Well, well, "Mr. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate" strikes
again......
First, once again may I beseech you, in the name of all that betty holds,
listowningly sacred to refrain from sending two copies of
everything...especially as, now you seem intent on sending a separate email,
for each point of contention..
But I digress....Since when has simple economics, involved underhand tricks
to lower the price, or value together with coercion and threats err, well
apart from in the Sopranos guide to simple economics that is?...Oh OK and
the Al Capone story and not forgetting The Godfather....but apart
from...what have the Romans ever done for economics? Er well Chelsea
aside...
You see, you were all about stressing how when 2 or more people bid for an
item, the highest price will be achieved, when it suited your cause re: the
impending sale of Healey.. I pointed out at the time that there are other
factors that influence such sales; some smart moves, some dumb (see slagging
Healey in public) and some downright crooked and yes bring on the libel
suit.. Now you are willing to cite the use of outside influence to back your
claim on this issue that you don't need to bid the highest price to win an
auction sale... Damn it you're just so eager to win an argument, for once in
your life, that you're prepared to take on yourself.. Good luck with that
one..
Why has Bates not brought a lawsuit against any number of critics, so far
(just a veiled threat against Willis, who he knows he can't touch... Oh
yeah, because he'd have to prove such accusations were untrue and that might
involve having to lift the blanket of intrigue and mystery surrounding
Astor et al and the whereabouts of 18.5 million pounds of funny money.
Somehow I do not expect Mr. Bates' attourneys, even the less than ethical
ones to be banging on my door any time soon. Now Luigi and his big brother
Vinnie, that's another story.
I see another one of your old tricks (May be this is why you seem so in tune
with Bates, through a shared love of shading the truth) surfaced, again when
throwing in this little gem,
"Nothing to do with caring about HMRC or bob the mobile disco." Please
point out anywhere, in the piece I wrote, that I ever mention either of
those entities, let alone "caring" about them?
You assert that "The administrators job was to know all the facts and then
choose the best buyer for everyone concerned, that includes the creditors"
On that we can agree; however do you really believe that they were able to
do that honestly and ethically, with all due diligence and fiduciary
integrity, in under 20 minutes of receiving the notice of administration?
It was also their duty to make sure that creditors new that it was within
their power as administrators to reject Bates' offer, buy the club and
re-sell to the highest bidder if the CVA was not accepted...
Again I doubt they'll have time out from dodging some interesting and
awkward questions, from regulators to be chasing me on that issue either....
If memory serves me well was this not one of same the same company whose US
arm had some serious questions to answer regarding the post Enron accounting
scandals?
"You go on to say, "So, in that respect Bates and Morris (and the others)
are all alike - they
offered a price to the creditors they thought or hoped would be enough to
get the club"
Not quite...Bates put in the minimum offer possible, with the knowledge that
he'd already put in place a fix that would block any other offers, in the
eyes of a less than diligent administrator and then used the administrators
acceptance to bully other into backing his low ball bid... s pointed out in
the last piece that does not equate to the Morris or any other bid.
Next you say "Apparently Bates was saying we'd be out of admin quicker and
things could get back to BAU if creditors voted for him. What is wrong with
saying that? Was that an incorrect statement? "
Apparently it was and incorrect statement, if not an out and out lie. (Not
the first, throughout his connections with the club) I believe we are, to
all intents and purposes still IN administration and now facing legal
challenges, possible governmental probes and the possible wrath of the
Football League... So how were things settled at the Monday vote?
" Fuck me, (Thanks for the offer, but you've obviously mistaken me for an
Erasure fan, as well as a Morris lover; neither could be further from the
truth) we are out of admin, (Are we? I think you will find that is still
pending legal challenges ) still have a club (for the moment, but not
guaranteed, pending FL ratification of deal and golden ticket), are getting
a squad together for preseason (Not so...just working with what we already
have, minus those who've been told they are not wanted and those told
they'll never play again even if they stay), why are you lot still moaning
and whingeing about Bates being a naughty boy? (See below) Who would you
have wanted to own the club then Nigel, from the 5 other bidders? Why are
YOU so pissed off with Bates? Because bob the mobile disco didn't get all
his money back?" ('Cos he's playing games with and has [EMAIL PROTECTED] my,
beloved
team and I have every suspicion that he'll do it again at any and every
opportunity.)
Don't even tell me/us again that he's wiped out 35 million pounds and made
us debt free and ready to face the upcoming season and onward to the
prem...., 'cos there are plenty here about who seem to believe that no such
debt, or reason for it ever existed and that the club is being used to
launder money. That sort of "debt" and the animosity it has caused, in high
places may come back to haunt us, many times over and may, yet sink us
completely.
_______________________________________________
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
