Ken Bates has banned members of LUST’s board from purchasing tickets.

The move comes after Ken Bates claimed Leeds United Supporters Trust‘s Campaign For Change was having “no effect at all”.

Leeds United CEO Shaun Harvey refused to explain the club’s reasoning, stating only that;

“In simple terms we are exercising our right only to sell tickets to those who we wish to do so.”

You have to wonder how Neil Warnock feels about this whole situation. After pleading with everyone involved to put all the squabbling behind them, and focus solely on supporting the club for the remaining fixtures, LUST released a statement cancelling planned support for a protest ahead of Southampton and offered their full support to Leeds United’s new manager.

While LUST took a mature and sensible approach, Ken Bates has been busy spying on the protests he allegedly doesn’t care about, spending most of his weekly radio address taking shots at anyone connected with LUST and then banning their board members from the stadium.

As the Yorkshire Evening Post pointed out earlier today, Ken Bates seems “set on a divide and rule policy” which isn’t helping matters at all. It’s petty, unproductive and not what I expect from the leader of my football club.

It’s not as if anyone is asking for the unreasonable either, it’s just simple little things; better communication, more dignified responses to the fans concerns, prioritising the squad over off-field matters and less of the pathetic stunts he insists on pulling whenever someone raises an objection to his leadership.

Ken Bates is acting like a child who has spat his dummy out, incapable of responding with the dignity and respect of all good leaders.

He has also sabotaged one of his favourite arguments. How can he argue that he’s acting in the best business interests of the club now that he’s publicly refusing custom? I know of no other business that would do that, regardless of how much they dislike the people they’re serving.

There’s a good reason for that too. Because such business plans fail.

  • DanSumpter

    i don’t agree with some things you say but i do with this… how he thinks he’s gonna come out of this looking anything but a twat is beyond me….
     
     There are some of us that joined LUST, not because we’re part of the Bates Out brigade but, because we feel the club needs a closer relationship with it’s fans and we felt LUST could help bring us that and i don’t want to have to “withdraw my membership” to be able to go and watch us play.
     
    I am rather amused by him saying “They’re not having any impact at all other than in their own minds” on a Wednesday and banning the whole board on a Friday…. clearly they are having more of an impact than you would have us believe Uncle Ken.

  • Tyler75

    Are we really surprised he’s taken this course of action ? This is the man that wanted to put barbed wire on the top of fencing around the ground at Chelsea and arm stewards with electric cattle prods in the 80’s.  
    He’s vindictive and probably senile – its not a good combination.

    • TSS

       @Tyler75 I really am shocked by this one. Generally speaking, no matter how insane Ken’s stunts are, they usually make some sort of sense – not necessarily in a good way, but in one that is sure to serve his own best interests. 
      I can’t for the life of me understand the sense in this. He’s refusing custom and reigniting anger just as things were starting to calm down. It’s madness, and he’s making himself look a complete idiot. He’s totally lost it, power has gone to his head. 

      • Tyler75

         @TSS He did threaten to wind-up the club completely during administration, so no I’m not surprised at this – saddened, disgusted and worried about how our new Manager might perceive such action – but surprised ? No .

  • mattbb1

    wow – he needs reporting to the football league.

    • Tyler75

      Best not to Matt, they’ll probably just find some clause to give us a points deduction ! 

      • mattbb1

        i know, but this is blatant abuse of power,

        • Lee B

           @mattbb1
          Unfortunately, since he is the owner, he is entitled to abuse his power as long as it’s not illegal

        • TSS

          @Lee B  
          Not necessarily. All clubs have to comply by Football League rules regardless of who the owner is. They lose their member share otherwise. 

        • Lee B

           @TSS  @Lee
          Good point, but what are these rules, and do any of them cover this situation?
          Certainly in any form of business, the owner is entitled to refuse to sell their offering to anyone whatever their reasons for doing so.
          Having said that, LUFC is (mostly) a ‘members-only’ club. If you’re a member, surely they cannot revoke members privileges without a solid reason – I’m sure that must contravene some agreement or other.

        • TSS

           @Lee 
          That’s not true. If you’re open to the public, you need good reason to refuse custom. You can’t discriminate against people without solid reasoning.
          I ran a store in Leeds and one of my staff refused to let a woman enter the store because she was a suspected (but never charged) shoplifter. She almost got sacked over that. 

        • Lee B

           @TSS  @Lee
          I agree, but (as in my first post), the refusal to sell must be in line with the law. Discrimination is not, so therefore that was wrong. If a business simply refused to sell without giving any reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find fault in the eyes of the law.

        • mattbb1

           @TSS  @Lee a cursory look at FL & FA Websites has not yet turned anything up, however he has to be breaking a rule here in terms of discrimination of individuals or gorups based on opinions. If LUST awake from their slumber they might be advised to visit a lawyer specialising in this. Bates might have shot himself in the foot here because if they play it right he will have egg on his face, and out himself as a bully, and all round scoundrel.

