----- Original Message ----- > And what did Bates say last week when you asked him face to face?
It was a two hour meeting and some of it was off the record. He appeared to want us to have the impression that he would be here for next season at least. Does that answer your question ? Amongst two hours of exchanges he told us that Wise had volunteered a pay cut and I thought that was off the record but has been mentioned by Bates himself, so I guess not. > I am only putting the trust 'in the spot' so we all know what you are > actually proposing to do - you don't have to tell us of course. We are proposing to recognise that Mr Bates is chairman once more and to act accordingly. Nothing else is on the table at present though of course there are many possibilities some of which we have mentioned to Mr Bates. He was, I think, a little pre-occupied with the approach of Fridays meeting which is understandable. > As you didn't want Bates to win, and you yourselves didn't bid, who did > you > want to win? Anyone in particular or anyone but Bates? Who said that the Trust did not want Bates to win ? I don't think that the Trust said anything of the sort. There is no Trust position on that AFAIK. Mr Bates thought that the Trust was gathering a fighting fund to oppose him but I was able to categorically deny this and to advise him that in my view that would be a stupid position for the Trust to adopt. The Trust did not even request proxy votes. > As for the post administration situation, are you telling me that you did > not either expect or plan for this scenario, What EXACTLY is this scenario ? What aspects of it do you think that we should have planned for and why ? What would such planning have encompassed and to what purpose ? Speaking personally, this is very much what we expected. As for the Trust, you have missed the reference to better business accumen than you have previously given credit for. >when all along it was the most likely outcome, unless you were pinning >your hopes on some link being found between Bates and the other creditors? The Trust did not have to rely on a link being found. We have always been aware of the confirmation of a link between Astor and FSF which is on page 19 of last years clubs accounts. I'm sure that you will also be aware of it. >I find that astounding personally, if you (LUST) had a potential vested >interest in the outcome of the vote which certainly seemed to be the case. You appear to be "personally astounded" by your own hypothesis as opposed to anything factual about the Trust. Were you at the meetings on Friday and today ? What is this "vested interest" that keeps coming back without explanation. > Of course the price wont have gone down, it would have gone up I expect, > which was one of the reasons I thought you (LUST) may have been hoping for > him to lose the vote. But you haven't said if that is the case or not. You are correct in that the Trust has not said that it was hoping for Bates to lose the vote. We have said that our (former) primary backer withdrew due to the changed circumstances. The whole thing is far more complex than you appear to think. Thinking again though and having said that the reality was complex, your suggestion appears to be that the Trust was hoping that Bates would lose the vote and that this somehow would mean that the Trust would be the party chosen as the new owners and that we would have to pay less due to some unexplained mechanism. Not only that but we would also simply purchase the club without our primary backers. Well you really couldn't make it up. Well, I couldn't. _______________________________________________ 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
