To the self appointed list censors -If you prefer not to continue to read this exchange then instead of moaning about it please just don't read it. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- > As I am not the only one who seems to think there are ulterior motives > behind what you lot do or say then you wont make me think I am going mad > by imagining it.> I am not saying your ulterior motives are wrong, I just > want to know what they are
What on earth are these ulterior motives ? If you really think that there are ulterior motives then please explain what they are. I suspect this is another item that you have invented by yourself just so you can argue against it. In the same way you appear to have invented "you lot" as some sort of grouping. How can anyone explain to you something that you have just made up all by yourself. What are you talking about ? >I still have yet to see reasons for raking over the coals that, to me, >justify it. This is a LIVE subject. The club does not have a golden share yet and questions have been asked in the house. That is not "raking over the coals" of a dead fire. This is a Leeds List and this is a Leeds subject. No justification to you is required from anybody.Perhaps the problem is that you simply have too little understanding of what you are writing about. > An example - you are painting Bates out to be some kind of mercenary > monster who will do anything for a quick buck. There was some negative > publicity before the vote, which I can only assume was either said on the > list or > linked to on the list (otherwise I doubt I would have read it) where it > was > alleged that some hospital or hospice or something would be left out of > pocket by going into administration. Please try to stick to things that people have actually said instead of resorting to generalisations like the above which simply cloud the very real issues being discussed. "Some sort of mercenary monster" is your choice of words and yet again you are trying to put words that were never said onto the opposite side of the argument. The story I think you are referring to was run in a newspaper AFTER the vote (from memory) and it arose because St Gemmas hospice appeared on the list of creditors. They WERE a creditor but only because they had paid an advance deposit on a function booking. Of course they lost their money just like everybody else but Bates' new company said that they would honour all such bookings so effectively they lost nothing. It was a non-story and it could just as easily have been put out by Bates as by anybody else. > That forced a representative of the hospital/hospice to come out in the > press and say that not only were they not owed anything, but that LUFC and > Bates himself make regular charitable donations to them. > Did you miss that? Did you report that? I'm not sure how it adds to the subject being discussed. What is your point ? I reported that throughout a two hour meeting Mr Bates was charm itself even when awkward subjects were raised. How does this change anything ? It was said that it would be a disgrace if St Gemmas hospice had lost money and so it would have been. If we reveal on here that whoever you perceive to be on the other side of this argument also gives to charity then what does that add to the debate ? > Not that it makes any difference in the overall scheme of things, but its > another example of your lot's selective reporting. Rubbish. It is an example of confused and muddled thinking on your part and nothing more or less than that.Who are "your lot" by the way ? >> > I am not saying Mark Taylor is telling any or all of the whole truth, >> > but it sure is nice to see there is another option to the Bates >> > Conspiracy Theory. What conspiracy theory is that ? Empty words again ? > First, I didn't post it (but I would have), second I would have posted it > simply for balance. Either side might be talking a crock of shit, but its > nice to read both crocks of shit to see which, if any, we believe. Could you please identify these two sides that you imagine in your mind. I assume that on one side we have Bates, Taylor, Asort Investments, Krator, FSF but please correct me if I misunderstand you. Who is the "other side" who may also be talking a crock of shit. ? What two things are you attempting to "balance" ? I suggest that you are using empty phrases simply to create an illusion that you have some sort of argument where you do not. > If you lot think for a second I buy all Bates spin then you are about as > naive as Krasner was selling to Bates to begin with. Another self invented point made up just to be knocked down by yourself. > I am not trying to provide accurate/truthful/fact-busting counter > arguments > for you lot. I wasn't there, I am not a LUFC board member, I do not work > for Astor or KPMG. What are you trying to do then ? Your intent is completely lost on me. Is this statement simply your making an excuse for posting inaccurate, untruthful, non-arguments ? Why are you arguing with people who WERE there and are reporting it to you ? >I also have nothing to do with LUST or any other bid,past or present There was no bid from the Trust to take the club out of administration. This is a FACT. Why do you keep on ignoring this fact ? The Trust was NOT a bidder to KPMG. It was not part of the administration buy-out process. What bit of this do you not understand ? The TRUST withdrew prior to making any bid to KPMG. How many different ways can this be said ? Why are you NOT a member of the Trust by the way ? > . I don't pretend or allude to know more than I do. I just > get sick to death of reading email and hitting upon yet another snide > aside, > or request for people to lobby their mp, or anti Bates link (cos Bates is > so > loved by the press, anything negative surely must be true). Well we have at least established that your posts are based on almost total ignorance of the subject. Have you ever wondered why Bates has the relationship that he does have with the media ? Those nasty media people at fault of course. > Basically I trust you lot about as much as I trust the > press/Bates/Morris/Krasner/Levi at the moment because I know I am not > being > told the full story by anyone. Whoever "you lot" is in your mind please explain what your mistrust of "you lot" is based upon ? I suggest that it is based on absolutely nothing except your own imaginings and inventions. What have "you lot" done or said to you that gives you reason to mistrust them ? How do you possibly know that you are not being given the full story except of course because that is precisely what others are telling you and you are so determined to gainsay ? The MP that you have taken exception to is asking for the full story. You appear to want to NOT have the full story so that you can continue on in comfortable ignorance. I also suspect that if pushed you might find difficulty in explaining the basis of your mistrust of Bates/Morris/Krasner/Levi. Are you really saying that you do not in fact trust anybody and that you are saying nothing more than this and nothing at all about "you lot" or Bates/Morris/Krasner/Levi. Is it that your lack of trust in any particular group, real or imagined, is merely apart of your lack of trust in anybody. >Which is fine. But thats where I am coming from. I have no doubt you are >in possession of lots of the 'facts'. You are also in possession of lots >of 'opinions' which may come from knowing facts, but I suspect they also >come from other sources too. I can see no other logical reason for >seemingly wanting a full investigation of the buyback and money laundering >etc, which can only cause further disruption for Dennis Wise and the team. >Are you going to tell us all now why you think that would be good for the >team this season? Nobody wants that disruption in the same way that nobody wants to visit the dentist.You appear to be implying that some other unnamed and unidentified "source" is responsible for forming opinions and that this "source" WANTS to disrupt pre-season for some also unexplained reason. You say no OTHER logocal reason without actually saying what this first logical reason actually is. What is it ? What is this logical reason that you refer to ? > Are you going to tell us if you feel personally hard done to by Bates? I'm not thrilled that he has taken the football club that I follow down to the third division. I suppose that I might take that personally to some degree but I'm not sure it is relevant to this thread. No doubt you are implying something but as it is coming from yourself it won't qualify as being the innuendo that you accuse others of. _______________________________________________ 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