        • Lee B

           @mattbb1  @TSS  @Lee
          Unfortunately, the board have not (yet) given any reasons for the refusal, so ‘opinions’ doesn’t come into it

        • TSS

           @Lee It really isn’t, you’d have to give an opinion or the case would be over in seconds and Leeds will lose. You can’t just “no comment” the whole thing and get away with it, it doesn’t work like that. 
          But Harvey and the clubs lawyers must know this, they must be prepared for a backlash so must have invented some justification, surely? 

        • TSS

          If you don’t give any explanation at all, you’re discriminating against individuals without valid cause. You can’t do that in this country. 

        • Lee B

           @TSS
          I’ve had a quick scan over the web for this and it’s clearly a difficult subject.
           
          What I do know is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty (if indeed KB can be innocent of anything), and any prosecutor would have to PROVE discrimination. As things stand, I don’t think LUFC has given any reason for the refusal, so a prosecutor would have a difficult time proving his/her case on grounds of discrimination.
           
          Nonetheless, I would like to see it done!

        • TSS

          He wouldn’t have any issue whatsoever. If Leeds can’t provide a reason for banning an individual, then by default, they’ve unfairly discriminated against them. 

        • mattbb1

           @TSS It’s rankled ken that they accepted his appointment of warnock, he wants them to know he wasnt placating them, though as many are saying clearly he does care, LUST need to take heart from that.

        • Lee B

           @TSS
          In the months between now and any potential court-case I’m sure they could cook up some flimsy reason. Of course, if they’re stupid enough to put something out into the media right now, that would strangle them and, I agree, they would be screwed.
           
          I have found out (personally and to my cost) that ‘big business’ can do whatever they like and get away with it. Their attitude is ‘if you don’t like it, take us to court – we’ve got bigger and better lawyers than you and an unlimited pot of money to pay for them’.
          Ultimately, the one with the deepest pockets wins.

        • Lee B

           @TSS
          Anyway, back to the original point that they should be reported to the FA/FL.
          Anyone found any interesting rule on that one?

        • pnxb1019

           @TSS    My understanding is that as a private business they have no obligation whatsoever to allow people in. Under current legislation the club would only be in breach of any laws if they had barred someone on the grounds of race/reiigion/sexual orientation or disability. (That is discrimination)  A football ground is most definately ‘private’ and the owners can have anybody in there that they want to.  The main issue here , in my opinion is not the legality of the action but the sheer stupidity and pettiness of the action. Bates is a twat and this is merley a symptom of that !    I do believe however that he has breached the Data Protection Act in releasing the chairmans details. That most definately should be pursued.  

        • TSS

          Shops are private businesses too, if you’re open to the public (which LUFC are) you’re bound by certain laws, and discrimination extends much further than the ones you’ve listed – you can get in trouble for discriminating against anyone, whether it be because they’re ginger, atheist or the member of any group/class whatsoever. 

        • mattbb1

           @TSS like many of bates’ court battles the law doesnt come into it, he enjoys an argument, and even losing in court is no deterrent, so convinced is he of his own self importance. LUST need to man up here they have 4,000 backers, myself included, no one likes a bully ken. I’d feel dreadful taking my little son to Elland Road now, what an awful feeling.

        • ludlowleeds

           @TSS Bates is upping the ante, calling LUST’s bluff, etc. Rather than getting bogged down in legalistic definitions of discrimination we need to up our own ante and fight fire with fire. That means more demos and – I never thought I’d say this – boycotting matches. The first thing LUST should do, if it’s not too late, is to reinstate the 7 minute boycott of Saturday’s game, possibly even extend it.

        • TSS

           @ludlowleeds It’s too late to spread the word in my opinion. Plus, it can be written off as the Sky Sports effect. 

        • TimPM

           @TSS I seem to remember a few quarrels in local rags a while back to do with pubs barring people. Surely the same principle?

        • number1inyorkshire

          i can ban anyone i like coming into my pub as long as it is not based on discrimination ..
          you do not have to give a reason or notice it can be done simple as to be fair they should sort of be expecting it ..it changes nothing i will buy them a ticket, i will bet and i would post pics of me sat at E R if it was me just to wind him up ..

        • number1inyorkshire

           @mattbb1 he could say it has nothing to do with lust he just does not want them in the ground ..he will have done his homework

        • number1inyorkshire

           @TimPM  @TSS i have banned loads from my pubs for no reason well there is really but if anyone asks there is none. when you have a place you invite them in it is your right to un invite people you do not want in same with supermarkets ,clubs shops anything similar

        • number1inyorkshire

           @TSS what about public houses .thats old law which has been renewed you can ban who you like as long as you do not say iam banning you because i don’t like your ?????or because you are a ???

  • Dje

    Ah, well I’ll definitely be trying to renew my season ticket now, lol.
     
    Does this mean that the 3,000 or so season ticket holders who took a hard decision will also be shortly banned from buying tickets on an ad hoc basis? Once, twice (three times?) a loser. 

  • Dje

    Ah, well I’ll definitely be trying to renew my season ticket now, lol.
     
    Does this mean that the 3,000 or so season ticket holders who took a hard decision not to renew their season ticket will now also be banned from buying tickets on an ad hoc basis? Once, twice (three times?) a loser. 
     

  • ludlowleeds

    Ken has just appointed himself head of recruitment at LUST.

