> > If you lot, who seem to like posting a constant stream of 'news' about > Bates, posted ALL the news about Bates then I wouldn't waste > my time with > you on this.
Who are 'you lot'?!?!? I fail to see why I, who dislikes Ken Bates, should post pro bates postings, why can't your lot do that? > > 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. You are imagining it, in fact I think you are quite paranoid > > I am not saying your ulterior motives are wrong, I just want > to know what > they are. I still have yet to see reasons for raking over > the coals that, > to me, justify it. I don't have any ulterior motives, Bates is a crook and I want the world to know. > > > An example - you are painting Bates out to be some kind of > mercenary monster > who will do anything for a quick buck. Your lot, I suppose, don't think he will? > 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. > > 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? > Intrigued, show me the post with the link to this story - I didn't post it, so I fail to see why I should post the response. Why didn't you post it? I don't report anything, I just post info I gleaned or opinions I hold. > Not that it makes any difference in the overall scheme of > things, but its > another example of your lot's selective reporting. No it's 'your lot' that have selective reporting - I'm 'you lot' - though I still don't get the link. > > First, I didn't post it (but I would have), second I would > have posted it > simply for balance. But you didn't so how can we be sure, and where would the balance be if you posted Taylor's response and yet not Willis' EDM? > > 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. > > 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. > > I am not trying to provide accurate/truthful/fact-busting > counter arguments > for you lot. I see now, your lot are just trying to provide inaccurate/untruthful/factually devoid unsubstantiated arguments - and a bloody good job you are doing too. > I wasn't there, Nor was I > I am not a LUFC board member, Nor am I > I > do not work > for Astor or KPMG. Nor do I > I also have nothing to do with LUST or > any other bid, > past or present. Nor do I > I don't pretend or allude to know more than > I do. Neither do I > 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 I just get sick to death of reading how Ken Bates saved Leeds United from extinction. > (cos Bates is so > loved by the press, anything negative surely must be true). > > 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. How do you know? > Which is fine. But thats > where I am coming > from. I have no doubt you are in possession of lots of the > 'facts'. No more than you probably - It's all in the public domain - It's how you interpret it. I make my own calculations - I don't need KPMG to put 10% next to £3.5M to know that £3.5M is 10% of £35M. > 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. Like what 'other sources' - elaborate please. > 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. Further disruption than administration or further disruption than the club not paying it's bills for the last 2 months of the season? > > Are you going to tell us all now why you think that would be > good for the > team this season? I think I made it clear that I'm not in to short term gain for long term pain - give me the pain now, lets get it over with and then we can really start the climb back. > > Are you going to tell us if you feel personally hard done to by Bates? > Let's see - he raised the price on my and my son's season ticket by nearly double, and they remained empty ALL season, he presided over the relegation of the club I have supported since I was 8 to the 3rd division for the first time in their history, despite having far more money than I could dream of he cynically put my favourite club into administration to suit his own financial needs, his fraudulent cva supported by mock creditors has nearly destroyed at least 2 of my friends businesses - so yes I feel hard done to by Bates. Does that mean I have to like him and say nice things about him? Paul _______________________________________________ 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
