I am responding to people saying that Bates didn't save us, not him, or others, saying he did.
Unless people are clairvoyants then they cannot possibly say that he didn't save us. Of course, he shouldn't be saying he did, but then again he is closer to what happened than any of us and he possibly does know what shit might have happened if redbus, for example, bought the club. Are we all clear now? I am not saying bates saved us or didn't, I am saying that people cannot possibly say he didn't save us unless they can see into the future and KNOW everything wouldn't have been worse or gone tits up with a group with zero experience of managing a football club and a convicted criminal in tow. Even with best intentions, like Ridsdale and Krasner as it happens - who got shafted by other clubs and agents left right and centre. From: Rick Duniec [mailto:ri...@ntlworld.com] Sent: 17 August 2011 17:30 To: Mark Humphries; Leedslist@gn.apc.org Subject: Re: [LU] Saviour - this old debate again (hit delete if you don't want o read it) What you are not saying - very pointedly, is WHAT Bates saved us from (or not). Without that, of course we can't be sure if he did or he didn't. If you define it, then we probably could know one way or the other- without clairvoyance. You could easily make a list of all the things that we do know that he DIDN'T save us from, and we could agree on those at least. Whatever is left must be what you are talking about. If all that you are really saying is that nobody knows the future then there is nothing to talk about. Perhaps you need to express your wishes to Ken Bates himself who brought the subject up last night. _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