  • Dubleeds

    What an absolute gobshite Bates is.
    I have just signed up to LUST

  • Geoff

    When Ken Bates implemented his gentrification of Elland Road policy several years ago, he did so in anticipation of the fans eventually getting wise to his planned abuses of the club. The sky high prices were designed to price out potential opponents and instead have the ground populated by smaller numbers of wealthier fans. This worked fine for nearly seven years as the more mild-mannered and middle-class fans happily paid well over the odds and even gave him little nicknames, Uncle Ken, Birdseye, Papa Smurf etc. But it seems that even the meek and mild types he courted have had enough, and I don’t think he saw that coming. They were happy to pay the disgusting prices Bates has imposed on us fans, even though it was clearly at the expense of the club’s future support and the city’s less well-off residents, but they finally appear to have snapped following the huge income from player sales not remotely matching the investment in playing staff. It’s probably too little too late, but it’s good to see the students and professionals who dress up as footballers on Henman Hill (formerly the Kop) open their eyes and see Bates for what he is. At last.

    • TimPM

      What utter drivel.

    • NicholasSm1th

      I am sorry that my 30 yrs of buying season tickets on Henman Hill and being a professional means that I am not a fan like you. We all know only the working class and those on the dole are real fans. To quote the late great Ronny Barker I have to say I look forward to “looking down on you because I am middle class”.
      Are we really angry with each other if we are the action of Mr Bates has worked, One Leeds.

      • Chareose

         @NicholasSm1th
         lol i dont think he was getting at you for being a professional……. i think it was an observational point. You and tim need to get off your high horses………….even so i dont agree that this is a problem at all related to class in anyway, its just down to whether you can afford to support your beloved team and bear to be swindled by that tosser ken bates

  • pnxb1019

    I was hoping that Bates would have caught the mood , I was hoping that he would just keep his mouth shut , he would tame his poodles Lorimer and Harvey and we could all look forward to better days…alas wasnt to be .    The gobshite just could not resist.
    Bates totally loses the plot in a radio rant on wednesday , instructs the ‘former’ leeds favourite (now complete embarassment Lorimer) to goad the fans in his wekly shite column and then gets his very own Smithers (Harvey) to ban the chairman of LUST.  You could not make this up. I am starting to believe that Bates really is trying to destroy my beloved Leeds United, (I know it sounds ridiculous but I can think of no other explanation ). This latest ridiulous action has prompted me to join LUST this very day and to pay my subscription.   Bates has to be stopped guys, we should work together  , it will not be easy but he must be gone and he must take his poodles with him

  • bert

    Going crazy in his old age what an idiot.Terrible business man, when people slag off a virgin product does Richard Branson come out and call his customers morons?No because thats just bad business.

  • Dave H Moscow

    Let me start by saying that whilst I mistrust bates, I have not backed LUST as it seems all noise no ability to do anything, so my comments are not partisan.

    Bates’s comments about LUST creating the anti him songs and being in a minority are total piffle. They anti Bates feeling is pretty much universal. I myself join in with them.

    His banning of LUST leadership is petty and pathetic, however his release of personal data from “Club Records” is illegal under both British and European Law, and should the person he accused live in the US also breaches US Law as well. This is something someone should take him to court for, as he has taken it upon himself to use personal and privileged data that is held in trust and cannot be released for any other than legal reasons and not only used it, but publicly via the press disseminated it beyond they limits it is held under.

    Where you live is irrelevant to whether you support Leeds or not, and the fact that someone lives in the US ans does not come to every game is no reason to pillory them. I live in Moscow and have home and away season tickets, but don’t come to every game. I tried for a while to do all the saturday games, but it’s not possible. That does not make you any the less of a Leeds supporter.

    He has made Leeds United, Disunited and we march separately not All Together. Whether he lied or not, whether he cooked the books or not are matters for conjecture, but what cannot be denied is that he has alienated the lifeblood of the club by his attacks on the supporters and his policies of building extensions on his so called “Rented” council house rather than investment in his core business.. The team!

    • Chareose

       @Dave H Moscow
       Perhaps hes bargaining on the fact that LUST wont want to damage the club with legal action…….  Bates is dangerous, Lust need some decent heavy weight political support in order to ensure Bates leaves Leeds united without completely destroying a historic football club. And i mean in the literal sense……..

  • Bluesman

    This is a disgraceful abuse of power. I have just joined LUST and will not be attending any more games. Lust have shown Ken Bates a green light in withdrawing the protest and he has responsed with RED, RED, RED. So much for listening to his customers and working for the good of the club. The club is in such a terrible state now that decent players refuse to come to ER. This just takes hostilities to a whole new level. Warnock will not be able to operated under these conditions. The players should publicly protest if they have an ounce of decency in them. Everyone should back LUST. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you? BATES and HARVEY out!

  • Colin

    Q. What’s the Football League’s definition of Ken Bates? 
    A. A FIT AND PROPER OWNER
     
    I disagree. I think Ken Bates is an arsehole. An absolute arsehole who’s rapidly losing any business acumen he had in the first place. If the decline of common sense from our board this season is anything to go by, then buckle up and adopt the brace position – next season’s going to be a hoot!
     
