Exodus, as i'm one of the more moderate posters on this site, except when it comes to Bates, and everything I post looks at both sides of the argument. I don't need a cock like you calling me an idiot or anything else. If you can't handle a sensible debate fook off somewhere else. I will not bow to Cooper and LUST as if they're demi-gods that you seem to cream your jeans about. My choice is not to have anything to do with them until they get their act together. Your choice is to blindly follow your leader and then try and get the rest of us to do the same, and anyone who won't is shat on by you.
I didn't call you an idiot, and I actually stressed in my last post that I've avoided personal abuse, unlike the LUST/GC detractors. But well done calling a fellow Leeds fan a cock. I'm telling people to open their eyes rather than be blind and automatically dismiss what LUST do. So quite the opposite. I argue with reason and logic, and have stated the reasons I think LUST have done a good job. I can't definitively state it one way or the other, nor specify the amount since the sources have varied on that, but I will indeed pay you £100 if it's absolutely, definitively proven that no external money has come into the club over the summer. Until then, it's a rather pointless argument and more a point of who you trust more: LUST's reliable sources who broke the takeover story in the first place, or the Bates/automatic doubters' propaganda which states that it's untrue just... because. And I don't believe McCormack ever said where he'd heard it, so more conjecture there.
It begs the question, Old Peacock and Doc, of why you're not also criticizing Liw and chipvan if you're so opposed to me giving as good as I get, and you're so in favour of there being a tame discussion on this. I'm more than happy to be tame and focus just on facts and debate, but until people stop taking that to the extreme level with insults about Gary Cooper and other Trust members and board members, the middle ground will remain a no-man's land unfortunately. Respect is a two-way street.
Bear with me on this one, it supports what you're saying and hopefully won't sidetrack the thread: Contrary to what you say, I'm not "a rabid Leeds hater" I genuinely don't give them any more thought than many other clubs. Without wanting to have the debate again one thing I don't like is people from this region and with no connection to leeds (or other clubs) latching on to them because at the time they were more successful. It's like Man U fans from Surrey. BIG from near enough Hull knows my views on that, which actually makes my backing of him all the more unlikely, but there it is. (He also knows I think he's a decent bloke even if he was an insecure child.) Out of interest, presumably there are other supporters groups? How have they performed in all of this?
I think you're masking your real feelings which are clear from previous posts, but indeed there's a time and a place, and this ain't it. Official Members Club (membership: roughly 30,000) - has no spokesman except Bates. He always refers to them as the real fans of the club, although anyone who wants priority home booking and the ability to get away tickets through the club has to join, so it's a slightly odd line of reasoning to think they (along with the other 120,000 non-members on the club ticket database he sometimes like to bring up) all agree with his policies. One regional club, Boston (Lincs) have refused to talk to LUST and support Bates unconditionally, so it seems. There was a rumour that LUST fell out with the disabled group (LUDO), but they came out and, joint with Gary, said it was rubbish, so didn't blindly subscribe to the Bates edict trying to cause division between the fans. Leeds United Supporters Club (membership: maybe 3,000) - part of the 'Leeds Fans United' initiative which the Trust helped to launch. Anti-Bates. Approached by Shaun Harvey over the summer much to Bates' initial consternation, but have built some bridges with the club. Their spokesman Dave Gaertner has said they share aims with LUST as set out in the Vision Statement. Mainly just a travel association these days anyway, laying on buses and pubs for fans around the country. Independent regional clubs (membership: 500-1,000?) - regional groups like Stockport, Maverick, Darlington and Thames Valley who have moved away from club control and aligned themselves to Leeds Fans United and the Trust's vision statement. Generally anti-Bates. In general, the opposition to LUST isn't found in organized, match-going fan groups, but in sideline snipers on Twitter, Facebook and other internet venues. There has never been a united effort against the current board, nor any form of showing from these doubters who claim to be in the majority. Many home game attenders are ambivalent or supportive of the Trust, from my experience of talking to people and handing out leaflets. Never met anyone in the flesh who doesn't support their aims and methods after they've been explained properly.
