LUST Statement

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Please can everyone now stop the ass kissing of LUST even GFH have called them liars

http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20121010/joint-statement-from-club-and-gfh_2247585_2945358

David Haigh, Deputy CEO, GFH Capital said: "A lot of nonsense has been written and said by people claiming to have 'sources' or inside knowledge, which has resulted in incorrect media reports and even quotes, but as noted before there are confidentiality clauses that are in place, and we are both respectful of those. We are focusing on the transaction and not rumour.

"As such, neither I nor any employee of GFH Capital has been in discussions with the LUST. This is clear from some of the detail within a recent statement from LUST, notably, how GFH Capital 'has only emerged as potential buyers in the last six weeks.' In truth, GFH Capital has been working with the current Club owners since June.
Click to expand...
 
There is now nothing from preventing LUST giving their side of it now.

I would suggest they get on with it fast before they are deemed guilty of lies and misdirection.
 
Exodus Geohaghon said:
I missed the part where GFH called them liars, or proved anything they've so far said wrong except the trivial 'recent emergence' thing.
Click to expand...
So LUST claim to have been in contact and GFH and our possible new chairman quotes

"A lot of nonsense has been written and said by people claiming to have 'sources' or inside knowledge, which has resulted in incorrect media reports and even quotes, but as noted before there are confidentiality clauses that are in place, and we are both respectful of those. We are focusing on the transaction and not rumour.

"As such, neither I nor any employee of GFH Capital has been in discussions with the LUST. This is clear from some of the detail within a recent statement from LUST, notably, how GFH Capital 'has only emerged as potential buyers in the last six weeks.' In truth, GFH Capital has been working with the current Club owners since June. So it isn't a lie by LUST? I give in...
 
JonnyLosAngeles said:
What is the relevance of this statement?

Most everyone knows that cash is one of the worst forms of investment.
Click to expand...
Well after the joint statement proving LUST are not in contact with GFH and never have been I don't think anything is relevant anymore. The link states that GFH had £4m in June, when they became involved in the Leeds T/O they had to by law announce it on the stock market.

My point is with only £4m in the bank does anyone really believe that they would 1 month later plough £4m into Leeds to pay for players and wages, something LUST said happened, an action that sounds ludicrous and an action that would need to also be announced to the stock market.
 
I thought you had cracked it when you highlighted some carefully chosen words, Ristac. Look back at what you highlighted. It was clearly subconscious.

The first statement highlighted does not mention LUST A lot of nonsense has been written and said by people claiming to have 'sources' or inside knowledge. It's a generalisation that fits any number of candidates - journalists Ben Jacobs & Duncan Castles spring to mind! Very careful words.

The LUST accusation comes later and is specific neither I nor any employee of GFH Capital has been in discussions with the LUST.. Note the specifics - employees of GFH Capital. That doesn't include the parent company, nor does it include any temporary agents employed - consultants, lawyers, PR men etc. Very careful words again.

In fact the whole statement is cleverly crafted to make you think it says things that it actually doesn't! It's called PR-speak, and it definitely seems to have worked here!
 
Whitejock said:
I thought you had cracked it when you highlighted some carefully chosen words, Ristac. Look back at what you highlighted. It was clearly subconscious.

The first statement highlighted does not mention LUST A lot of nonsense has been written and said by people claiming to have 'sources' or inside knowledge. It's a generalisation that fits any number of candidates - journalists Ben Jacobs & Duncan Castles spring to mind! Very careful words.

The LUST accusation comes later and is specific neither I nor any employee of GFH Capital has been in discussions with the LUST.. Note the specifics - employees of GFH Capital. That doesn't include the parent company, nor does it include any temporary agents employed - consultants, lawyers, PR men etc. Very careful words again.

In fact the whole statement is cleverly crafted to make you think it says things that it actually doesn't! It's called PR-speak, and it definitely seems to have worked here!
Click to expand...

I made a thread for this type of post. you are in the wrong thread.
 
Whitejock said:
I thought you had cracked it when you highlighted some carefully chosen words, Ristac. Look back at what you highlighted. It was clearly subconscious.

The first statement highlighted does not mention LUST A lot of nonsense has been written and said by people claiming to have 'sources' or inside knowledge. It's a generalisation that fits any number of candidates - journalists Ben Jacobs & Duncan Castles spring to mind! Very careful words.