    And let’s not single out Ken for crticism, Shaun Harvey deserves a big old slice of it too.

    • bert

      that was too funny   “I disagree. I think Ken Bates is an arsehole”

  • Bluesman

    Is there anyone out there who can unite the club anymore? Warnock was doing just fine and then along popped Uncle Smurf! God help Leeds United.

  • mattbb1

    this then means that Nigel Martyn as prsident is banned from Elland Road?

  • alwaysLeeds

    There is a simple answer/solution to this Don’t Go to ER he doesn’t give a second thought about the fans and there moans and groans as long as he gets his £36.00 if the gates fall he will sit up and take notice, why the sudden and unbelievable gesture of a free shirt for younger fans …. to try avoid a half empty ER on TV on Sat.
    I’ll always support MY club but whilst Bates it there it will be from a distance till he’s gone vote with your feet and Money that’s the only thing he understands. 

  • V FOR VICTORY

    The time has come for all TRUE FANS OF LEEDS UNITED to come together to fight a war against bates and harvey.  the time has come for all lily livered bates supporters to go support another club.  No more lets all get behind the team nonsense, until we are rid of this parasite the club cant go forward.  VIVA LA REVOLUTION.
     
    No one should negotiate their dreams. Dreams must be free to flee and fly high. No rotten board of leeds united, no ban, has a right to limit your dreams. You should never agree to surrender your dreams.
     
    FREEDOM

  • Macca007

    I do actually think his approach of running the club like a business is correct but when he gets £100 in and only spends £50 on the core of the business (players) I get reaaly concerend over where the rest is going (Virgin Isles etc) and accordingly havent renewed my season ticket which as and continues to cause mental torture

    BUT this latest move is quite frankly a senile act – has anyone seen the Caine Mutiny? If we get beat tomorrow, which is likely, the protests will surface once more and I can envisage Warncok waving good-bye…..he is above all this crap…..and if he does go I wouldnt blame him one bit

  • mattbb1

    just read lorimers latest bilge in the YEP, almost verbatim he quotes bates’ view on why lonergan shouldnt be captain, and follows it up with a further justification of the howson sale. Of the 12 or so comments not one agreed with him, why on earth is the YEP still publishing his column? Who does he speak for apart from one man..

  • Peter T

    This is NOT  what Warnock needs or expected
    The loanees walking and being unable to get any players in will not help his mood 
    His appointment should have ceased the Bates Out calls until next season 
    I fear Warnock may soon say I do not need this SH1T and go 
     
    Languishing in midtable with declining attendances will not attract any other  decent manager 
     
    It is so sad 
     
     
     
    I hope LUST take Bates to court It would be appropriate but I guess they could not afford the legal fees 
     

    • TSS

       @Peter T I wouldn’t bet on that. LUST have at least one lawyer I know of within their membership. 

    • marcleeds

       @Peter T
       no doubt bates will charge the club for his fee’s aswell

      • Chareose

         @marcleeds  @Peter T
         good point, he will make the club pay his legal fees……..but truth is the only way to get rid of him is to keep preassuring him financially and politically

  • EYLEEDS

    He has really surpassed himself this time. What a petty thing to do especially after LUST had decided to drop the protest to give Colin the support he has asked for.

    I wonder if the data protection breach solicitor letter has landed on his desk and this is his pathetic response.

    I’ll expect Lorimer to tell us what a great idea it was in his next article.

  • number1inyorkshire

    well someone else will buy them for them whats the point of that it solves nothing ..
    THEY can not take him to court he can refuse admission to whoever he wants and does not needs a reason although he does have to refund any monies proportianateley if they have not been arrested or thrown out for an offence under the ground regulations ..
    it will not solve anything he has already accused them of not going anyway what an idiot

  • DaveRichardson

    Point 1: He’s banned them from buying tickets. Doesn’t say anything about them attending the games. Seems like a very odd statement to be honest.
     
    Point 2: I keep reading about Bates being a bad businessman. I’m not sure you can actually level that at Bates. He is a businessman first and foremost. He has never been and never will be a Leeds United fan. All of his actions are driven purely and simply by business. There is no emotional aspect here, which is why there is a huge disconnect between what he is trying to achieve and what we all want for our club. The ideal scenario for all of us is that we get someone, a genuine Leeds supporter, to come in and rescue the club from Bates and bring a sense of clarity, purpose and vision from a supporters perspective. However, whoever comes, if they are an “investor” they will always need to look at things from a business perspective unless he/she has unlimited funds and views Leeds United as a passion and not a business. Not sure I know too many Leeds fans in that position but I’m not saying they don’t exist. 

  • number1inyorkshire

    i think you will find that this comes under the trespass act ,that a person can ban or remove someone without reason .if the person does not leave on a verbal instruction to do so they can be forcefully removed .the police can be called and have a duty to attend if they are ,the trespass act 1893 ,there is  an amendment for asbos in 2003 but thats the law as it stands ..

    • TSS

       @number1inyorkshire Trespass act doesn’t count while ground is open to the public. At that point, paying customers can enter. It’s that part he’s cutting out – denying supporters the right to pay to enter, without just cause. 

