I understand your point, but I believe you're selling Bates short.? While I agree that administration was not due to Bates' incompetence I do believe -- indeed I'm convinced -- that it was part of his plan (whether initially or not).?
Does he desire to damage Leeds United?? I don't know.? But that's not the point -- indeed speaking of it in those terms obscures the point.? Rather, I believe that the point is this:? he couldn't care less whether or not he's damaging Leeds United. MAG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [LU] The worse of two evils Ye gods. ? On a "damage to Leeds United" scale of 1 to 10, Ridsdale scores 11. ? Bates hardly gets on the scale. ? All our problems have been caused by the total incompetence of Ridsdale, Leighton and the rest of the PLC board. ? IMO receivership for Leeds United was inevitable.?It was perhaps?a consruct by Bates in order to wipe out long-standing financial commitments (bondholders etc) that are not in the public domain, but are a legacy of the Ridsdale regime and/or attempts to unscramble the mess by the Prof, Krasner et al. This is just?a personal theory... ? I just don't buy the idea that administration was due to Bates' incompetence. (even less do I buy the stupid idea that he has a desire to somehow damage Leeds United). ? Mark ? ? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. _______________________________________________ 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
