My my, Alisdair Campbell has a successor I see. (Joke Rick, Joke, don't take offence!!!) Rick, I don't know you from Adam and I can fully appreciate that you are far more involved and 'clued up' when it comes to the whole affair than I am. No argument whatsoever there. But if I may ...
> Tim (and Mark if that is OK), I'm happy to debate various items with you > but please would you stop defining your own scenarios and pushing them onto me. Firstly I do not have a foot in some other camp (whatever camp that may be) and nor does the Trust. I merely asked a question as to what you meant by digging around. Your answer (eventually) suggests good research, ala Private Eye, into business connections and potential 'political connections'. I In answer to your question above, by > all means pull me up on it but that is no reason to define things as a clash > of egos between company owners and Bates. Where is your evidence for any such thing ? Did you simply make it up to sound good ? If you wish to define > any situation where there is not 100% agreement with Bates as being a clash > of egos then the problem is your definition. It does nothing to aid clarity. I didn't claim to have any evidence and certainly didn't make it up to sound good, it was merely a suggestion, a query as to what exactly you meant. I apologise profusely if I don't have a degree in English and didn't win the debating competition at school but it was a supposition, a simple example for which the answer "From doing sound research into the political and professional connections of the people involved" would have sufficed. > > It has nothing to do with reading between the lines. It is about researching > into who is connected to who (professionally and politically - in a loose > sense). > (This means actually checking and not simply pointing fingers in baseless > accusations). One of these two companies was selected for a very specific > reason (and further research is going on into why the other one was selected). I asked that you do some digging for yourself. I did not suggest > some baseless imaginings of clashes of egos. I'm not attempting to make 'baseless accusations' I'm asking what are the grounds for your retort. Does your research, uncover individuals potentially linked to business disagreements/dealings between the two parties in the past? In which case, wouldn't ego's as well as business accumen feasably be involved? > >> Why shouldn't Bates et al mention such companies when you and his many other detractors feel happy to use Yorkshire Radio as a counter argument >> because it's involvment helped Bates? Aren't you one of the many asking for transparency in the club and it's financial dealings? Can it not be argued that this is exactly that? > > This argument is so disingenuous as to be almost worrying. I'm not arguing Rick, I'm asking. I'm not trying to be deceiptful, hypocritical or insincere, I'm merely saying in a debate between two (or in this case a lot more!) parties, why can one 'side' use such an argument but not the other? 'Can it not be argued' doesn't mean I'm arguing! Yorkshire Radio > is so linked to Bates, Taylor and the club that mentioning them in the same > breath is not any sort of transparancy nor is it a revelation. There is no > need even to comment upon Taylors own company. If you wish to portray publicly mentioning a completely outside company who has lost money becuase > of this as some sort of balance and make it sound in any way similar, then > it says much about how you reach your other supposedly "balanced judgements". I refer to my last point? I'm asking simply why is this not valid. BTW the 'supposedly' was an unecessarily cheap shot, we're not all involved upto the eyeballs in this. > >> I also note towards the end of your post you again use the penny in the pound argument, whether or not better offers were put forward, it isn't that simple is it? But to admit the additional 30p in the pound (That I was unaware of) would weaken your stance wouldn't it? > > As you admit to not knowing then I'll willingly talk again after you find > out more about it. Then you may already have realised that it in no way weakens the stance as you currently prefer to imagine. Take some time as it > is a bigger subjet than you may currently think. > So to ask you a simple question, that being "It's not that simple is it?" means I'm ignorant and not worthy of conversing with you until I go away and spend more time researching this situation, can I summise that from this closing retort? _______________________________________________ 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