    • TSS

       @number1inyorkshire It’s no different from Alton Towers refusing entry to a member of the BNP because they’re opposed to their principles. You can’t do it. If you’re open to the public, you’re open to the public. The only exceptions are legal ones, such as an individual being a threat to customers or property for example or violating terms of entry (which, by LUFC’s own charter, they haven’t). 

      • DaveRichardson

         @TSS  @number1inyorkshire TSS, can you confirm that they have banned them from purchasing but they have not banned them from attending?

        • TSS

           @DaveRichardson  @number1inyorkshire You’d have to ask the trust mate. 

        • DaveRichardson

           @TSS  @number1inyorkshire Because, one is very different from the other, at least legally speaking I believe.

      • number1inyorkshire

         @TSS thats discrimination tss if you ban them because they are BNP members. if you just say you are banned without mentioning the BNP then you can ban them .when you are charging people for entry you are not public you can refuse who you like  so can alton towers as long as they  do not discriminate back to the BNP .
        i run 7 pubs own if you like i have had this argument many times when the boobies come along the banned is moved on there is no case to answer unless you say i hate ginger haired people i am banning you for that .they have to prove discrimination, as harvey has said they are using there right to be able not to sell tickets to who they like not because they are members of lust it just happens they are .
        elland road is not a public place on match days LEEDS UNITED Invite you to buy a ticket with all its regulations ,which are league regulations not Bates regulations they just carry them out .They can un invite who they like
        i have had many many arguments with bar room lawyers on the right to refuse admission over the several pubs i have ,i have won every case at the local level ..
        my pal runs a very large retail concern a hundred retail units all over the country he bans everybody, even if they look like shoplifters
        The only thing nowadays public is the local park and that has a multitude of bi laws to ban drinking ,drug abuse and abuse in many forms including discrimination .
        sadly on this kenneth is allowed to do this LUST has no basis in laws as an organisation ..
        For what its worth i have barred Bates from all my pubs only difference is i have a reason   .. he is a TWAT

        • TSS

           @number1inyorkshire In this case, it’s the exact same thing as the BNP analogy because they’ve targeted it specifically at LUST. If they took legal action accusing LUFC of discriminating against their board because they disagreed with something they’d said, then Leeds United would be forced to offer an alternative explanation or the case would be over in seconds and the club lose. Failing to commit to a reason doesn’t mean they can’t be sued, it’ll just fuck them up further. I’ve had a similar dealing too when a previous member of staff refused a known shoplifter. Because the person in question had never been charged, the company were forced to pay compensation. Pubs are a different thing entirely because you always have the “too drunk to serve” excuse to fall back on. 

        • TSS

           @number1inyorkshire There’s two ways about it in court. Leeds United either offer an alternative explanation, or LUST’s accusations will be the deciding factor. 

        • Tyler75

           @TSS  @number1inyorkshire That’s just nuts Alton Towers banning a BNP member – the proper course of action would be to let them in and put them on a never ending loop of ‘Oblivion’ – the equivalent for LUFC  is eternal mid-table in the Championship watching a never ending succession of loanies and freebies battle it out with the likes of Peterborough with Phil Brown as Manager.  

        • number1inyorkshire

           @TSS rule number 1 in the regulations .
          the club reserves the right of admission to the ground .
          there are various other right to refuse admission not allowing a body search could be another right to refuse admission .
           

        • TSS

           @number1inyorkshire True. But it doesn’t trump discrimination mate. We have the same policy yet still ended up in hot water. Seriously, if this goes to court and Leeds United don’t come out with a valid excuse, I think they’d lose. 

        • number1inyorkshire

           @TSS i understand what your saying regarding discrimination and they would win if they could prove that course they would and should ..
          But the leeds lot would say this has nothing to do with L U S T it is cos we just do not want them in as is our right ,proving discrimination for the LUST lot would be difficult ,i am a member for instance of L U S  T as i am sure you are and i am not banned they would argue if it was cos of lust all members would be banned from the ground they are not .either way round
          its wrong on that we agree .another bad day at leeds …

    • Bluesman

       @number1inyorkshire
       I don’t think that this is a legal issue at all. The point is that this is a point of principle embedded in humanism. They are acting like third world dictators and riding rough shod over the Leeds United fanbace in general. Who wil be nex?. There should be a concerted effort not to support any organisation that has anything to do with Bates. Ticket sales (particularly season tickets), food halls, advertising boards, media organisations and the like! The whole fanbase should unite against Harvey and Bates. Warnock should note the situation carefull and be prepared to walk.  Why can’t Leeds fans be listened to by the board and why can’t lust have a view. Now who are the morons? And it is not LUST?

      • number1inyorkshire

         @Bluesman i agree blues i only buy tickets for the game nothing else and only league games too no cups etc. my son will get his free shirt tomorrow it is going to a little boy in africa we sponsor as part of comic relief .
        it is bates being what he is good at a twot but it aint illegal to ban people from the ground if he wants, it should be for petty stuff but that rule exists to ban people who should be banned  to be fair also blues leeds united are not the only ones who treat fans badly 99% do .
        it is wrong but those people have gained the ethical high ground now power to the people ..

