> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cundell > Sent: 07 August 2007 11:39 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] Time to get back to the footy...
> Since his fellow defender of all that is Bates has resorted to the Chav > debating society technique of calling all who disagree with them stupid > or idiots I have seen little point in attempting valid debate with ones > so obviously lacking in ability and/or knowledge. First point old chum, I didn't call your mate an idiot because I disagreed with him per se, I called him an idiot because he attacked the other Mark's email where he sought clarification in response to Rick's email requesting volunteers. He went further in suggesting Mark was asking Rick to do something because he was too lazy too. He went even further to suggest that because you have had a difference of opinion on a past event, that you should not expect to work together or indeed be 'mates' again. I happen to think my assessment of that attack as being idiotic was actually well founded. > However in a successful attempt at creating a rise Mr Humphries > insinuates that either myself or Mr Holroyd are incapable of forming > our own opinion, I was under the impression we had moved beyond simple opinion on this matter? I thought the basis of HMRC's challenge was a matter of fact now? Nigel has indeed formed his opinion, I was simply suggesting you might, in the parlance of G. Lineacre "have a word" and put him straight on the matter. No need to cry about it. > He fails to either read the bit that Bates should have known how the > regulatory bodies would react at every turn - it is his job to know > after all - or chooses to ignore it as it fails to fit in his dream > world > Paul Who says he didn't know that. Maybe, just maybe Paul, Bates anticipated the challenge by HMRC regardless and therefore knew LUFC would have to rejoin the FL via the 'exceptional circumstances' clause. Having said that he still had to play the game up until that point. In any case, why are you arguing here, does anyone NOT agree that either Bates should have known HMRC would challenge or should have guessed they might do it? If he is as crafty and conniving as you suggest then so what - he still bought the club and got the GS back. You seem to mistake a lot of us 'pro Bates' crowd as, well, pro Bates. We aint. We are 'anti anti Bates for the sake of it'. Has that tiny little fact still not registered in your brain yet? He are the current opinions for you - HMRC would have challenged anyone who won the cva bid. Yes, including Redbus. Whoever won would have still been advised, following said challenge to scrap the cva. Yes, even Redbus. The newly bought club would still need to rely on the FL grasping their bollox and making a decision. Yes, even Redbus. So, I concede Bates was the person who chose for LUFC to go into admin, probably in an act of bravado towards HMRC or as a sly business move to wipe some debts. If you think he is the only owner who would have played by business rules and taken that option then you really are deluded. What makes you think a football league chairman who presided over human rights violations, for example or sanctioned (tax free) bundles of cash to be passed over to an agent for example, would think twice about performing a business trick to wipe out some debt? So to reiterate and hopefully draw a line under this once and for all, we don't like Bates, we just put up with him because he is LUFC chairman/owner. Shouting and screaming and crying and flower arranging aint going to change that. I know its not fair, not nice, not cricket or whatever, but hey - deal with it. _______________________________________________ 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
