If Gary Cooper stands down, does LUST go anywhere? No, of course it does. They just elect a new chairman and carry on going about their business. bates hasn't won anything. Even if he did "win" in this case, it's a hollow victory for a sad old man who will go on spouting his rubbish to be told "you're right ken" by his overzealous supporters and to be ignore by the rest of us with the mental capacity to realise he's a gobshite.
So Marko, say I told the press that you'd undergone a similar fate to GC and had your house repossessed, and told the press. Would you be happy if your boss fired you the next morning (or you lost all your customers the next morning), because 'impressionable people won't see you as credible'? Or would you put up a fight for what's the right course of action? I thought you were a fiery redhead with passion in your heart, not a defeatist!
Gary himself stated I understand that this story will have a negative impact on the Trust and call my role if he believes that then he should have stepped down. Nobody put those words in his mouth, he has been quoted as saying that himself. I have always felt he is self before LUST and this helps confirm that. Forget what the papers are going to write, I am looking at him putting something to the vote that he himself feels is damaging. If Gary stays watch Haigh and the new owners distance themselves from LUST My point is NOT about if the papers are wrong or a disgrace, that we already know, my point is Gary believing something is damaging to the trust and not doing the rightful thing IMHO.
It depends if the impact of the information on others had an effect on my ability to do my job. If I could no longer do my job because nobody took me seriously, then yes it would likely be fair. I don't necessarily think that what is "right" and what is reality have any sort of link here. I think it's important for the organisation to protect it's credibility. There is no reason Gary Cooper can't perform his responsibilities as part of the trust as a result of this. But you forget we are talking about a public figurehead for an organisation. For example, what Angus Deighton does during his own time is his own business and should have remained that way. When his debauchery became public, it should not have affected his ability to do his job on Have I Got News For You. But in light of the fact that his job was in the public spotlight, on a show like that, it was highly likely that had Deighton remained in his position, the show would have lost a portion of its viewerbase - effectively meaning his ability to do his job is impacted upon.
So the press have obviously got something on Cooperman and he is trying to soften the blow with that story - its not as if he's told any porkies in the past is it Wolf Wolf please log in to view this image
At least it puts an ironic touch to his "Where has all the money gone" blog http://lufctrust.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/7/where-has-the-money-gone.html Up your brothers hooter by the sounds of things
Was going to comment but hardly any need now, seeing the direction the tread is taking. Another opportunity for a bit of lust bashing for some
This stinks of Bates and for that reason Cooper gets my vote again. Keep it up Gary, your obviously right under the old bastards skin. Hopefully GC will be backed to the hilt & this little stunt will have completely backfired. The real headlines here is MAN HELPED HIS BROTHER, but thats never going to sell is it?
Judging from the groundswell of public opinion tonight, 95% are even more strongly in favour of GC than ever, so that puts the whole thing to bed. Ristac, if you care so much about it, do something or otherwise say something nice. Yet I don't recall you challenging the board at the last AGM despite your persistent wittering on here. Mouth and trousers separate? unfunny and lame as ever
I think its very funny - GC for months has been questioning KB's integrity and using his "trust" to do the same and all the time he has that little skeleton in his closet - you really couldn't make it up could you!!
If I care about what? LUST?? - No I don't give a toss about them, they carry no clout, they could have done but they lost it a while back. You obviously have a different opinion, you sweep things under the carpet when LUST are proved wrong but hey ho. I remember you stating we would all have big apologies to make the moment the takeover was confirmed and LUST release lots of info about the major part they played LOL I could pick out plenty of information where LUST and GC have contradicted themselves if I cared to search through all the posts but I can't. Say something nice, well I would if there was anything nice to say. The Chairman of LUST feels the report is going to damage them yet he doesn't step down, says it all really. I have been avoiding posting too much lately, mainly because everything gets too personal and too many threads become a battle ground. Bookmark this if you want and watch how fast the new owners distance themselves from LUST I respect other peoples opinions, I suggest you start doing the same
Then you don't give a toss about the collective bargaining power of Leeds fans, or most likely the facets of the club other than the team. Which in turn begs the question of why you're commenting on them, and have spent so much of your time doing so in the past. And indeed whether you want Leeds fans to have a voice at all. Biggest voice of the Leeds fanbase, respectable media voice, spoken to plenty of rich and well-connected people. That constitutes clout in my eyes. There's nothing to sweep, because no major wrongdoing has been proven. And a lot of major rightdoing has been proven. You will when it's released. The takeover isn't complete until Friday, and I suspect there will be time for editorial and printing before it comes out, but I fully expect it will be published and you'll be left with a lot of oeuf on your visage. I can't be arsed either, because it's all supposition anyway, except I trust fellow Leeds fans whereas you trust Bates-backed and Bates-derived lies. He's wrong on that - LOOK I CRITICIZED HIM. Actually it has done and will do no damage, only more good with the positive publicity he's getting from it all. He was elected for a year (?) by the fans, and offered another vote of confidence which is seemingly overwhelmingly in his favour. But clearly you know better than the LUST activists on this one. I will indeed do that, because I think LUST and GFH will have a long and prosperous symbiotic relationship if enough pressure can be applied to get Bates out for good. Yet you don't respect probably the hardest-working and most dedicated Leeds fan of the lot.
I don't see how this damages Gary's integrity in any way. He tried to help his brother and suffered unfortunate consequences for doing so, all while carrying on doing a very committed job as LUST chairman. If this was supposed to turn people against GC it wasn't very well thought through.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-business-failures-him.html?ito=feeds-newsxml "Potential Leeds buyer"? Oh dear, they don't even seem to know quite who they're trying to smear!
well well... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Leeds-Capital-One-Cup.html?ito=feeds-newsxml that's a funny coincidence.
You could say he helped his brother Simon - by setting up a business account, getting him a £10k business loan which enabled him to cultivate drugs
Businessmen arrested for a victimless 'crime'. Hope they're released and pigs that arrested them are the ones who spend years behind bars.
Another funny coincidence http://www.thisishullandeastriding....abis-factory/story-14100910-detail/story.html £10k fine received £10k business loan taken out - taxpayer ends up paying - almost Batesesque
To be fair, cannabis should be legalised in my opinion - then his business would have been legitimate - but to grow it at the same farm a year after plod searched the place is a bit stupid - silly **** deserved to get nicked