        • NicholasSm1th

           @number1inyorkshire My boy won’t get one as he is a loyal season ticket holder

        • number1inyorkshire

           @NicholasSm1th so is mine but i am gonna make sure he gets one why shouldn.t they there is nothing to say they shouldnt a junior ticket for todays match is the requirement well he has 1 and all the other matches i have 4 loyal season ticket holder if you include me and my 3 sons 2 are adults though so they do not qualify

  • pete58

     Could I ask you all please to join LUST as soon as you can.

  • Tyler75

    What would scare Bates shitless would be for all LUST members to write to him, giving their LUFC membership details and ask to be banned in act of Spartacus-like solidarity – let’s see just how ‘commercial’ he is then ! 

    • number1inyorkshire

       @Tyler75 thats a fair point tyler its a stupid thing to do ban LUST members of which  iam 1  .i might write to him see if he bans me ..there will be lust members who do not go ,who live abroad etc .i knew Bates would do this or something similar ,he is cracking his whip he hasn’t banned them from the ground according to the lust site, just from buying tickets

  • number1inyorkshire

    Just thought i would on this as its the latest post wish jack charlton all the very best after his fall .now he is a legend and a half all the best jack get well soon ..i am sure from all us at LUFC the fans

  • mattbb1

    i’m an LUST member and havent been banned, i suspect he’s just trying to send a message that he will not tolerate free thinking – so be warned.,
     
    If it wasnt for Bates though, what would we all discuss.. football?

    • TSS

       @mattbb1 I loved those few days when Warnock took over and that’s what we did. It was like a holiday. 
       
      Just the board that’s been banned by the way. 

      • number1inyorkshire

         @TSS is a load a crap  @TSS its friday its late jigzy you have had a date with alcohol clearly ..
         

  • BarneyWhite

    I can’t quite believe this – was relaxing watching telly and logged on to catch up with the news –  now my blood is boiling.  All out boycott is the only option. When he is out we can start again – even if it is from the league 1 or 2

  • Bluesman

    The ban should start tomorrow. Down with Bates, down with ticket sales, down with revenue. Freedom of thought and speech should prevail.

  • number1inyorkshire

     @TSS is a load a crap i like you jigzy because i am sure when everyone is down and feeling bad low self esteem etc etc ..
    they can read you and your reports and realise that things could be worse they could be you .had a bad week til now you made n]me feel better cos i am not you ..

  • 8legs6legs

    Get an education you idiot

  • WIll23

    Bates can do what he wants as the rightful owner of his “castle” (even if it is a crumbling one in every sense of the word) – it is his private property to control. 
     
    To say his act of banning is discrimination in a legal sense and therefore his decision to ban LUST board members is illegal is incorrect.  Legal based laws to make discrimination illegal apply to a limited list of specific characteristics: race, gender, disability and the like.
     
    We all make discriminating decisions each day…deciding what to buy, where to shop, what to say etc.
     
    The choice we have to go to Elland Road or not, to away games or not, to the club shop or not.  
     
    It is time to discriminate directly against Bates/Bates FC and indirectly against Bates FC by avoiding dealing with the sponsors if you are able to do so without impacting your own business. It is time to hit Bates where it hurts.
     
    If this ultimately means starting out a new LUFC nine leagues lower. So be it. I would go and support them. We should not be prisoners to history and tradition being tied to a specific legal entity in a specific location. Besides the legal entity that was called Leeds United in the successful 1960s is not the same legal entity that has that name today. 

    • TSS

       @WIll23 You’re wrong, he can’t refuse service. It doesn’t matter that Elland Road is private property, they’re trading to the public and as such are bound by UK and European law so can’t discriminate against anyone for such arbitrary reasons. If every bit of private property could just ignore laws, the system wouldn’t work very well, would it? 
      Struggling to find UK law on this. but this is based on American law and is pretty much verbatim how I was explained it when we ended up in this situation (few years back now) for refusing to serve a known shoplifter – http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

      • Bluesman

         @TSS  @WIll23 Does the legal issue matter. It is a issue of principle, free speech, the right  to be critical of the board when they are crap etc. There should be a vote of no confidence in the board from the terraces, in the shops and outside the ground. What do the sponsors think? Surely they have principles and a view on Smurf’s antics?

        • TSS

           @Bluesman  @WIll23 You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But any legal challenge could only damage him further in the sponsors and fans eyes, surely? It’s not going to do his reputation any favours, that’s for sure. 

      • WIll23

         @TSS Ok, I stand corrected when it comes to restaurants and presume the point of legal principle would stand for other “public” venues such as a watching a sporting event.
         
        All I can do is therefore state an opinion that Bates *should* be allowed under law to allow anyone he likes in to use *his* facilities and to refuse entry to whoever *he pleases*.  That’s my view of how the law should be.  Your property is yours to determine with whom you allow to use it.  Of course, it is not in the interests of ANY business to limit the number of its customers so no rational business would see this as good business practice. Of course price is one way of targeting a specific customer base and Bates is going down that route…as he should be allowed to do.
         
        As the owner he can do as he pleases in terms of ticket prices.
         
