Trust & Mercury Fight Continues...

[Hammond Organ]

http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?back=true&key=1D29|0|2185366269754|R|536|5502241212007392254731&parentkey=1D29|0|2185366269754|p|536|0

This can be read in two ways... either the Trust has been portayed with a negative spin in the ensuing battle, or there is a seam of negativity from Mr Bason...

 

[Real Sharapova]

Mockery stirring it again. A period of silence from both parties would be welcome.

 

[Lako42]

Mockery stirring it again. A period of silence from both parties would be welcome.

with the period being forever please

 

[Dour]

Mockery stirring it again. A period of silence from both parties would be welcome.

Looks that way:

"Bason's comments were included in replies to a set of questions the Mercury posed to the Trust." seems to be a selective editing of Bason's comments to place the Trust in a negative light. Silence would be the best option but then the Mockery would no doubt have run something about the FT refusing to answer simple questions.

 

[Bobby Smith]

The Trust has always maintained that it can't make a decision on this takeover until it knows what the offer is. How have some of the shareholders that they claim to have spoken to made up their minds not to support the bid?

 

[drew]

Pistols at dawn? I say get them on Abbey Park for a shoot out.

 

[Melton Fox]

All this is doing is highlighting and confirming who is for and against the takeover, both on this forum and those in close contact with the club

 

[Real Sharapova]

The Trust has always maintained that it can't make a decision on this takeover until it knows what the offer is. How have some of the shareholders that they claim to have spoken to made up their minds not to support the bid?

Reading between the lines, it would appear that some are not that best pleased that MM has conducted some of his negotiations through the Mercury.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

I have never read the Trust items as being negative. They have consistently said words to the effect that a Mandaric takeover COULD be very good for the club but they would not automatically say 'we will back the bid regardless of what the formal offer says'. They even hinted that if Mandaric left too many 'trust me' clauses in on things like future investment in the squad sums or guarantees on the stadium financing i.e. Mandaric reserves the right to walk away at any time and leave us deeper in the sh*t, then few shareholders would back the bid.

 

[Feriol]

All this is doing is highlighting and confirming who is for and against the takeover, both on this forum and those in close contact with the club

how do you reason that?

if you are thinking that those defending the trust, are against the bid, then i think thats faulty.

i am in favour of the takeover (as much as i can be without details - perhaps optimistic is a better word) but have defended the trust against what i feel is unreasonable critisism, from people who mis-read their comments

 

[Melton Fox]

how do you reason that?

I don't have to

 

[Macky]

I have never read the Trust items as being negative. They have consistently said words to the effect that a Mandaric takeover COULD be very good for the club but they would not automatically say 'we will back the bid regardless of what the formal offer says'. They even hinted that if Mandaric left too many 'trust me' clauses in on things like future investment in the squad sums or guarantees on the stadium financing i.e. Mandaric reserves the right to walk away at any time and leave us deeper in the sh*t, then few shareholders would back the bid.

how do you reason that?

if you are thinking that those defending the trust, are against the bid, then i think thats faulty.

i am in favour of the takeover (as much as i can be without details - perhaps optimistic is a better word) but have defended the trust against what i feel is unreasonable critisism, from people who mis-read their comments

yeah, agree with what they said but couldn't be arsed typing it

 

[Feriol]

I don't have to

convinced me! :icon_wink

 

[Macky]

I don't have to

well how did you come to that conclusion without reasoning?

Is there somebody who tells you what to type?

 

[Melton Fox]

well how did you come to that conclusion without reasoning?

Is there somebody who tells you what to type?

I don't have to explain my reasoning is what I meant.

 

[Macky]

I don't have to explain my reasoning is what I meant.

How do you work that out?

 

[Melton Fox]

How do you work that out?

I am not obliged to anybody to justify my opinions and how they come to be.

OK, if I was in a maths test and it stipulated at the start of said maths test that all workings out must be displayed, then yes, I have an obligation.

If you had the privelidge of knowing how my brain works, you too could be me :icon_wink

 

[Redditch Fox]

Mockery stirring it again. A period of silence from both parties would be welcome.

I don't agree.

I think it's a debate well worth having.....but the key issue should be not whether the FT supports the takeover (I already know that it has sought to undermine it) but whether the FT should have a role with LCFC.

I actually think that football trusts are a good thing.....for small time clubs where it's a positive structure for involving as many of the community as possible in having a say about their football club.

However, I think running an ambitious, decent sized football club needs a different approach and it needs if possible investment by a person or consortium of wealthy individuals who are going to provide strong leadership and frankly the interference of organisations like the Foxes Trust just gets in the way.

I can't think of many business sectors that have to be more responsive to their customers than football clubs...they have to be 'close to the customer' in that sense. However, the notion that something like the Foxes Trust with a
membership of a tiny fraction of the club's massive fan base can purport to represent fans' interests is absurd....and I think this takeover debate and hopefully a re-structure of the club from the quite defensible post-Administration era is a good opportunity to sort things out.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I don't agree.

I think it's a debate well worth having.....but the key issue should be not whether the FT supports the takeover (I already know that it has sought to undermine it) but whether the FT should have a role with LCFC.

I actually think that football trusts are a good thing.....for small time clubs where it's a positive structure for involving as many of the community as possible in having a say about their football club.

However, I think running an ambitious, decent sized football club needs a different approach and it needs if possible investment by a person or consortium of wealthy individuals who are going to provide strong leadership and frankly the interference of organisations like the Foxes Trust just gets in the way.

I can't think of many business sectors that have to be more responsive to their customers than football clubs...they have to be 'close to the customer' in that sense. However, the notion that something like the Foxes Trust with a
membership of a tiny fraction of the club's massive fan base can purport to represent fans' interests is absurd....and I think this takeover debate and hopefully a re-structure of the club from the quite defensible post-Administration era is a good opportunity to sort things out.

I don't recall the FT saying they represent all fans, that would be an impossible task, as far as I'm concerned they represent their membership ( including me ) .

 

[alex]

Don't actually give a flying **** any more about the egos involved here.