> We long ago established that I have no obligation to you but why on > earth do > you feel the need to say it every once in a while. What is your purpose > in > repeating it. What do you mean by "people like myself" ? I do, of > course > have an obligation to some people so you are not correct in what you > write.
Simply because I wanted to avoid the answer "why should I have to?", nothing more, nothing less. > > > And I also think I have answered your questions with a straight bat. > My > > questions are supplemental to my answers. Please do me the same > courtesy. > > A straight bat would exclude emotive language, it would exclude your > no-obligation statement, and it would exclude artificial constructions > on > your questioning. No it wouldn't! By straight bat I meant answering your questions as directly and clearly as possible. I suggest that it would also exclude your attempt to > get > me to accuse KPMG of negligence. Listers might wonder why you tried > that > last one ? Fuck what other listers might think (and I think most will see the very straightforward point I was making), what on earth did YOU think I asked you that for? For clarity I will explain anyway but I would love to know what you think I am 'up to'. I asked the question because, apparently (are you going to tell me different) the only possible challenge on the takeover would be because of procedural issues. KPMG were the people controlling the procedures and ensuring everything was done correctly. If they didn't and therefore there are legal grounds to challenge the decision, that would be neglect on their part. So, by asking you the question I was attempting to discover whether you thought there were legal grounds to challenge the decision. In other words, do you not think KPMG did their job, cos if they did there is no legal challenge available. > At the end of the day if there is a challenge of some kind it is not > going > to be made by myself and the Trust itself has no position on this. The > Trust > works with anyone who owns the club (as far as it is allowed to). If a > challenge comes then there is a very difficult task to attempt, and > that is > to try to influence whoever the relevant authorities are, to remember > that > the fans are wholly innocent in all of this and to direct any > "punishment" > or "sanctions" directly towards the perceived "guilty" parties, whoever > they > may be. Almost impossible but we have to try anyway. > Well here we agree 100%. Can you tell me what your (and/or LUST) position is on any potential challenge? Do you want one? _______________________________________________ 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
