) Krasner preferring to deal > with Stubbs but then deciding not to at the 11th hour because he pushed > too > much. I don't doubt that you did think that, but only you know WHY you thought that. > A logical (in my head) conclusion to the question 'why did they prefer > Stubbs' was that he was a Leeds fan and therefore the club would be in > better hands than with someone like Bates. Logic, or a total leap into the unknown ? > A further logical step was that Stubbs knew this and thats why he was > thought he could push for a better deal, not believing they would sell to > Bates. Which was either naivety on his part, or a bluff which was called. As above. You also neglect the fact that Stubbs was around long before Bates turned up on the scene. A better deal for who ? The club perhaps or didn't you consider that ? I wouldn't personally call Mr Stubbs naiive. > So, after explaining how I came to my conclusions/opinions, which are most > likely wrong but nevertheless the ones I came to, OK fair enough, you reached the wrong conclusions. At least you say that your being wrong is the most likely outcome. >and as LUST (now) appreciate NDAs are par for the course in business If you think that you provided the enlightenment with regard to non-disclosure documents then you would be making yet another wrong conclusion >(I am also assuming you have something to do with LUST here), my point is >why didn't LUST want to sign the NDA Who told you that the Trust did not want to sign. Even if they did not "want to sign" (which is a possibility when it comes to such documents), this does not mean that they would not sign it. I know for a fact that the Chairman of the Trust signed the KPMG document. (but again please don't leap to conclusions). As an aside if you want to know anything with regard to the Trust, why don't you ask them instead of making things up ? There is a "contact us" facility on the website. >and thereby rule themselves out of the bidding, if they were ever a serious > >option and weren't using the process as an excuse to dig up > more information and basically waste Bates/KPMG's expensive time? If Bates thought that the Trust were wasting his time he would not have asked them to go to a meeting with him on Tuesday of such a busy week as this, and he certainly would not have spent two hours over that meeting. The Trust has not been responsible for wasting any of KPMGs time in terms of the approach by the Trust to the club to purchase the club. _______________________________________________ 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