One of the things that intrigues me when fans want the board out is how they expect that to come about and what the consequences could be. We've sung it here too, but "Sack the board" is such a bizarre concept I doubt could exist outside sport if not just football. It strikes me that from that list, only LUST seemed to take account of the bigger picture?
In this instance, I meant there had been no actual group who sought to replace the current LUST board with a new one, although you're right, I think the 'sack the board' thing is confined to areas where there is a collective passion and sense that the 'customer' is actually the owner, or core, of the business rather than it being the board's role to dictate its destiny. You may find that sort of mentality in political parties, pressure groups and so on too. Maybe even in rugby league if enough fans follow the direction Wigan's lads have taken, aiming for tradition to be restored to the Sky-pimped 'Super League'. LUSC used to be the collective voice of the fanbase in the way LUST are today, but they made errors like trusting Ridsdale and spending members' money on a pub which has now gone out of business, so have effectively now returned to their basic function as bus-arrangers and put their weight behind LUST as the voice/political arm of the supporters.
That's a really good idea - along with a few comments in scattered threads by Doc in regards to Gary Cooper having a PR nightmare. To be a good leader you have to be able to delegate to peoples strengths. If GC wishes to remain in charge he would be well advised to take a back seat, get a respected figure head on board and someone who can advise him when to keep quiet. It wasn't until someone else pointed it out that being re-elected for 3 years shows that this is about hogging the limelight and it is no wonder MANY question GC's true intentions.
It should be a fan at the top of the fans' trust, not an ex-footballer. They already have Nigel Martyn in the role of honorary president, although he could admittedly be used more, and more publicity via ex-player endorsements would bring beneficial coverage. And once more we fall into the Catch 22 situation of 'Cooper should keep his mouth shut'. If he did, would you be defending him against the tweeting hordes saying he 'knows **** all', 'never says owt' and is useless, powerless and silent as a chairman? Somehow I think not. That aside, enjoy coastal Norfolk, ristac!
Exodus, as you mentioned Dave Gaertner by name, why isn't he being used if as you say the supporters club are 100% behind LUST. Up until last season the voice of the fans was always someone dragged from the supporters club, usually Chris Hall, but even they have now got Gaertner in charge of media. Since last season LUST won the media ratings thing, because every time the telly or press wanted a quote GC was wheeled out. No problem with that as LUST were turning out to be the largest group. However this whole t/o debacle right from May has been a big mistake, and the statement a couple of days ago goosed LUST. If GC is stay on then I would suggest he needs help and he should be big enough to recognize that. Dave Gaertner knows his stuff, so he should help out. My problems are with GC as i don't think he's smart enough to be the face and voice of LUST and lacks experience. I know a couple of the other board members and they're switched on and I would hazard a guess that one of them was instrumental in putting potential investors together with the club, because I know he's done it before. But the PR fiasco this week has done damage, and I would bet that if the vote to re-elect had happened next week, you would have had a different result (If it was postal vote by all members) a tick next to GC name went in the post before the debacle.
I have no problem with LUST getting someone like Gaertner in as a spokesman - it would certainly help GC out if he had to make less trips west to do all the pressers. That said, he's done a good job so far and bringing up the non-statement is pretty desperate material to try discredit Mr Cooper's PR skills. If you don't think he's smart and knowledgeable about how to put the Trust's views across, I think you should listen to some of the interviews and meetings again. His use of hedging, subtext and clarity is excellent rhetorically. As a linguist, I think he's done an excellent job in concisely summing up the views and information he's there to disseminate through the airwaves. Journalists are invariably impressed, except that old **** Martin Samuel from the Daily Heil. Maybe the subtleties are just slightly lost on you and others? As for the SC and their press policies, I really don't know much about that at all. I travel by train, so have never needed to use them or attend their meetings. I merely mentioned Mr Gaertner because of DMD's question and I'd heard him on that Radio Leeds debate which included him, a Guardian Journo and GC. DG was very supportive on the SC's behalf of what LUST were trying to do, so I took from that that it was their policy, along with the Trust's own statement that LUSC were involved with the Leeds Fans United initiative. Which other board members do you think could play a bigger part? I don't know the board personally, but am roughly familiar with their names and roles from the website and what I've heard from the meetings and press dos. Of course it can't be a one-man organization and it must have many faces rather than the single one that has generally been associated with it so far, but it's pretty hard to say whether others are capable of stepping into that role or not, bearing in mind the complexities of the aforementioned Catch 22 situation and how easy it is to say something in good faith and still get insulted for it. Obviously the VP Aidan (?) and media fella Lee Hicken have been used occasionally, so it will be good to see how they can broaden their involvement in the future.
