2sheds

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? I did clarify your first sentence - you had worded it ambiguously. Sorry if my answer makes NE5 look bad by not knowing the difference between the full members cup/zenith data cup on one hand and the league cup on the other.

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.

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.

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.

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

where did you pop up from. And I've told you before, boy, that I have no idea who this beermonster is, it isn't me. Do you still live in smoggieland ? Its no surprise, I'm amazed you can see your keyboard, clearly you don't see it very well. No denying of LeazesMag this time And you have a problem with Middlesbrough? I said I wasn't this beermonster, so why do you keep harping on about it like a blubbering rock ape ? Most people have a problem with Middlesbrough, on account of feeling sorry for people who have to live there If not, then their chip on the shoulder about Newcastle and Sunderland taking absolutely no notice of them. ooops

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

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.

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'

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

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. For the third time Chelsea won a trophy in Bates first 10 years without Harding.

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.

NE5 I listed 4 points which you ignored. so I'll limit this reply to just one point. 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.

Indeed. Perhaps they will stop humping Freddies leg if/when he does get his hands on Leeds (on this forum anyway)

That sounds like the shepherd story here - only without the trophies and the consistent top 6 finishes. ********sits back and awaits the inevitable response of ' pre 1992 s*** board/4th best finishes over last 10 years/skyboy with an axe to grind etc etc etc'******************* not like you to read the bit that suits you, I reckon you need a better light in your shed mackems.gif Also, do some research on Chelsea Village, and the points others have mentioned that Chelsea were bust and in danger of liquidation because of these ground improvements. I know that this will be too much for you to understand. here is the complete entry, to save you the bother in fact. What a fabulously witty first line, you must be a highly amusing person (to yourself) Try addressing these points I picked out from YOUR link 1 Bates was Chelsea's most successful chairmen in his time - Freddie wasn't ours 2 Chelsea won loads of trophies in Bates time - we won fuck all under Fat Fred (unless you count the inter toto - I can't remember a victory parade for that one can you?) 3 Consistent top 6 finishes 4 Bates pissed off with Chelsea £80 million in debt - sound familiar? Do try to answer these 4 points without the personal attacks

Great wikipedia link there NE5 That sounds like the shepherd story here - only without the trophies and the consistent top 6 finishes. ********sits back and awaits the inevitable response of ' pre 1992 s*** board/4th best finishes over last 10 years/skyboy with an axe to grind etc etc etc'*******************

LS5 and Howay T'Lads cannot wait to support Shepherd in t' latest adventure How predictable (tha knaas)

I think I've shagged a few Cushy Butterfields in my time

This thread is troll-tastic. And deflect-mungus

I disagree. I think it's part of our identity. Either play it every home game or not at all. How? Its a cheesy song written by a Scotsman for a Scottish film IIRC. I don't recall NUFC being in Scotland. When was it made? Early 80's? What did we do before then? When was the 1st time it was played, who decided that we adopted it? (really would like to know where it all stems from if anyone can answer, ta) People over rate this song, its boring, dull and uninspiring. A new era could easily bring a new song, something with a bit of passion and charisma. Its not our culture, we can get rid of it, it doesn't define us by any mean. Load of s****. It's not about the connection to the area, if it was then we'd have Jimmy f****** Nail singing Crocodile f****** Shoes. It's about the way it gets the crowd up and creates an atmosphere. If you can put forward an alternative song that would be just as good i'm all ears. How about Big River by Jimmy Nail? Its all about the Tyne and far more appropriate than some dirge written by a scottish/american/geordie wannabe

Written off Allardyce already I take it? It 4 games into the season it's a little early to tell whether he's a success or a failure. And that doesn't mean I've written Allardyce off

mackems.gif mackems.gif Just stick to laughing at your own lines as is your habit - unless you wish to expand this well thought out answer.

What a load of shite is being talked by the people defending shepherds decision to sack Bobby. FFS you do realise Bobby was the ONLY decent manager this twat hired in 10 years don't you?

So? I hope he ends up penniless and eating rats that he scoops up from the sewers, 'baby faced assassin', cunty cunty cunty. To be honest that's more likely to happen to you rather than to a millionaire (ex)professional football player. But you never know - if you manage to complete secondary school and get a basic education you might just avoid such a fate. Sorry if my post upset you, simple facts tend to trouble the truly ignorant :crybaby2: Seems my post upset you, when I was having a go at Solksjaer. Simple comprehension lessons for you wouldn't go amiss, and you might want to refrain from making rather amusing assumptions about people, come to think of it. That's very interesting. I've never been told I need "comprehension lessons" from someone who puts a 'comma' immediately before an 'and'

So? I hope he ends up penniless and eating rats that he scoops up from the sewers, 'baby faced assassin', cunty cunty cunty. To be honest that's more likely to happen to you rather than to a millionaire (ex)professional football player. But you never know - if you manage to complete secondary school and get a basic education you might just avoid such a fate. Sorry if my post upset you, simple facts tend to trouble the truly ignorant :crybaby2: