> > You claim that your stance is conciliatory, I asked why you > > thought that. You infer that your stance is no longer considered > > selfish, short-sighted and ill informed, I'm > > intrigued as to what makes you think that. > > Real fans are placing Anti-Bates messages on Billy's statue how does > > that support your stance? > > Ok, I will spell it out for you. > > Part 1 -> http://www.wordreference.com/definition/conciliatory > > With particular reference to "overcoming animosity or hostility".
Thanks for the clarification, I was trying to work out which definition you were using. Unfortunately, I still can't see how your stance could be construed as attempting to overcome animosity or hostility. > The main issue you (and others) seem to have is Bates being > in charge. Are you sure that is the main issue? > At > the beginning of admin I was saying it would simply easier to > let him get > his way and focus on the season ahead. You didn't care who was in charge as long as we had a decent pre-season - as I recall. > You said no, you said > Bates was > evil, you wanted Bates out regardless of this season. Interesting take on it, as I recall I was happy to take short term pain for long term gain. You said stuff the future, the only thing that matters is the now. > Our > stance was to > minimise the impact on the team this season, we were morally > evil As I recall you were morally bankrupt - but hey hang on - who's this we? Who's stance is 'our stance'? Are you part of some hitherto undisclosed organisation? > for not > caring that the poor creditors only got 1%/8%/13% (take your > pick) of their > dues. Who put us into administration? Forget the excuses, or extenuating circumstances, who ultimately is responsible for this situation where fans are squaring up to fans? > Right now a lot of people who might have wanted Bates out in > the beginning > and thought a challenge to the cva would be a good idea > (after all, the FL > lawyer told us we wouldn't even need to be out of admin to > get the golden > share - so there was nothing to lose apart from a little > preseason prep time > huh?) can see that this is seriously threatening the club and > therefore just > want the admin thing over and done with. With Bates in > charge. Just so we > get the GS and can play football in the football league. Are there? I've seen sites, posters and petitions demanding Bates Out, can't see I've seen the same demanding Bates in. Did you ever write to your MP demanding HMRC drop the challenge by the way? > I'll summarise for you > Initial position = us evil wankers just wanting it all over > with vs you anti > Bates people. Arguments/hostility on both sides. > Current position = us evil wankers still wanting it over with > vs anti Bates > people willing to accept Bates will own the club, want us to > get the GS. > Agreement. End of hostility. Really? These Anti Bates people willing to accept Bates, who are they? Are they just an illusion created in your over active imagination fuelled by your paranoia? > The hostility was never about who loved Bates and who didn't, > it was about > the best way forward for the football club. I seem to recall it was about whether it was best in the long term or short term, you seemed happy to stuff the long term as long as the short term was ok. I was more concerned with the long term but could also see how the short term could be better than ok in to the bargain. > So how do they work Paul? Why haven't they reconvened? Because they > wouldn't have done anyway, they are a monolith etc etc, or > they might be > pissed off at Bates/LUFC/KPMG and its political? Who knows? I just never swallowed that as soon as possible meant instantaneously. Maybe that's just me but I never have taken ASAP to mean promptly. They said at the earliest opportunity and I took that NOT to mean we'll meet as soon as you give us the paperwork. > Also, how do you know when and how often the club has chased > the FL? Do you > know someone hasn't rung them every day? Can you see any > reason why the > club might make a public statement saying they have chased a > response other > than to just inform us? Maybe they have been chasing in > 'private' all the > time but got nowhere, so now decided to add a little pressure on them? Don't know any of the above for sure, just the wording and the timing of the statements suggests it. > Why should they need to be chased anyway? Don't they have all the > information they asked for already? Because we want something they have. You call yourself a business man - do you chase your debtors? Why should you? They have the goods, the delivery note, the invoice and, no doubt, the statement but I bet a little prompting is needed from you before they post the cheque. _______________________________________________ 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
