OneLeeds... That's fooking priceless lol. Good ol g bush. Shame we can't get a presidential debate with him and boris !
Like everyone else (I guess) I started out wanting rid of Bates, however (unlike many others) I do accept that whatever his motivations he did stabilise the club. I wanted to believe and did sort of believe the LUST perspective (thats why I joined), However over the last six months I believe there have been too many half truths told by all sides in the whole backroom battle. So now I believe no one and am only taking note of what I know to be true. IMO LUST are as guilty of telling lies or half truths as anyone else, and because of their rhetoric and purpose I expected better. The facts as I see them and without going into specifics are: 1. The take over has not happened. 2. Lust stand accused of making more of their role than is accurate (a claim not made by Bates). 3. Warnock has a bunch of players who might not be technically gifted but are playing for the shirt. Looking forward the fears are that Bates stays and the club stagnates, an unsuitable buyer takes us over, or the team go backwards again. I fully understand I am in a minority position on here but I genuinely do not understand what looks to me like blind faith being shown in GC and LUST given all that has happened (or not happened). Like most here I like to take the mick a bit when posting and sometimes a bit of hyperbole or poetic licence might be used, but never maliciously. We are all Leeds fans and in the end want the same thing, a successful club, an owner with deep pockets and not to be ripped off by money men. Until something significant happens there is nothing new to say on any of the politics which is why I was suprised that this "IF" thread started up days after it was originally started. Over the weekend I got a sense that an uneasy truce had broken out and jokes were being lobbed between both sides in the debate rather than barbed hooks. As I said a few times over the weekend this subject would be better parked by both sides until something significant happens. I responded to you because you asked what looks a genuine question and I felt I could answer without being accused of point scoring.
I don't think there'd be a takeover if it weren't for lust. Clearly they have bates riled, without that I doubt he'd want out. To dislike lust for telling half truths and then accuse them of hurting a takeover that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their properly organised brand of dissent... its just madness.
