On Tue, June 5, 2007 1:51 pm, Mark Humphries wrote: > My "pro Bates" argument said nothing about a proper plan.
No, I think it was Mark Bursa that said he was the one with a demonstrable plan compared to other bids that we knew nothing about. > My argument was that the only option that would allow us to have any > decent chance of getting a team together and team building was for Bates > to win outright and there be no challenge. The 28 days wait is not because there is a challenge - it's reported to be a legal requirement to allow a challenge. Hopefully the league will waive this and tomorrow vote to allow us to trade, but I'm not holding my breath. > Bates to win and a challenge or any other winner would (potentially) > delay team building. A risk that I didn't think was worth it given the > importance of next season on the pitch. My point is that we have this delay anyway - and we agree that the dealy, whatever the cause, is a bad thing. > I have said all along that I don't see Bates as whiter than white. I > said that we don't know what the other bidders were like at all. We know he's a lying bully, there must be a chance that one of them isn't! > All you need to do is think back to the argument about Blackwell as > manager - some were demanding he get sacked no matter what, no matter who > would take over, "anyone would do better". I think the pragmatic argument > put forward by the "pro Blackwell" group, which included me, was - tell us > who the alternatives were. I was also one of the voices asking who the alternatives were. The difference here is that we know there were half a dozen parties interested in the job. We didn't even know that about the manager's job. > Same would go for Bates vs someone else in charge. If that was all the > argument was about then I would be more on the fence because quite frankly > I > don't think we'd ever get a benevolent 'pro Leeds United and good football > club management' person in charge. > > That wasn't the argument though. The argument was about this particular > vote and its short term implications for the team on the pitch. The only > counter argument I can see to this is that it would be worth the short > term pain just to get rid of Bates. I don't think anyone has come out and > said that though have they? The closest we have come to that is the > suggestion that just maybe the football league would have allowed us to > trade if we were still in admin due to the creditors not agreeing on a new > owner. Again, was a 'maybe' worth the risk? I think not, but its a moot > point now anyway, Bates won the vote and I hope that can mean we can start > getting the team ready for next season. Which, for the sake of clarity I > will repeat, is the only reason I wanted Bates to win the vote. I accept that - but why did you think that? Because Bates told us so? And here we are, he's won the vote and we still can't build for next season. My initial response to Bates winning the vote was that at least we know where we are now. But actually we don't, because Bates rarely tells us what his plans are, and when he does they never seem to come to fruition the way we were meant to expect (at best) or the complete opposite happens (at worst) For a footballing man who knows the game and how to run a football club, with Bates in charge we aren't doing too well really, are we? - Sean _______________________________________________ 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
