----- Original Message ----- > > No doubt some will attempt to throw considerable doubt over the contents, > which come across to me as entirely reasonable.
I think that you should think a bit more widely about what it says and its own motivation. You might even ask why release this statement at all at this time. I'll give you a starter for consideration. The statement accidentally mixes up investment and purchase/ownership. It fails to acknowledge that (lets call them local) investers are self-evidently not prepared to invest in "Bates" whereas clearly they are interested in LU. It accuses the would-be buyers of wanting the club on the cheap and ignores the fact that ALL of them were willing to pay MORE than Bates for the club. If they want it cheap have you considered what does that make the Bates offer ? Do you not question the deliberate naming of two companies who voted against Bates ? What is the intention here ? If you do some digging you will find the connection and see why this is a bad case of bullying. Will any of this make you think about it ? Nobody wants to damage the club. That is rabblerousing. The club is not the same as Bates and Bates is not the same as the club. If there is no challenge to the CVA (probably still the most likely outcome) then this is not the end of the "matter". I refer you to Broken Dreams by Tom Bower updated paperback edition and to save time page 134 first paragraph. Four years it took last time. I wonder who will be left carrying the can this time. Maybe nobody if lessons have been learned. Does anybody (I mean ANYBODY) believe that Bates will be at the club if and when the time comes to pay up on the extra money the statement talks about. The promise was made because somebody else will have to pay it and not Bates. Until then it is only hot air anyway and in no way equates the Bates bid to the other bids. Bates "won" LU in the first place by making promises and you could ask the Krasner board what such promises are worth in hard cash. Nobody (in the fan base at least) wants the club to be damaged but that should not blind us all to everything else. WHO is the reason for all of this ? Who is getting in the way of local investors coming in to the club and making all the noise because none of them have been stupid enough. If you had, say, a milllion and had taken Bates at his word, say, six months ago and come in as a local investor then how much would you have left of that money today ? The statement would have you believe that the administration might have been avoided. Would you put YOUR house on that if you think it sounds perfectly reasonable ?You would find yourself with a penny in the pound and the ownership of the club still in the same hands. You might also expect a stinging public rebuke ridiculing you and turning the fans against you. Consider also Bates stinging attacks on LUSC because they wouldn't roll over and hand Bates all their money. Where would that money be now ? It ALWAYS sounds perfectly reasonable and that is how it is done. _______________________________________________ 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
