2sheds

POT KETTLE BLACK

Lots of valid points & a good post I hate to say this but I agree. That last paragraph in particular has some very good points.

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away? Thats a lie. Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then. He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal. The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you. In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997. So you are telling lies if you say it did. Thank you and goodbye EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it". That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club. I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself The BBC said: Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself? Like I said, the world and football didn't begin in 1997. I'll let you work it out, or carry on making a fool of yourself if you like. Do you think I'm not aware of the information contained in that link. In fact, another person was in the frame for the job at that time, but he too already had a club. A big club. Bigger than us, or he may have took the job. Like Robson and Dalglish, he wasn't interested in the club when we had s**** directors. Your comment about Keegan is even more foolish, and shows even more your lack of perception and true knowledge of the club and its history Does all this waffle mean you accept you were wrong when you said "The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him." ? How long do you think Bobby Robson has been in football management? Robson had ample opportunity to show some interest in managing Newcastle United while he was manager of a small club like Ipswich. He didn't show any interest because he knew Ipswich had more ambition and a better Board than Newcastle United right up until SJH ousted the set of tossers who had been selling our best players for years. Robson was too good for Newcastle at that time and he knew it, he showed interest later on when he knew better people were running the club. Sorry HTL , one chuckle brother at a time. I know you like to jump in when NE5 begins to make a tit of himself and start a tag team effort with him but not today. You could try posting into the £45 million debt paid off thread that you and your mate have been avoiding if you want a reply from me.

Still no word from Laurel and Hardy yet regarding this disgraceful situation the previous board left?

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away? Thats a lie. Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then. He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal. The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you. In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997. So you are telling lies if you say it did. Thank you and goodbye EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it". That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club. I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself The BBC said: Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself? Like I said, the world and football didn't begin in 1997. I'll let you work it out, or carry on making a fool of yourself if you like. Do you think I'm not aware of the information contained in that link. In fact, another person was in the frame for the job at that time, but he too already had a club. A big club. Bigger than us, or he may have took the job. Like Robson and Dalglish, he wasn't interested in the club when we had s**** directors. Your comment about Keegan is even more foolish, and shows even more your lack of perception and true knowledge of the club and its history Does all this waffle mean you accept you were wrong when you said "The simple fact is, he came to Newcastle because it was the first time the club was decent enough for him." ?

Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away? Thats a lie. Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then. He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal. The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left you're infatuated with people telling "lies" aren't you. In fact, the world didn't begin in 1997. So you are telling lies if you say it did. Thank you and goodbye EDit: to make one comment re your statemtent that "Keegan bottled it". That man showed more courage to take on the Newcastle Job when he did, than anyone else had ever done before at Newcastle in all my 40+ years supporting this club. I'll let you work out the rest, and where Bobby Robson really comes in, for yourself The BBC said: Item 9 on this list http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/2005/02/28/bobby_facts.shtml Caught out again NE5, do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

NE5 Who sacked Bobby then gave Souness £50million to piss away? Thats a lie. Robson was approached when Keegan bottled it but he honoured his contract to Barcelona then. He wasn't approached after Daglish departed because of this refusal. The club finally decided to approach him again after Gullit left

Yes still no sign of the chuckle brothers yet. They are too busy setting the forum straight on whether we need defenders or not in another thread. I'm amazed they haven't noticed this one.

Profound post there HTL

Don't you mean 'affinity'? I was going to let this go but you've already started criticising people for their spelling when you are typing posts of this calibre

PS I'm an athiest before the predictable replies start

A stunning amount of ignorance shown in this thread by people who know less than fuck all about muslims and ramadan. HINT -if you don't have a clue what you are on about, don't make it obvious to everybody by your moronic statements

A Premiership Expensive flops XI has to include Veron £28 million for Man Utd and £15 million for Chelsea Well over £50 million with wages pissed away there. He has to be the captain.

