DENNE burde kanskje ha blitt postet long ago - å lese TOMA-tråden (nå #4) er ikke for hvermansen. Da går man seg bort. Sjefsmod Matt på waccoe har utarbeidet denne:
Let me repost this, from TOMA #3 - a summary of the lessons learnt from TOMA #1 and TOMA #2
Lessons of TOMAs 1&2 (moderately updated):
1. stuff that is true one day might end up not being true the next day. That doesn't mean that those ITK on the first day were making it up, just that shit happens (particularly at Leeds) and stuff changes.
2. people get fed stuff for all sorts of reasons by players higher up the food chain. Sometimes that stuff is true, sometimes near truth, sometimes lies. Usually it is worth paying attention to why something is being leaked at that point and by who rather than whether it is strictly true. A lot of idiots on here never quite understand this - hence for example the moronic hounding of Castles when (whatever you thought of him) there was a lot to learn from what he was saying, and more importantly why he might be saying it
3. the more parties to a deal, the more interests and more perspectives, leading to multiple truths at the same time. Inconsistent stories are sometimes unavoidable as a result. Again, thinking about the why rather than the what usually helps.
4. sometimes those acting as excited channels for that ITK info from one side or the other are the least reliable providers of info. Indeed during TOMA 1 and 2 some might have occasionally reflected themselves on why they were being told stuff to share and why then, but that rarely seems ever to happen as much as you'd expect. Sometimes the excitement and presumed importance of feeling that they are somehow part of the game (rather than a low level pawn being played) means that ITKers aren't always the easiest people to talk to rationally about stuff. That doesnt mean they aren't worth listening to - but always apply the other rules listed here when doing so.
5. LUFC is blighted by villains, twisters and people (some but not all also villains and twisters) having to deal with villains and twisters. So lots of people are probably lying a lot of the time about nearly everything, whether to disguise true intentions, feint, draw fire, destabilise or for sheer devilment. Sometimes a bit of all of them. If you assume all statements made about LUFC and TOMA are lies and have a go at working out "why is this being said now?" rather than "is this true?" you get closer to what might be going on.
6. 97.5% of what you read in TOMA related threads on waccoe is drivel or bollocks, and most of the rest is animated gifs. Occasionally you get a gem of insight, but don't hold your breath and hope. On most important stuff we're playing catch up to understand what has happened, not predicting the future...
7. dont trust any f**ker who wants to own LUFC. We are a well proven basket case. So by definition anyone who wants to waste money buying us is (i) a villain out to use LUFC as cover for some vile money extracting scheme or (ii) probably a lunatic. Back in TOMA 2, Together Leeds were heroically trying to establish that there is a third category of potential buyer, Steve Parkin and LFU appear to be doing the same at the moment (maybe). I am yet to be convinced (but hopeful). Fan ownership is a brilliant idea and I've put my £500 into LFU. But, given experience in November dealing with Cellino, perhaps it might be argued that LFU also fall into category (ii), not least because of the appalling obstacles of cynicism and apathy amongst some of our fanbase that need to be overcome.
8. all of this also applies to "official statements" - don't assume all that you read means what it appears to at face value. A good example is the February 2016 financial statement by the club, which places a highly positive spin on possibly not very good figures (the details of which were not published simultaneously). The correct question might be "why is this being published now?" rather than "is this all true?", not least because the answer to the second question will - inevitably - be harder to get to the bottom of that the first one.