Simon I am not defending the set up It is not a good one All I am saying is that it should not be changed retro actively Next buyer in should be 'transparent' --- fine by me. But do not start to 'shake our tree' again. God knows what 'll fall out and on who. We all know that 'off the field ' soon becomes 'on the field'. Our form is precarious. We cannot allow any distractions.
I am sure that there are many more bad reasons than good ones why people want to stay in the shadows. But we have one very good reason not to alter things now. It could wreck us completely if we play around with this. All the do -gooders and and fellow travellers have nothing to lose. We have everything to lose. When this bunch sell then have an 'open sale'. But let's all get real here. Whoever invested put money on an old man with a dubious track record and a very dodgy team. This was a very high risk venture. They will make a lot out of the eventual sale. But they can only sell when there is something to sell. Because of Bates age I should imagine that they will sell when we go up. As they are unnamed and important to stay that way they are in a mess if Bates pops his clogs. Bloody ironic we got decimated by a 'supporter living the dream' & saved by a calculating knave. Michael Dr Michael Benjamin, Community Psychiatrist ------------------------------- myRay: On-line Self-Help CBT http://www.myRay.com ------------------------------ Mental Health: http//www.MyDoctorExplains.com -------------------------------- Auditing || Quality Control http://www.MyDoctorExplains.com/alamo/ -------------------------------- Blog: http://www.DrMichaelBenjamin.com On 6 March 2010 18:26, Simon Cunningham <[email protected]>wrote: > I can't believe what you are saying Dr Mike. Do you have any basic > understanding of finance and off-shore companies? > The only people that benefit from off-shore companies are those that > control them and avoid / evade tax as a result. > They are harmful, secretive and of no benefit to society in any way. Their > main purpose is to make the people who hide behind them rich, and not always > legally. Why on earth would any Leeds fan be pleased that our club is being > run in this way? We don't know who owns us, we don't know what money > they are putting into or, perhaps more pertinently, taking out of the club. > We have no idea of how the club is being run - what has happened to all > the gate receipts / compensation / transfer fees of the last few years? > Yes we all want Leeds to win but good results should not mean we forget > about the running of the club. Bates said 6 months before the > administration tat we would be breaking even soon. Then 6 months later we > were £35M in debt. The administration and pre-packeaged from it was (IMHO) > a disgrace. Why would anyway want the same man to still be in charge? > > This is my first posting since the old vax.ok days - such is my disbelief > that people still think Bates is doing a good job. Get real > > Simon > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Dr Michael Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What have you added with that? >> Do you think that I'll give up & walk away >> Read what I said >> Ignore it. Disagree --- but say why? >> >> >> Dr Michael Benjamin, >> Community Psychiatrist >> ------------------------------- >> myRay: On-line Self-Help CBT >> http://www.myRay.com <http://www.myray.com/> >> ------------------------------ >> Mental Health: >> http//www.MyDoctorExplains.com <http://www.mydoctorexplains.com/> >> -------------------------------- >> Auditing || Quality Control >> http://www.MyDoctorExplains.com/alamo/<http://www.mydoctorexplains.com/alamo/> >> -------------------------------- >> Blog: >> http://www.DrMichaelBenjamin.com <http://www.drmichaelbenjamin.com/> >> >> >> >> On 6 March 2010 15:57, Graham Thirkill <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > Doctor, Doctor or mad mike or the madman from Rabat. >> > in the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. You cannot see why >> > the owners of a football club like Leeds United should be made public. >> > Honestly and truthfully do you really mean this or has someone got your >> > hackles up talking about what goes on in Palestine, or (Occupied >> > Palestinian >> > Territories) whichever you prefer. Surely any transparency in this >> matter >> > must >> > be for the good. >> > Thirkers >> > >> > >> > On 6 Mar 2010, at 11:17, Dr Michael Benjamin wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Maybe ownership should be transparent. I cannot see why. >> > > But if the rules are to be changed they cannot be done post facto. >> > > >> > > Any other change now is aimed at Leeds. So why should support a move >> that >> > > can do no good and may do some harm? >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> and the hardest time in a sailor's day is to watch the sun as it sails >> away >> > > _______________________________________________ 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 and the hardest time in a sailor's day is to watch the sun as it sails away