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us. That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

HTL just for you here's your original post and response. As you can see I've already explained why it was ambiguous so repeating this point is redundant. :nay: Aye, they were the same competition and one that none of the big teams took seriously. It's quite amazing that you're submitting this as proof of how great your man Ken Bates is, but then was it you who mentioned diarrohea earlier on? You certainly seem to fill your posts with it regardless. The assertion that this competition is an indicator of great work by your man Bates is a s**** on, for sure. I suppose you'll soon be telling everybody that the Newcastle Board ousted by SJH was actually excellent because we won the Texaco Cup (twice) and the Anglo Italian Cup? Awwww thats so sweet coming to your buddy's rescue because he needs a rest from lying through his teeth. I'll clarify your first sentence now. The Full Members Cup and the Zenith Data Systems Cup were the same competition but they were not the League Cup as your fellow Shepherd leghumper NE5 seems to think. I mentioned the two trophies not 'as proof of how great Ken Bates is' - as you seem to think - but merely to prove he brought trophies to Stamford Bridge - a feat Freddie was unable to surpass for us. BTW its a very tired old trick to put words into your opponents mouth then to rubbish what they have supposed to have said. Its also very pathetic. As for your last line suppose all you want - just don't attack me on the basis of your poorly thought out conclusions. More diarrohea I see. You say you'll "clarify" my first sentence and then you don't. Are you mentally challenged, or just a liar? Your 'ambiguous' line was open to interpretation - check to see what your dictionary says about that HTL. As for being 'not so bright', missing my sarcastic use of the word 'quip' hardly makes you an Einstein. Anyway back on topic - do you agree Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Fat Fred has seen come to SJP? Its a simple yes or no. PS for your info I never mentioned 'diahorrea' but you make abundant use of the word

I used to hear the same shit about stamped passports barring you from certain countries until I went to Cyprus then Turkey on the same passport with stamps from each country. Urban myth tbh

RIP

I said: "Aye, they were the same competition and one that none of the big teams took seriously" Ambiguous - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous borne out by the list of winners which I posted. His source is the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Members_Cup. If you take a look you'll get to read the full text to include the bit he missed out to fit his agenda. Wikipedia is what started this. I pointed out from NE5 wikipedia link about Bates being chelsea's most successful chairmen in his time. Your little friend couldn't handle it. As for missing bits out to suit an agenda you've missed a few managers out of your signature - is there any reason for that?

I said: "Aye, they were the same competition and one that none of the big teams took seriously" Ambiguous - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous borne out by the list of winners which I posted. Its it sweet the little boys have decided its tag team time - bless HTL - why not post my quote that your ambiguously worded quip is in response to? What were you replying 'Aye' to? NE5 - I'm glad to see you suddenly know so much about the full members cup. It will prevent you asking stupid questions like "Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ?' PS You say you know who I am on another forum. Care to inform me or is that yet another lie?

Again my apologies for the pyramids but NE5 has already slithered out of one between me and him in this thread - and I think the proof of his repeated lying is worth displaying

