If Mr Bates or Mr Taylor has made a direct public statement on some point
that you are referring to then please do not invite me to call either of
them a liar in public.
> 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.
I think this is a completely artificial construction which reveals that your
ONLY priority is the preparation for the new season regardless of anything
else which may have taken place. It shows that there is absolutely no point
in having this discussion with yourself as it would not matter what the
truth is or what had actually taken place. You have no interest or concern
in any of these matters. In reality I believe that you should include all of
Mr Bates, Mr Taylor, and Astor Investments in group 2 as they have clearly
been very willing to cause much grater damage than just to the pre-season.
In fact Astor Investments made a direct and overt threat to wipe out your
football club altogether, never mind disrupt the pre-season. Where is your
complaint about that ? If Bates himself and Astor can reasonably be included
in your definition of the Anti-Bates group then this shows how ridiculously
false your artificial definitions are.
> 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?
I repeat that until the golden share is recovered and the time for legal
appeal passes then this remains a live matter and your use of the expression
raking over the coals is inaccurate and misleading. The fire is still
burning even if all you seem able to see are the coals. Clearly you wish to
believe that the fire is out and all that remains are the coals to rake over
but you are simply wrong. No matter how much you WANT it to be true it still
is not true. It may become true but it isn't yet.
Why are you attempting to bury the corpse before it is dead ?
> Would you like to have a direct input into the running of Leeds
> United? I assume so as you are involved with LUST.
The aims and objectives of the Trust are laid out on the Trust website for
all to read for themselves. The fact that you can even pose this question
indicates that you have not bothered to inform yourself. There appears to be
a pattern of your preferring ignorance to knowledge. I will however point
out that this particular point has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Bates.
The Trust objectives were not written with Mr Bates in mind.
Ø Did you have any direct input, or promise of such, under a previous
regime,> ie before Bates arrived?
I did not personally, and my understanding is that the Trust has never
reached such a position.
Such discussions will however have taken place from time to time ever since
the Trust was first formed.
> 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?
By your trying to ask all encompassing questions it is made very difficult
to provide accurate answers that are not misleading.
I could quite accurately simply answer "no" or in fact "yes" but obviously
this would potentially mislead.
Assuming for a moment that you wish me to answer clearly about bids made to
KPMG then the answer is no.
Your wider question is stupid in the extreme as it is public knowledge that
the Trust made an approach to Mr Bates himself with the objective of
purchasing the club. Are you asking me to confirm that the Trust was
actually involved in its own approach to the club ?
> 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.
If this is a description of your own character and how you might personally
behave in such circumstances then your attitude on here is perhaps now more
understandable to those reading this thread.
It is not, however, an accurate depiction of my own approach to such things.
> Did you ever get any concessionary benefits from previous regimes? Ie
> free/cheap tickets?
No. Did you ? Not only have I never received any such benefits I have never
asked for or sought them.
I was once the guest of the referee in the previous second division days but
I also don't think that this is relevant either.
Ø 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.
No matter how hard you have tried you have not identified this mystery
factor that you continue to allege.
Despite your failure you persist in your false accusations. You write above
"as long as people know you do" and yet you have totally failed to show that
it is true. You wish people to read my posts in some false context which is
in fact YOUR own invention and which is in reality nothing whatsoever to do
with myself.
The person here who is demonstrating a total lack of objectivity and
impartiality is very obviously yourself despite your claims about others.
> Just like I take Krasner and Levis comments in that context.
I suggest that you are believing your own bullshit.
Ø 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.
Ø > And to clarify, thats a bid by LUST themselves, or their
involvement in any
> other bid, past or present (or known future bid).
The aims and objectives of the Trust are not a secret and are available for
all to read. Are you going around in a circle on this point ?
I'm fairly sure that there is generally no misunderstanding except your own
self-serving apparent confusion. I repeat - Your wider question is stupid in
the extreme as it is public knowledge that the Trust made an approach to Mr
Bates himself with the objective of purchasing the club. Are you suggesting
that the Trust might not have been actually involved in its own approach to
the club ?
Ø 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.
Why don't you apply this same reasoning to yourself first ?
Just because you desperately want something to be true does not mean that it
is true.
Ø 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.
This is too stupid to even bother with. These are not mutually exclusive.
Also, you may as well say that I'm not impartial because I'm a Leeds fan.
> I think I am right to be suspicious of your motives when you say stuff.
Obviously you think that despite your not being able to come up with a
single thing to support it.
> 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.
Does this actually make any sense, even to you ?
Where would we be if you applied this tortured logic to Bates, Taylor, and
Astor ?
If it is necessary for you to know what the Trust is "up to" as you say,
then could you explain what steps you have taken to inform yourself.
It seems to me that my answering your questions (and unfounded allegations)
on here does not make the slightest bit of difference as you ignore what you
prefer not to hear and invent other things to suit yourself..
Despite your claim that you will make your decisions based upon knowledge
you have shown no sign whatsoever that you will allow facts to get in the
way of your preferred beliefs. You manifestly confuse your suspicions with
facts and it appears that in your mind there is no difference between your
suspicions and facts.
> You will say I can go to LUST's website or join etc etc etc. I don't want
> to.
Ignorance is bliss, eh ?
_______________________________________________
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
