Crowds and McCabes incentive to back Wilder.

[Carpe_diem]

Like Tunaman is doing at the oinkers, except their next level is one down. Its quite sweet how the anti-KK'ers seem to think he is a total and thorough incompetent, whereas he's a decent enough chairman who's made the odd poor mistake. If KK sold up, there is more evidence to suggest we would flounder under (inevitably) foreign ownship than succeed.

No. Again, and I don't know how many times I can possibly reiterate this, it's not a binary choice: McCabe or someone akin to Tunaman. There are many clubs that have been taken over that aren't doing too badly. It's utterly ridiculous to assume that a takeover would inevitably end up in Tunaman-style disaster.

[FatherKnowsBest]

It's utterly ridiculous to assume that a takeover would inevitably end up in Tunaman-style disaster.

...or (might I suggest...) Liverpool like success, for that matter. I know it isn't a binary choice, but some of you seem to think 'anyone but McCabe'. I don't think that is the case. I think 'better the devil we know, until we can find a better devil'.

[Carpe_diem]

...or (might I suggest...) Liverpool like success, for that matter. I know it isn't a binary choice, but some of you seem to think 'anyone but McCabe'. I don't think that is the case. I think 'better the devil we know, until we can find a better devil'.

No, again. If you're referring to me at least. I don't think 'anyone but McCabe'. What I do think is that McCabe isn't suited for the stewardship of our club, for reasons that I don't think I need to reiterate. I do think that he needs to make a clean break for the good of the club, but would I want him to sell to just anyone? No, not at all. But that's what due diligence is for.

Let's be under no illusions, either: if he struggles to sell the club, those struggles are of his own making, not ours. He's the one who has to make the sale attractive. There's nothing we as fans can do about that, other than showing the potential.

I would agree with your 'until we can find a better devil' to some extent, but how do we find that devil? McCabe is the one with the contacts, he's the one holding all the cards. I do know that while we continue to limp along, trying to do things on the cheap, ignoring the potential and being unwilling to compete, we're going to achieve the square root of sod-all, and all the good work he's done helping to build the fan base through affordable ticketing will be for naught as the fan of tomorrow will be going to the likes of Barnsley to see big name players.

Think about this: Leeds have had some pretty torrid times, but they've had some amazing highs as well, and they're currently just one point behind us in the league. Would you exchange the years of boring stability and our slow descent into utter mediocrity for what they've had, given that - in the long run - it's led to pretty much exactly the same place? That's a genuine question, by the way, and I'm not sure of my own answer there. It's something to consider, though. We might, as a club, be so scared of failing that we never actually try to succeed, and so seal our own fate.

[Carpe_diem]

So in other words you don't really know your just speculating like everyone else on here.

And, after accusing others of poor analogies, using one that bears little relevance to the point in hand.

[Holden_C]

Like Tunaman is doing at the oinkers, except their next level is one down. Its quite sweet how the anti-KK'ers seem to think he is a total and thorough incompetent, whereas he's a decent enough chairman who's made the odd poor mistake. If KK sold up, there is more evidence to suggest we would flounder under (inevitably) foreign ownship than succeed.

So in other words you don't really know your just speculating like everyone else on here.

?

[Holden_C]

And, after accusing others of poor analogies, using one that bears little relevance to the point in hand.

I'll explain the point in hand re that post, because l think you're a bit cross and need to get it off your chest.

He insinuated that it was partly McCabes fault if HRH didn't come up with the promised cash. Hence my reply. There was no speculation on my part only his.

The idea is the same, you have a legally binding contract in both cases. If the supplier in my analogy doesn't deliver, ergo, longshortandtall would be equally responsible by his reckoning. Which isn't the case.

[Holden_C]

Like Tunaman is doing at the oinkers, except their next level is one down. Its quite sweet how the anti-KK'ers seem to think he is a total and thorough incompetent, whereas he's a decent enough chairman who's made the odd poor mistake. If KK sold up, there is more evidence to suggest we would flounder under (inevitably) foreign ownship than succeed.