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True? The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in. The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds. This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree. Harding joined Chelsea in 1994. By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here. I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup, is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit. mackems.gif Great reply but we were talking about Bates first 10 years vs Freddies. You foolishly claimed Chelsea's success was all down to Harding (who joined after Bates had been in the job 12 years) and that they won nowt before that. This is a lie as I have proven. As for the Champions League did that exist in Bates first 10 years? If it didn't it is idiotic to mention it. BTW the full members cup and the zenith data cup were not the league cup - wrong again Mr 'Facts' YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was. I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why. It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else. Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams. And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade. A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved. When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of. no, I'm responding to others. My first post was to say that I wouldn't want Bates in preference to Shepherd and I've said why. I've also asked you if you know how Chelsea were before Harding joined the board, and that Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was instrumental in setting the club up for the success that followed. You can dispute this all you like, but as you don't reply to my comment asking what you know about Chelsea pre-harding, it is clear that you don't know. Yet again your first sentence is another lie. You weren't responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy. Sigh. i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ? mackems.gif Do you post on toontastic care to tell us what name you use Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell. Having repeatedly demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question. Tee Hee And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad mackems.gif Tee hee Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined. To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar. For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd mackems.gif The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really. Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ? Hilarious mackems.gif You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too mackems.gif And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ? Tee hee. Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ? The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said. If I have - post them. BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick. The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP. Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter. Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years. Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup. Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot. I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile. You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise. You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself. You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me. And you lied at the end of your last post. Is there any more to come? pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments. Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ? I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made. I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour. Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response. I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into. It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that. My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level. What is your opinion ? Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ? I have not shirked a response, unlike you. I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ? Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ? Post where I harped on about us not winning the league cup - or is this yet another lie? And again you are not right about teams playing in europe, in fact you couldn't be more confused. The Full Memebers Cup The competition was created after the Heysel Stadium disaster, when English clubs were banned from European competition, as an additional competition for clubs in the top two divisions (hence the name - these clubs were 'Full Members' of the Football League, with full voting rights. Check some facts next time. you keep harping on abuot lying, pathetic really. Like most people, I expect, I had forgotten all about the Full Members Cup because I didn't give a toss about it, pretty much the same as the teams who entered. Do you therefore count the intertoto as a cup, if not, why not, or are you also lying ? [what a daft angle you've started here, again btw] Most people will be wondering why you don't tell us what you think the reason is that we didn't win the League Cup, despite having a better team than a sample of the clubs I've mentioned. Don't by shy, I won't call you a liar or anything daft like that, I'm just curious as to who you blame and why. In fact, here is the list of winners of the Full Members Cup. Lots of big clubs took it seriously then. People can look for themselves to see where some of these winners were in their leagues at the time. 1986 - Chelsea 5 Manchester City 4 1987 - Blackburn Rovers 1 Charlton 0 1988 - Reading 4 Luton 1 1989 - Nottingham Forest 4 Everton 3 (aet) 1990 - Chelsea 1 Middlesbrough 0 1991 - Crystal Palace 4 Everton 1 1992 - Nottingham Forest 3 Southampton 2 The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

You have a point. It's not that hard. Amusing how 2sheds has suddenly burst into life. I know who he is now on another message board. blueyes.gif Must admit Dave, I'm quite disappointed he doesn't comment on what I've asked him, as he thinks he's such a clever lad elsewhere. Another lie I do not post on any other forums. I've already told you I do not post on toontastic (if thats what you are referring to) So lets hears how you 'know who I am on another message board This should be fun

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True? The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in. The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds. This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree. Harding joined Chelsea in 1994. By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here. I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup, is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit. mackems.gif Great reply but we were talking about Bates first 10 years vs Freddies. You foolishly claimed Chelsea's success was all down to Harding (who joined after Bates had been in the job 12 years) and that they won nowt before that. This is a lie as I have proven. As for the Champions League did that exist in Bates first 10 years? If it didn't it is idiotic to mention it. BTW the full members cup and the zenith data cup were not the league cup - wrong again Mr 'Facts' YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was. I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why. It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else. Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams. And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade. A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved. When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of. no, I'm responding to others. My first post was to say that I wouldn't want Bates in preference to Shepherd and I've said why. I've also asked you if you know how Chelsea were before Harding joined the board, and that Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was instrumental in setting the club up for the success that followed. You can dispute this all you like, but as you don't reply to my comment asking what you know about Chelsea pre-harding, it is clear that you don't know. Yet again your first sentence is another lie. You weren't responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy. Sigh. i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ? mackems.gif Do you post on toontastic care to tell us what name you use Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell. Having repeatedly demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question. Tee Hee And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad mackems.gif Tee hee Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined. To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar. For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd mackems.gif The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really. Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ? Hilarious mackems.gif You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too mackems.gif And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ? Tee hee. Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ? The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said. If I have - post them. BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick. The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP. Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter. Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years. Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup. Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot. I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile. You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise. You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself. You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me. And you lied at the end of your last post. Is there any more to come? pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments. Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ? I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made. I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour. Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response. I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into. It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that. My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level. What is your opinion ? Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ? I have not shirked a response, unlike you. I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ? Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ? Post where I harped on about us not winning the league cup - or is this yet another lie? And again you are not right about teams playing in europe, in fact you couldn't be more confused. The Full Memebers Cup The competition was created after the Heysel Stadium disaster, when English clubs were banned from European competition, as an additional competition for clubs in the top two divisions (hence the name - these clubs were 'Full Members' of the Football League, with full voting rights. Check some facts next time.

