> >> > 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 ?
Literally that Bates always intended to take us into admin last season, the actions of HMRC merely being a bit of a happy coincidence for him. As far as I know Bates never intended going into admin last season. He seems to say the same. You say, or intimate, different - I cant remember which. You will possibly say it wasn't you, if not, do you believe or not that Bates would have gone into admin last season regardless of HMRC? Rick, all you seem to do is request sources/clarity on virtually every question asked of you. This isn't some kind of contract negotiation here, I will ask again.. In general terms, exactly what is it you have against Bates? Do you think the request to have the buyback of the company is a good thing or not. I am not asking if it is or isn't, but your opinion. If you do think it is a good thing, do you think it is good for the team on the pitch this season or do you think that it was an unfortunate/unsavoury/immoral (delete as appropriate) period in our history but its done now so lets move forward? I suspect if you do choose to answer that question there will be a few question marks in the reply, but I hope I am wrong. > > > 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. 1. Bates 2. Anti-Bates - ie those people who are happy to disrupt further preparations for this season from there being a (potential) investigation into the buyback. There are many people, myself included, who sit in a 3rd group who like it or not accept that Bates is the owner again and prefer to look forward to Wise getting a team together and having a successful stab at promotion. > I suggest that you are using empty phrases simply to create an illusion > that > you have some sort of argument where you do not. I am not the only one Rick. Others here have publicly said they also feel like you amongst others are 'raking over coals', but for what reason? Impishness? Information dissemination? Debate? Would you like to have a direct input into the running of Leeds United? I assume so as you are involved with LUST. Did you have any direct input, or promise of such, under a previous regime, ie before Bates arrived? Did you have promise or an indication of direct input with any of the other tabled bids, or any other bids that for one reason or another, never made it to the table? I am not saying you did, have or would have, but this for me would be one reason Bates might have put your nose out of joint. Did you ever get any concessionary benefits from previous regimes? Ie free/cheap tickets? > 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 am trying to scratch that nagging itch. I couldn't really give a fcuk why you might have a gripe with Bates, but as long as people know you do then they can read your posts, however factual or impartial they might be, in that context. Just like I take Krasner and Levis comments in that context. > > >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 ? So there was never a bid discussed, ever? Just because it never got to KPMG doesn't mean LUST didn't want to get involved in a bid. And to clarify, thats a bid by LUST themselves, or their involvement in any other bid, past or present (or known future bid). > > > . 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. Rick, I have a lifetime's experience of the media from a plebs point of view. I learned a long time ago that just because someone says something in the media, it doesn't necessarily make it true. I have wondered why Bates has that relationship. Over and above the fact he may have told them where to stick it in the past. You tell me/us as you seem to know. > > > 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. Quite possibly Rick, but again I am not the only one. I think if you answer my questions above about LUST then that may go some way to assuage my personal suspicions. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you have absolutely nothing personal against Bates, or the fact Krasner sold to him in the first place. 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 would be quite interested to hear the full story, but can I have it next May please so that everyone at the club can focus on getting us promoted. That would be fucking fantastic. > 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. When it comes to a media outlet such as this, that can be used by all parties to further their aims and ambitions, then no. When Rich Walker slags off Blackwell I can disagree with his assessment or opinion but I respect that it's his opinion as he has nothing personal to gain or lose whether it is Blackwell in charge or not. As you are part of Lust, and as LUST has/had ambitions with regards to getting control of the club, then you are not, in my opinion, an impartial bystander sounding off. On one hand you purport to know facts 'cos you were there'. On the other hand you claim to know nothing and are stating an opinion. On yet another hand you seem to just be posting on facts from other sources. I think I am right to be suspicious of your motives when you say stuff. Just because you are also a fan is irrelevant until and unless we all know exactly what LUST are up to, when and if I do then I will make a decision on whether I also support that stance or whether I oppose it. You will say I can go to LUST's website or join etc etc etc. I don't want to. I'd rather a hard nosed businessman who knows football is in charge of our club, until someone better comes along. Have they? > Nobody wants that disruption in the same way that nobody wants to visit > the > dentist. Depends, do you think we have a cavity that needs attention then? If visiting the dentist means disrupting (or risks disrupting) an important project then I would defer that visit. Unless a higher power like my mummy told me I had to because it would be better for me in the long run. Which comes back to that question, do you welcome the investigation even though it could disrupt this season? If so, why? What dental work needs to be addressed right now? 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 > ? That they are putting a personal dislike for Bates above the team on the pitch. Which is fine, it would explain everything. Is that the reason? What will we (the fans) or LUFC gain from the investigation. What is your personal 'best case scenario'? If it is simply so that we all know the truth, as you seem to be saying, do you think it is good timing? Do you not think it would be better to come out (assuming the truth isn't out) at some point down the line so preparations for this season are not (potentially) disrupted in any way? _______________________________________________ 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
