The Chav Debating Society wrote: > > I happen to think my assessment of that attack as being > idiotic was actually > well founded.
You would, wouldn't you? > I was simply suggesting > you might, in > the parlance of G. Lineacre "have a word" and put him straight on the > matter. > Why on earth would you think I should wish to do any such thing? Furthermore isn't it a tad presumptuous for you to assume that I even know Mr Holroyd sufficiently well enough to "have a word" at all? Perhaps you ought to "have a word" with yourself as your neurosis are beginning to show? > > 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 are now saying that you admit that Bates engineered the administration and the result and that you are happy about it? > You seem to > mistake a lot of > us 'pro Bates' crowd as, well, pro Bates. Why are you still pro-bates? Your original stance was that you were pro-bates to ensure we had a decent pre-season, we didn't have a decent pre-season so why are you still of the same persuasion? > We aint. We are > 'anti anti Bates > for the sake of it'. Is there an apostrophe in the wrong place? > Has that tiny little fact still not > registered in your > brain yet? > Ah, when in doubt resort to belittling insults, why is it that only the pro-bates mob feel the need to descend to this debating tactic? > 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. You cannot possibly know that, no-one can - fact. > > 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. So he blatantly lied all season when he claimed the debts were under control? > If you think he is the only owner who would have > played by > business rules and taken that option then you really are > deluded. Two wrongs do not make a right, why do you think they do? > 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. Who the fcuk are you to tell me what to do? I will continue to shout scream and yell from the freeking rooftops, if that's what it takes, that I hate Ken Bates for what he has done to my club!! You it would appear are happy to be 15 points adrift at the BOTTOM of Divison Three and are happy with the administration and management that put us there - fair enough, you'll be ecstatic when we're in division four then! Paul _______________________________________________ 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
