Then they need to utilise them more See I am still a member I have been on and off their web site and yet I never knew this
No, nor did I they do need to get involved more otherwise what's the point in them being there at all?
It's your choice to remain in the dark. It was well publicised that these people are on board, as well as many other organisations that are stakeholders.
Even so, what's the point of Martyn and Matteo? What purpose do they serve? They could be utilised more as media links/spokespeople for LUST, otherwise their presence on the board just seems wasted. At the moment they're just impressive names on LUST official literature
I've been away for a few days, but it's time to put in my tuppenceworth here. I'm all for debate, but this ponderous thread is not a debate. Certain posters are presenting pro-LUST evidence and argument. Most of the others are simply expressing anti-LUST opinion with bugger all to back it up. No facts. No evidence. Just 'I thinks'. And clearly not one 'anti' has taken the time to listen to the recording of the public meeting that followed the AGM. Why let facts get in the way of a good moan? Much of the nonsense being spouted on here was dealt with in the meeting (although I believe that technical problems prevented the whole meeting from being broadcast/recorded). Questions were taken from the floor and from the web, and were answered in full. How many of you raised a question? Think I know the answer to that one. Some facts from the AGM/public meeting: 1. The offer for shareholder members to join the board was made. No-one put themselves forward, so the board remains as-is. 2. The board elects the postholders. As no-one had put themselves up for election (the exception being the replacement for the retiring treasurer, I think it was), the board unanimously agreed that the status quo should remain for the next 3 years (as I understand it, this is common, perhaps even standard practice for a Trust. I know that the position I hold in a trust is for 3 years. 3. LUST has 4 'in the know' sources, 2 from each side of the negotiations. Any information released has been cross-checked against each side before being announced. 4. The names of the sources will never be released. It would damage the reputations of the sources, prevent them being used should a similar position arise again, and make it unlikely that anyonw ould ever want to put themselves in such a situation with LUST again. 5. LUST are now dealing regularly with the LUFC CEO, Shaun Harvey. 6. LUST are on record for releasing information days before it made the official site. LUFC has subsequently on at least one occasion asked LUST to delay release of information until they posted on the OS. I went to the AGM 100% behind LUST. I left the AGM 100% behind LUST. I believe that just about every question/complaint raised on this forum was answered satisfactorily at the meeting. You all had your chance. You didn't take it.
just like LUST announced without investment we won't see the end of season out, I trust this was backed up then and it wasn't just what lust THINKS
I keep reading that" LUST have proved that they told no lies" from Simon. WJ, Sheldon, Geohagen,etc. But I balance it with what has actually happened and the conclusion I draw is that the facts and events do not prove that LUST have been honest and are acting in the best interests of the club or it's fans. In fact if you just read the joint statement and do not look for opinions on hidden meanings and sub plots I see no indication that LUST have done anything meaningful since their (now very questionable) claim to have brought the buyer to the table. What has happened so far in no way proves any of LUSTs claims, and the opinions, and repeated claims of fan bois is not going change anyones opinion until something concrete happens. Ths ongoing status quo is proof IMO that all that has happened so far is mutual admiration of a like minded group of believers. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but with no evidence it remains just another opinion. Just because some shout loudly that something is the case it does not make it true. The actual events as laid out currently do not support the theory that LUST are doing what they claim IMO.
Again, you haven't listened to the broadcast where it was explained that the trusts own financial experts performed a forensic examination, and their conclusions were confirmed by an industry expert in football finances. I can't recall his name, but he is an accepted expert in the field.
This is absolutely true. I keep seeing Ristac trot out this line without any evidence to actually refute the claim.
. We either park this or the whole sorry row will start again. From a sceptics position all you guys are doing is passing on your own or LUSTs opinion. There is no evidence to back it up in the eyes of a non believer. You probably thiink exactly the same about our point of view. We are not going to agree. Only full disclosure and hindsight is going to prove anyone right or wrong. By just still hammering us after all these months with more "it must be right because we say so" you only bring a response of show us the proof and not empty words. It has gone on too long and IMHO if LUST had been telling the truth then the T/O would have been done and dusted weeks ago and certainly before the transfer window closed.
So LUSTs own forensic financial analysis and that of the leading industry expert are not evidence? Get real. Why don't you arrange to have an analysis done to disprove it? If you don't then you have no grounds to disbelieve it whatsoever. More 'I thinks'. Not the most devastating argument, is it? If you were up in court, would you accept the prosecution's evidence of 'I think he did it' to convict you when you had first class expert evidence to the contrary? Think you might be a bit miffed if you were found guilty on the ground of 'I think' with such a sound defence. I imagine LUST do too.
No they are opinion either personal or paid for. You can get an expert to make any case you want if you pay them. legal experts bat for either prosecution or defence and argue the case depending on who they represent. Thats is how our adverserial judicial process works, you rather proved the point that opinion and words are not evidence, they are opinions and words. The situation as it stands is that lust said they are involved with the buyer. the buyers says they are not. Someone is lying for whatever reason. Lust made the intial claim so it us up to them to prove their claim not with words but with evidence.
I am using my own expert conclusion of common sense and if anyone believes we will not see the season out without investment you obviously believe the club will cease to exist come may. If you honestly believe that then sorry but you have been brainwashed And wj... Read lusts statement on finances, they use words "in our opinion" that would stand up in court wouldn't it. Not to mention their figures are all opinion based, they havent got any factual figures! - unless of course they have one of their imaginary insiders who they can't tell us about lol I am also picking up on wj comments of no evidence just opinions and thoughts, exactly what lust have based this on. NO evidence, I am amazed at how some can't see the double standards of their posts and arguments as they continue to blindly ass lick. Anyway each to their own I am not looking to change anyone's mind so signing out of this thread as it's just a merry go round of same old argument
You've clearly not read the posts. LUST have based it on a football finance expert looking over the finances, you've based your opinion on Ken telling you everything's rosy.
Funny though how we keep seeing money coming in to the club and then disappearing, can't possibly be to keep the club afloat though, can it?
Lets keep it simple.... Did LUST introduce GFH to Leeds United? If not who were LUST in discussion with? LUST advised all would be made clear following the takeover, is this still the case?