        We can always go elsewhere, set up a new club, and compete to attract Bates FC fans back to a ground somewhere else in Leeds.

        • TSS

           @WIll23 Why should you be able to do that? It’s discrimination. Whether it’s private property or not, he’s opened it to the public to profit from. If he wants it to be private, and closed to the public, then fair enough. In that case he’d have a case to argue, but he hasn’t. 
          Would you be happy walking into any shop and being told they don’t like something about you and therefore aren’t serving you? This is a store everyone else has access to apart from yourself by the way. That’s not a country I want to live in. 
          PS Link below covers UK law. 

        • WIll23

           @TSS But such a shop would not survive long as it should be commercial suicide. But I would not want to force anyone to trade with me. 
           
          My point of view stems the economics of the free market, and the connected ethics of individualism and property law.
           

      • NicholasSm1th

         @TSS  @WIll23 English tort law s different – The sale is only an offer to trade without the remaining elements a sale can be withdrawn by either party at any time.

    • TSS

       @WIll23 This is UK law; 
       
      “The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates the rights contained in the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) into UK law, is also relevant in challenging discrimination, as Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination on very wide range of grounds, which sex, race and religion, but also cover political opinion, economic or social status, as well as ‘any other status’.”
       
      That last part is key. 
       
      From what I can see, they’re refusing service to LUST, and as such, are discriminating against them due to what they represent. It’s social status. 
       
      http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equal-treatment/

      • WIll23

         @TSS I disagree with the Human Rights Act. It is an abuse of justice as it is based on applying force. The sooner it is removed from the statute books the better.

        • number1inyorkshire

           @WIll23  @TSS you do not have a human right to go into E R ,it is not a public place neither are shops etc etc .

      • number1inyorkshire

         @TSS  @WIll23 they have not said they are banning them because they are LUST members THATS THE POINT they have just said they are banning these individuals which is their right ,had he said i am banning these because they are lust members then that might be vaguely a discriminatory act .in his reply email the devils in the detail harvey just replied “we are exercising our right not to sell people tickets who we wish not to “not because you are LUST member we are not selling you tickets, its all in the wording if it is discriminatory or not not the ded of doing something

    • number1inyorkshire

       @WIll23 he hasn’t discriminated he has banned them they are completely different you are right i can not believe that people are saying  this is discrimination .
      if he came to my pub and said a pint please and i said iam not serving you cos your a man thats discrimination if i just say no it isn’t …i am a member of lust and to be fair if i was Bates i would ban the people fighting against me ED milliband wouldn’t go top the tory party conference ..

  • MikeLUFCforBATESOUT

    It is high time this website grew some balls and nailed it’s colours to the mast.
    Is it a money making organisation with fence walking articles or is it for fux sake FOR LEEDS UNITED and LEEDS UNITED FANS?
     
    Never mind the legal bullshit and lets start backing LUST as the only organisation doing anything concrete to get rid of the vindictive piece of ratshit we have for a chairman and hisfollowers who claim to love leeds united.
     
    Start a campaign to boycott ALL matches and goods as well as all sponsors products.
     
    Anybody who helps bastard bates continue is an enemy of Leeds United and Leeds United fans.
    As someone said earlier if we have to start all over again 9 divisions lower “who gives a fuck” if it rids us of these effin leeches.
    Guaranteed we will get support throughout football.
    DO IT TODAY DAVID, I challenge you to make a choice, commercial interests or the club we all love.

    • TSS

       @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT Fence sitting? Fuck me, that’s a first. We usually get accused of being so clouded by an anti-Bates bias that we lack balance. 
      Also, I’m a member of LUST and have been for some time. I support their efforts as a collective, democratic organisation. I have no intentions of pushing an individual agenda, nor am I going to suggest any supporter should boycott matches – that’s an individual decision that is there’s to make.
      I won’t be boycotting matches personally because I’ve already paid for season ticket, it’s easy for others to call for that when they don’t have one, but for those that do, it’d be madness. Bates would be pissing himself at the futility of paid up season ticket holders refusing to attend. 
      For what it’s worth however, I still haven’t renewed and have no intention of doing so. I’d suggest that would have more impact than a symbolic gesture, such as those people that have already paid boycotting a game.
      Either way, it’s an individuals decision to make and I’m not going to tell anyone how to support their team. 

      • Bluesman

         @TSS  @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT Can’t fault you for this. Makes perfect sense to me. But Bates still knows where he stands. Good on yer for supporting freedom of speech.

    • TSS

       @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT By the way, fans don’t go to support Bates, they go to support Leeds United. Don’t confuse the two. I consider neither of them to be my enemy, that’s a ridiculous statement. They’re Leeds United fans regardless of their personal views, and everyone has an individual opinion of the current situation. 

      • WIll23

         @TSS  @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT TSS, it is not a confusion.  Financial support of Bates FC  by going to watch LUFC (owned by Bates FC) is an unavoidable connection.

