I just posted 1000 words on the other thread that said much the same (I see you can summarise better than I can ) - though I think they can always reprieve themselves, its never too late
It's more alive than ever. Stick this thread on the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries
The pseudo intellectuals on here can't see that there is a bigger population out there that doesn't listen to them and that backs lust. Muhammad was in exactly the same position. After 10 years he only had 100 followers. Ten years later he had hundreds of thousands. And his detractors had fallen by the wayside or joined LUST is doing something. The moaners aren't but they only reach a miniscule proportion of fans, so are pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things
Out of interest what has changed your mind? GC is still in charge, LUST are saying they have evidence that the conversations took place, do you no longer feel LUST have placed GFH in a bad light and that the future is no longer bleak?
Ristac - you have taken things out of context there. That line you brought out was a part of an "if" statement. I still stand by everything written in that statement - LUST have NOT been found to be lying or making stuff up at any point so their rep is not tarnished, many questions were raised and answered and the board were still voted in for another 3 years But again, you have discounted that I have not argued against the points, merely made a point that the majority of people who are members do not follow this or any other board. Otherwise there would be thousands of LUFC members on here. I think you are just trying a little too hard. Both in believing that LUST is having problems and should replace Gary Cooper in order to resolve said (un)problems, and in believing that any numbers of substance reads your postings
Was a genuine question not trying to cause an argument 1) Yes it seems that LUST did have information within the GFH camp so I fail to see where I have taken this out of context? So that brings me to your point #2 I Think it is you who is trying a little too hard to avoid answering a genuine question What has changed your mind? Agreed it doesn't matter who bashes for and against on here, very few see it, however press coverage YEP and the OS have done the damage for the knockers, it doesn't need forums to give LUST a bad name. Totally ignore the people on here who support or knock LUST for just a moment, don't you agree that the damage has been done by the OS and the official announcement? I am totally in agreement with your original point #2 right or wrong GFH and David Haigh have made it impossible for them to work with LUST in the current format.
Just to add... I am not trying to change anyone's mind here, I am open to debate and opinion, forums are a place for debate and that is what most of us are doing. As I have said plenty of times before LUST lost me a long time ago, it doesn't mean I think anything less of anyone who still supports them, at the end of the day we still all want the same outcome, we just disagree over LUST. In fact my mind was changed by other members 'debating' the official joint statement. At first I thought yes LUST have lied, gradually the "reasoned" debaters comments have swayed me to believe LUST probably did have contact with someone within. LUST have obviously taken the same approach as you, that The moaners only reach a miniscule proportion of fans, so are pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. This is exactly the arrogance that will add to their demise, along with the current and future regime failing to work with them. If GC had stepped down they might have had some hope but it is just my opinion, at the end of the day continue as is or change, it doesn't matter to me, my life won't change either way. When the future regime plough money in and bring the team success nobody will care about LUST - If the current regime stay in place Bates will blame LUST and everyone else so it will be a no win situation for them. As for me, I don't care if LUST fail or succeed as an entity, I really don't. When they started I was excited and hopeful that they would force change, after several months my opinion on what they have achieved is different to yours. Yes I have noticed some real LUST haters, the way they approach things isn't what I like to see and I feel it has the opposite effect. The LUST FB page was full of personal insults, again not something I approve of because despite MY opinion that it has been run a shambles I do believe that the members did and do mean well, I just think some ego's have taken over, again only my opinion
Way too much time and energy being spent on this topic. Just like the T/O itself, sit tight and just let it play out. Whatever the future, in my opinion LUST was succesful with its initial intention of encouraging change to happen, which could be completed imminently or at least in the near future. I would ask you all to share with us when was the last time you made a mistake? Or should the question be how many have you made today?
Not disagreeing I said before LUST could have been great and had a BIG future, they still might, I just feel they ruined it with trying to press too hard in the end which lead to tactics I wasn't happy with
I think that is a very valid opinion. I am not sure if I agree that they pressed too hard but I can understand why many people might think that. I do think that everything they came out with was valid at the time and was from reliable sources. Of course, I could be mistaken.
LUST does have a big future, and it is imperative they remain and are directed by their members. LUST, or an organised supporters group, will certainly be needed for every future regime in place. We must never forget the mess that Ridsdale left us in by living the dream, and that many on here seem to want to relive. I have nio such aspirations for my club - I want sound sensible management, with ambition, but not reckless. That is the role for a supporters club like LUST, while the Supporters Club organises (very well) the travel and the tickets to matches. LUST is the only managed and organised supporters club that is keeping an eye on the regime and trying to hold it to account. GFH have not inspired me yet, and LUST will make mistakes, but I can see past those to see a bigger role for the Trust as time progresses. Gary Cooper will not cause any problems with any new regime that is doing the right thing by the long-term future of the club. He has already seen that some very intelligent and knowledgable people in football are questioning GFH's credentials, and I believe this is taking so long because some in GFH are probably questioning their own strategy and trying to pull the rug from under David Haigh. If people believe the takeover is the sole reason for LUST and they should be judged on commenting on the takeover, then that is their own naivety coming into play. Yes, the disclosure may have tempiorarily harmed relations in some small way with GFH, but I do not want a puppet organisation to represent me - I want one that is prepared to ruffle feathers and hold the club to account. Even if it appears we are doing well! That is my opinion. LUST have done nothing wrong so far, and certainly GC is exceptionally erudite and passionate. Time will tell if he has what it takes, but he has not shown many mistakes so far in reality.
How can they be directed by their members when such members are not allowed to vote at theIr AGM? Was shocked to see the actual voting figures - out of the 8,300 members only 550 shareholder members were allowed to vote. Out of these 550, only 100 actually voted - in effect, the LUST board was voted back by only 1.2% of its members at the very most and less than a quarter of those able to vote chose to
Erm, I was at the AGM, but somehow must have missed this vote. What was the vote for? Are you perhaps mixing up the shareholders & the other members, btw? Only the shareholders attended the AGM as I understand it. The public meeting followed at 8pm & was broadcast. The AGM wasn't.
Whitejock - election of the LUST board for another 3 years - apparently only 100 people voted If you are going to claim to be "the voice of the members" why are ALL members not given a vote? Claiming to have 8,300 members is a bit of a cheek when only the views of 550 are represented in my opinion