Will try to enjoy it Can an ex footballer not be a supporter? - I didn't say at the top, just fronting operations and speaking to the press. When GC kept quiet I didn't make an opinion either way. I would prefer him to be a doesn't know **** all person other than I know everything because of my sources that I can't divulge and I am basing these statements on assumptions kind of guy
In my view, no. Their experience is not the same as ours as fans. We view Leeds United as a club rather than a team - players invariably (and understandably) are prone to perceiving it contrarily. We devote ourselves to one club all our lives and put our unwavering loyalty into wishing for the best for that club - they play for different teams and are in a way forced to like them all rather than having total loyalty to one. The fans know other fans - the players know other players. So I think it's clear that supporters are best-equipped to hold the board positions in a supporters' trust, and have the full mental background to be able to speak to the press with a true fans' perspective which is what they're looking for. Nick Hornby's a famous football supporter, but you wouldn't see him elected to the PFA in an advisory role, even if he brought them column inches. Ex-players should be there to endorse in my opinion, to say their bit about what they like, and to perhaps speak at events from their own player perspective. But I think the position of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Press Officer at the Trust should be used fully now the elections have been held, and as I said above, perhaps the latter two can be involved a little more to expand the Trust's image and profile with the Leeds fans who have a nasty and warped cynicism about GC's intentions. So you'd prefer the Trust to be powerless than influential, if that's the case. And by implication, the fanbase at large. And my question was about the fans who slag off LUST - would you defend LUST against them if they had no voice and were being shot down? Again, I don't see a full consistency here.
Fair point Either way, imagine if they persuaded someone like Radebe to join and openly support them, that would get a few fans and members on side.
Gary Cooper isn't paying his taxes either according to them over there http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/159393
Sick of repeating myself, but LUST was a great idea and they pulled it off. many of my mates joined, and I know a couple of board members and know what type of people they are. However as far as I'm concerned they lost me from May because of the way GC mentioned players being upset. Not proven and no evidence anywhere. Then the takeover stuff was a scoop and great, but then bits and bats were regurgitated and stuff printed that never materialised regarding dates. GC went to the media with a story stating that he knew what was going on and said he had the info from the horses mouth, he was slapped down by the so-called horses mouth. he now says he has an insider, and that could be anyone who thinks he knows something. It was a mistake and a PR fiasco and own goal. We'll never agree on this, but thats my opinion and you wont change my mind. GC was ill advised and he'll do it again unless he's learned a lesson, because without a media advisor he'll score more home goals and thats a fact. There is nobody else on the board who can replace GC as they're all the same type of bloke. Well intentioned and fans at the fore, but whoever is going to be the voice/face of LUST needs media advice, and that means having everything pinged to the advisor for him/her to edit and also advise what snippet to drop in and what you should never get caught out saying.
Doc - After the T/O was announced, LUST found themselves in a position they could not have imagined - their membership went from 800 to 8,000 almost overnight. Their website was going from a half a dozen hits a day to a few hundred thousand. Being in such a spotlight they had to do/say something to keep the interest flowing - wether they have lied or not is here nor there, that was some achievement growing their membership like that - what they do with it from now is what matters
Not quite sure what you are trying to say but let me ask you this: Do you have any basis for not believing that money was put into the club? Their cash flow woes are well known with the construction costs, forward sale of season tickets, decrease in renewals, etc.
