> Paul mate, get a grip. Try it yourself - try also reading what's in front of you.
> A manager is never responsible because a chairman employed him? The chairman is ultimately responsible if he employed him. > You say that Bates is to blame because he so tight fisted and not spending > enough money. You then tell us the sums of money involved in Norwich and > Swansea's promotion. > > So tell me, why should Bates spend more money when he sees Norwich and > Swansea getting success spending LESS than he is now? > > What is the difference between us and Norwich and Swansea - clearly it isnt > money because they apparently spent less? TWO YEARS AGO! > Bates gave Redfearn a chance because he got reports of a much better team > spirit as soon as Redfearn took charge, and then the 3-0 win. Not because > he might save 1 weeks salary. How the fcuk do you know? And 4 weeks makes a month NOT 1 week! > But thats irrelevant, we lost last night > because Redfearn picked the wrong team and made the wrong substitutions, > Redfearn is responsible for that loss. But Redfearn should never have been in that position and that is Bates' fault. > Norwich and Swansea got promoted because they have/had a better > management > team, not because their owners spent more money than the rest of the teams > in the championship that season. Never fcuking wanted Redfearn as manager, only Bates' did - WRONG DECISION. A decision that has probably cost us promotion. Is that my decision? Is that your decision? Is that Redfearns decision? No it was definitely Bates' decision. > And for the sake of clarity for your sect, Sect? WTF are you on about? Supporters who buy tickets? > that does not mean I dont think > Bates could spend more, or should spend more. It does not mean I think > Bates is our saviour or shouldnt go. For someone who doesn't think anything you spend a lot of time defending the position. > I just know it doesnt fucking matter > what you or I think, Bates will do what he wants, when he wants and go when > he wants. And we should all stop complaining, touch our toes and let him ram it up our arses? > What I am saying is MONEY IS NOT THE ANSWER UNLESS WE HAVE > A > STUPID AMOUNT OF MONEY, to the extent we can spend more than ex prem > clubs > or other sugar daddy owned clubs AND spending that money wont put us at > risk > of going out of business again. You divvy - IF Swansea and Norwich can survive on the few million left after player expenditure than why can't Leeds United? For your benefit I'll explain how to read figures in a way other than how they are presented: - > Norwich spent £12m on wages 2 years ago from a £17m turnover < Therefore they survived on £5m for their running costs. > Swansea spent £8m from a £10m turnover < They survived on £2m running costs > Our turnover is £30m < Ken says we spend £12m on players, why do we need £18m for our running costs? > Bates is a lot of things, but he isnt stupid. Fortunately for him, you are _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