So in other words you don't really know your just speculating like everyone else on here.

I've replied to your suggestion that McCabe should be at fault if HRH doesn't come up with contracted funds. Not speculated.

[Carpe_diem]

I'll explain the point in hand re that post, because l think you're a bit cross and need to get it off your chest.

He insinuated that it was partly McCabes fault if HRH didn't come up with the promised cash. Hence my reply. There was no speculation on my part only his.

The idea is the same, you have a legally binding contract in both cases. If the supplier in my analogy doesn't deliver, ergo, longshortandtall would be equally responsible by his reckoning. Which isn't the case.

I'm not cross, just a bit disappointed that someone who is apparently intelligent and eloquent is either wilfully or deliberately being disingenuous. I'm also not going to allow you to ride roughshod over my opinions using your apparent intelligence as your justification for doing so.

It is partly McCabe's fault if he doesn't come up with the case, because McCabe brought him into the club. No one else. If there's a contract in place stipulating that the Prince will stump up x amount of cash, McCabe should take the appropriate action if it's not forthcoming (he wasn't shy about dragging West Ham through the courts, was he?). If there is no contract in place, and it was a gentleman's agreement, then more fool him for believing it.

The idea that if no one had ever thought we could do better as a nation than forcing five year old children up chimneys to clean them we'd still have infant chimney sweeps was the same as if we never think we can do better as a club we'll never achieve anything. The only difference between my tenuous analogy and yours is that you made yours.

I should point out that I'm not saying the Prince is blameless. None of us knows yet whether he's going to stump up cash or not. If he doesn't, then he's a liar too and I'll be disappointed. The fact remains that there's one common denominator here though.

[GuancheBlade]

To use hyperbole, it's akin to someone obsessively spying on their neighbours wife sunbathing topless in her own garden, with binoculars, from behind the upstairs curtains and then calling her a s l ut

It's not the best analogy but quality doesn't appear to be important on here.

You're right, that analogy isn't the best!

[Holden_C]

Like Tunaman is doing at the oinkers, except their next level is one down. Its quite sweet how the anti-KK'ers seem to think he is a total and thorough incompetent, whereas he's a decent enough chairman who's made the odd poor mistake. If KK sold up, there is more evidence to suggest we would flounder under (inevitably) foreign ownship than succeed.

I'm not cross, just a bit disappointed that someone who is apparently intelligent and eloquent is either wilfully or deliberately being disingenuous. I'm also not going to allow you to ride roughshod over my opinions using your apparent intelligence as your justification for doing so.

It is partly McCabe's fault if he doesn't come up with the case, because McCabe brought him into the club. No one else. If there's a contract in place stipulating that the Prince will stump up x amount of cash, McCabe should take the appropriate action if it's not forthcoming (he wasn't shy about dragging West Ham through the courts, was he?). If there is no contract in place, and it was a gentleman's agreement, then more fool him for believing it.

The idea that if no one had ever thought we could do better as a nation than forcing five year old children up chimneys to clean them we'd still have infant chimney sweeps was the same as if we never think we can do better as a club we'll never achieve anything. The only difference between my tenuous analogy and yours is that you made yours.

I should point out that I'm not saying the Prince is blameless. None of us knows yet whether he's going to stump up cash or not. If he doesn't, then he's a liar too and I'll be disappointed. The fact remains that there's one common denominator here though.

I made the legal position clear. Never commented on what McCabe should do. Which negates much of your post.

Gentlemans agreement? Do me a favour. Two millionaires who don't know each other that well thousands of miles apart just shake hands? And more fool McCabe? If you can't see the obvious anti McCabe sentiment in that, there's no reason for me to believe you have any balance on the subject whatsoever.

My analogy is genuine and totally relevant to the point. I haven't had to plunder nine****th century history to appear intelligent. Or, in your mardy childish dig " apparently intelligent".