The LUST accusation comes later and is specific neither I nor any employee of GFH Capital has been in discussions with the LUST.. Note the specifics - employees of GFH Capital. That doesn't include the parent company, nor does it include any temporary agents employed - consultants, lawyers, PR men etc. Very careful words again.

In fact the whole statement is cleverly crafted to make you think it says things that it actually doesn't! It's called PR-speak, and it definitely seems to have worked here!
Click to expand...

Well, if David Haigh wants to claim we didn't speak to GFH we would ask him if he would like us to breach the assurance of confidence we gave to the person he employs to speak on his behalf by showing the call log and two texts saved on the phone which list times, dates and crucially the number and identity of the source we spoke to
Click to expand...

Taken from the LUST facebook page digging between posts where they are getting slaughtered. That clearly says to me that LUST are saying they spoke to an employee.
 
ristac said:
Well after the joint statement proving LUST are not in contact with GFH and never have been I don't think anything is relevant anymore. The link states that GFH had £4m in June, when they became involved in the Leeds T/O they had to by law announce it on the stock market.

My point is with only £4m in the bank does anyone really believe that they would 1 month later plough £4m into Leeds to pay for players and wages, something LUST said happened, an action that sounds ludicrous and an action that would need to also be announced to the stock market.
Click to expand...

Ristac, I have clients with huge positions in liquid investments that can convert them into cash within 24 or 48 hours. This "they only had 4m in cash so they cannot afford Leeds United" is complete non-sense.
 
JonnyLosAngeles said:
Ristac, I have clients with huge positions in liquid investments that can convert them into cash within 24 or 48 hours. This "they only had 4m in cash so they cannot afford Leeds United" is complete non-sense.
Click to expand...
Sorry see where you are coming from now, I guess it was a poor example of mine trying to get across the point how ludicrous (I believe) it is to believe that GFH had already pumped £4m in for players and wages... However after tonight anything is possible. Some guy on facebook summed it up, "If Carlsberg Did Takeovers...."
 
ristac said:
Well after the joint statement proving LUST are not in contact with GFH and never have been I don't think anything is relevant anymore. The link states that GFH had £4m in June, when they became involved in the Leeds T/O they had to by law announce it on the stock market.

My point is with only £4m in the bank does anyone really believe that they would 1 month later plough £4m into Leeds to pay for players and wages, something LUST said happened, an action that sounds ludicrous and an action that would need to also be announced to the stock market.
Click to expand...

can someone put the chip van out? said:
Would you care to comment on DH's substantive statement that in effect LUST know **** all and were making it up all the way from June.
Click to expand...

OK then, I will.

He was telling a white lie to appease Bates. GC has been talking to someone inside GFH, but on an off-the-record, unofficial basis (see his Twitter). The statement is worded so Haigh can lick Bates' arse to prepare him for the final climax where he actually hands over the keys and gives GFH the club. He's tweeted to that effect with the 'Leeds UNITED' thing and by saying that he still wants to talk to LUST and LUSC.

The 4m was never said to be for players and wages. It was so pay off some kind of debt within the club, whatever it was that was causing much of the cashflow issue. Boozie said as much.
 
This is what I posted on another thread, and I refuse to get drawn into a debate about it as its not productive as nothing can be proved as yet. I'm playing the waiting game from now on although I back LUST 100% its apparent some things could have been done better & Bates will go to great lengths to discredit GC.

What exactly has GC lied about? He has a contact within the buying party he has always said. Has he ever said he has had direct contact with GHF?

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about it but I reckon its Bates parting shot at trying to discredit LUST as he has a personal vendetta about a 'insignificant supporters group' that he just cant stop banging on about.

Haigh gets told agree to this joint statement or your in breach of NDA's for leaking information to LUST. Haigh reluctantly goes ahead then tweets afterwards, 'now that is over lets get back to being united' or something along those lines.

As much as LUST have got wrong they are a young association who are still learning, and taking on Bates in any form is either brave or stupid because we know he wont back down.

Cant wait for the old bastard to be out or the whole of this takeover bollocks to finally cease so we can find out the truth, park it and get back to talking about football

Cooper is in the firing line for trying to do the best for his club, I say fair play for having the bollocks, time, resource & passion for trying to make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back