        • TSS

           @WIll23  @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT I understand that ticket sales help Bates survive, but it’s not as black and white as you’re trying to make it. No one that buys an LUFC ticket is doing so as a vote of confidence in Bates, they’re doing so because it’s a game they enjoy watching. They’re football fans tied down by an irrational loyalty to Leeds United FC, until it gets to a stage where their hatred of Bates outweighs their enjoyment of seeing Leeds United play (not love for the club itself, just enjoyment) then they’ll continue to go.
          Doesn’t mean they like Bates or agree with him, it just means they want to watch the game and I would never consider these individuals an enemy. 

        • MikeLUFCforBATESOUT

           @TSS  @WIll23 
          Wishy-washy is what you are David, MAKE A STAND against him.
          It really is black and white, the arrogant prick has the balls to say LUST board members are banned!
          They are representing Leeds United fans and need to be supported fully.
          If you cant see by now that fans have one weapon and one only, use it or go down on your knees and worship the devil that is bastard bates.
          Direct Action is the only thing bastard bates understands as he (maybe rightfully) describes fans as morons.

        • WIll23

           @TSS  @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT I do not consider them an enemy either, but you cannot have it both ways.
           
          No protest will change anything.
           
          No verbal war against Bates either.
           
          An economic boycott may not work short term.
           
          But it surely is logical to hurt Bates FC in the pocket long term and go and watch local football for a fix…and probably enjoy it too…than to be conflicted with the situation.
           
          But, in the meantime, if Warnock takes us up…doubtful…the money coming into Bates FC will see him survive in charge until his dying day and that could be another 20 years!
           
          Those who want Bates out, could really do with the team not being promoted, in fact being relegated would be preferable for their goal of removing the old git.

        • Chareose

           @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT  @TSS  @WIll23
           Mike i think you need to read this blog more often……..at times it has been a lone voice slamming Ken Bates, I hardly think the blog owner can be critiscized for sitting on the fence…..

        • MikeLUFCforBATESOUT

           @Chareose  @TSS  @WIll23 
          “slamming bates” is no more use than tickling him with  feather, it is mere posturing,  bates responds
          ” Frankly my dear MORONS I dont give a flying fuck what you do or say as long as you keep buying tickets, hats, scarves, pies, beers etc and give me the funds to build a hotel and shopping centre etc instead of spending anything on the squad, I know most will make every excuse under the sun to keep me in the lifestyle that I like , so just fuck off down to Elland Road and spend your hard earned cash on third rate football Hahahahahaha !

    • WIll23

       @MikeLUFCforBATESOUT The problem in starting anew is overcoming people’s views that there is a specific history and tradition that belongs to a specific address and specific club name.
       
      So, what happened to Leeds City fans? Were they bothered about going to support a new team renamed United? Okay it’s not quite the same thing, but the idea that somehow the existing club is the same as the one set up in 1919 is to believe yourself as a prisoner of misfortune.
       
      Simple solution is the boycott…no history & no tradition to be considered…just one principle to apply…one way to act against a private business…a boycott.
       

      • MikeLUFCforBATESOUT

         @WIll23 
        The only history most remember nowadays is the very sorry one created by bastard bates and funded by “Morons” who lack the courage to fight for change.

  • NicholasSm1th

    On a match day I support the team I love and that is always my intention when I get to ER or wherever we are playing. I do not agree with what Bates has done and I think some of these things are affecting the team.
     
    For me if you have paid your money the time between the first and final whistle should be  spent supporting the team in the way that you are comfortable with. There is time enough outside of these two hours to protest to and about Mr Bates. 
     
    ER has lost something since the away fans have been moved, get them back in the cheese wedge where they can be heard and have the piss taken out of them.
     
    I will protest about Bates with you all outside the banquet suite AFTER the match.

    • MikeLUFCforBATESOUT

       @NicholasSm1th 
      Good on yer Nicky boy, so you are voting for “more of the same please Mister Bates and please may I ask you to come down and meet me at the gate and give me a fucking great kick up the arse as a thank you for keeping you in power and continuing with your plan to destroy the club before you die just as you vowed, oh! and please feel free to bring along your toadies shaun,glyn,and peter to offer their thank you’s. ”
       
      best regards
      your favourite moron
      nickyboy

  • number1inyorkshire

    there seems to be some confusion here about everything ,shops ,cafes, restaraunts pubs ,the full gammit of what people perceive to be public places they are not ..
    if Joseph public goes into somewhere and says can i buy a xxxx and the person says no you can not iam not serving you because you are GAY, catholic, black ,white ,chinese, ginger haired ,lesbian or a combination then that frankly is discrimination ,he would loose simple as  in any court in any land ..
    IF however he says no you can not because i do not want to serve you game is over you have not been served you lose if you ask why and he says i just do not want to, that is not discrimination as he not served you for a reason e:g see the previous list …
    He bates, has not given a reason other than it is his right not to allow people in or sell them tickets if he wants to ,had he said its because they are members of LUST then that would have been discrimination as it is obvious thats the reason but he hasn’t said it so it aint, its complicated but he is allowed to not let anyone in he wants for no reason, if the reason is one of discrimination he aint are you with me .
    in short Bates can do this in fact he has ,he can also ban them if he wants altogether ..you do not have a human right to go into elland road, not to go in more like ..
    THIS will never get to court if there is  a lawyer involved he will tell them they can not win this case ..