> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cundell > Sent: 14 July 2007 16:58 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] Wage deferrals - Healy + who? > > Mark B wrote: > > > > SO TELL US, FFS!!!! > > > > Tell you what FFS?
Was he talking to you? > > > > Rick, I've seen you on Sky Sports News and you come across as > > a decent bloke. > > He is. ?! > > > > > Yet on this list, you are consistently slippery and evasive. > > You answer > > direct questions with questions, or at best gnomic 'nudge > > nudge' hints that > > "something is going on behind the scenes" etc. > > Thing is - that although I am not often part of his or Betty's inner > circle > I do tend to understand what you consider to be his cloak and dagger > messages. So is the failure of clarity his or your fault. Similarly if > Rick > or Betty make an indication that I don't follow and can't research an > answer > to - I communicate directly with them for an answer, rather than expect > them > to explain publicly what they obviously couldn't publicly state. Obviously. But why? That is the question. Why not come out and say "sorry boys, I cant go into this any deeper in public, email me if you're interested." Or why not just keep the cloak and dagger shit off the list. We were told that in the beginning Rick posted stuff to the list which was aimed at a select few who needed to know and would understand, has he not got their email addresses in his address book by now? If something isn't meant for public consumption then don't post it to the list. Simple enough eh? If it is posted to the list we assume it is for public consumption. Furthermore if I, or anyone else, questions one of these obtuse/abstract answers then instead of repeating the obtuse/abstract answers to the list ad nauseum, just reply direct to the individual and either spell it out or tell them they cant go into detail. > > > > > These are peppered with some hugely pompous, presumptuous one- > liners. > > No more pompous and presumptuous than some of the things other listers > come > out with, I'd suggest. And I wouldn't agree with you, not for the first time. > > > > > I appreciate there are some things you may be unable to say, > > but would > > appreciate a clear position from the trust on where you think > > we should go from > > here. > > > > Primarily, Rick does not speak on behalf of the trust, he can't - he > can > only give his opinion. And seemingly now you also speak for him. > Secondly, perhaps our future direction is not yet clear, it is less > than 2 > days since the FL advised they were unable to transfer the golden > share. > Perhaps our future direction depends upon the outcome of numerous > conversations and communications that are currently on going and could > be > damaged by being publicly debated in a public forum. Keep the innuendo off list then. Again, simple. _______________________________________________ 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