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True? The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in. The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds. This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree. Harding joined Chelsea in 1994. By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here. I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup, is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit. mackems.gif Great reply but we were talking about Bates first 10 years vs Freddies. You foolishly claimed Chelsea's success was all down to Harding (who joined after Bates had been in the job 12 years) and that they won nowt before that. This is a lie as I have proven. As for the Champions League did that exist in Bates first 10 years? If it didn't it is idiotic to mention it. BTW the full members cup and the zenith data cup were not the league cup - wrong again Mr 'Facts' YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was. I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why. It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else. Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams. And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade. A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved. When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of. no, I'm responding to others. My first post was to say that I wouldn't want Bates in preference to Shepherd and I've said why. I've also asked you if you know how Chelsea were before Harding joined the board, and that Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was instrumental in setting the club up for the success that followed. You can dispute this all you like, but as you don't reply to my comment asking what you know about Chelsea pre-harding, it is clear that you don't know. Yet again your first sentence is another lie. You weren't responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy. Sigh. i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ? mackems.gif Do you post on toontastic care to tell us what name you use Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell. Having repeatedly demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question. Tee Hee And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad mackems.gif Tee hee Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined. To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar. For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd mackems.gif The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really. Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ? Hilarious mackems.gif You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too mackems.gif And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ? Tee hee. Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ? The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said. If I have - post them. BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick. The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP. Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter. Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years. Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup. Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot. I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile. You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise. You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself. You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me. And you lied at the end of your last post. Is there any more to come? pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments. Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ? I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made. I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour. Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT. 3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time. European Cup Winners' Cup winners: 1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000. probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates. Fact. Certainly nowhere near ours. Fact. Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ? I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge. I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is. So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies, Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True? The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in. The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds. This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree. Harding joined Chelsea in 1994. By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here. I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup, is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit. mackems.gif Great reply but we were talking about Bates first 10 years vs Freddies. You foolishly claimed Chelsea's success was all down to Harding (who joined after Bates had been in the job 12 years) and that they won nowt before that. This is a lie as I have proven. As for the Champions League did that exist in Bates first 10 years? If it didn't it is idiotic to mention it. BTW the full members cup and the zenith data cup were not the league cup - wrong again Mr 'Facts' YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was. I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why. It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else. Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams. And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade. A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved. When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of. no, I'm responding to others. My first post was to say that I wouldn't want Bates in preference to Shepherd and I've said why. I've also asked you if you know how Chelsea were before Harding joined the board, and that Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was instrumental in setting the club up for the success that followed. You can dispute this all you like, but as you don't reply to my comment asking what you know about Chelsea pre-harding, it is clear that you don't know. Yet again your first sentence is another lie. You weren't responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy. Sigh. i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ? mackems.gif Do you post on toontastic care to tell us what name you use Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell. Having repeatedly demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question. Tee Hee And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad mackems.gif Tee hee Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined. To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar. For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd mackems.gif The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really. Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ? Hilarious mackems.gif You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too mackems.gif And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ? Tee hee. Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ? The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said. If I have - post them. BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick. The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP. Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter. Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years. Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup. Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot. I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile. You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise. You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself. You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me. And you lied at the end of your last post. Is there any more to come?