fredbob

Pace isnt significant in the slightest, its a merely an advantage, nothing more, nothing less, you can drag out a number of players who were affected by loss of pace due o injury etc, but then again you can dig up just as many who have been completely unaffected by loss of pass. The poorer technichal players are the ones who rely on their natural attributes, for example Martins, if he lost his places he would struggle in the first division, but players who's are able to utilise this attribute but not make it there primary weapon are the most dangerous player, for example Owen.

Doent bode well for Martins! I wish Owen and Martins were allowed to play together, ust a run of games to see if they would play well together, PLEASE SAM!

Water them? Not rocket science like... thanks mate but i kinda think thaat its not as simple as that, although obviously with the superb all year sun weather in the toon i can see how the training pitches dont get enough water in them anyway. LEt alone the practiality of watering the training pitch every day 5 days a week, i dont think so somehow.

I heard it was something to do with the hardness of the training pitches, which could make sense, although i remmeber Roeder having a dig at Souness saying that his injury problmes were caused in matches and not on the trainng pitch. Is there a way to soften up pitches???

it's worrying to be honest, a while back i was confident that he wouldn't start as i knew SA would intergrate him, but now it does seem he is fit, and from one of SA's quotes it seems to me that Zog is keeping him out the side, which if you ask me is even more worrying, as Zog is better employed elsewhere. It's worrying because i cant see how anyone could think that Zog is an asset at LB, its clear, when he so much more suited to the left of midfield.

Why not spend £6m on a left back - leave him on the bench while you play your most creative player in his place. Sam has indeed got it sussed. is Enrique 100% fit? If not it's be a disaster if he was to get injured because of that reason, same goes for emre, i rather have emre comin on for butt than butt coming on for an injured emre.

Can we not have a poll to see where people think we will finish this season? I think it will be interesting to see who votes for what and what there justufications could possibly be after 2 seasons of shit and 7 games of definitive improvement. I'd like to see people put there money where there mouth is.

I like Milner, i thijnk he does really really well with his limited ability (which dont get me wrong are still good) but i just dont htink he is penetrative enough, after watching arsenal the other day i dont think its really acceptable to say he's young and can only get better because nowadays at this age you looing for something that you can really progreess with, something like what martins has, i honestly dont see that with Milner, its been said before but his weakness is obvioulsy his pace, as he isnt the greatest technichal winger relying on his crossing isnt good enough, i would like to see a more Zog type player who can cross and also get to the byline, this is going to be the type of player who will bring both our strikers into the game as in my opinion OWen isnt great with the ball in the air. As for playing him in an advanced position in the 433 formation no thank you, i can see Zog fitting in ok, but not perfect as his natural game isnt getting into advanced positions beyond the last defender, i think that Smith could do well in the advanced role in the 433. But as it stands i cant see Milner being good enough, which is so ironic as he was our best player ast year.

All the discussion seems to be surrounded around 2 paradoxes, whether you want your team to be successful, or you want them to play beautiful football, in my opion, i would like my team to play beautiful football, its synonomous with being successful anyway although by no means guaratueed, i can understand ppls arguments about wanting to win something whether it be ugly or not, and i dont refute that opinion. For me when its all said and done football is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less, only recently has it turned into a business, but for me that takes a side step. When i watch a football match i come to be entertained, and some of my finest memories have been ones where we've achieved nothing cup wise but have played breathtaking football, these memories go ahead of 2 of the bggest days in recent nufc history in the fa cup finals. It such an impossible topic because nobody is right or wrong, when SA was appointed i wasnt for him, but i realised he was exactly what this club needed, stability and as it stands he's succeding, he may not be playing the most beautful football, but at this stage we have no right to belive that we should be, people are being nostalgic and thinking we have the right to be in the top 6 playing superb football, when we dont, in the end your only as good as your last season and i think its important that we have a good season posiiton wise, getting some stability on and off the field then going for our goals next season. I think its pretty clear that this club was well on the decline and i'm more than happy to sit through turgid times providing we do reasonably well. All these people who are after the elusive cup win? If we win the league cup next year would that memory eclipse the Keegan years or SBR years? In my opinion it wouldnt. *puts on tin hat*

Yeh, i think he did quite a good job, i think this was always gonna happen, once Mort found his feet the old guard was always gonna go. Did a good job this summer.

Like Dalglish who won it all? Or Bobby even? No manager guarantees success, not even the 'special one' Well, to be fair to them, they came f****** close with us, both of them with kinda goes to show how far ethigeordies comments stretch. I think to a degree SA is already a success, i cant remeber seeing so much positivety about the club in such a long time, now the FS considerable shadow has been replaced with Mr Ashleys, it gotta be onwards and upwards, it also depends on what you see as success, in my eyes at the moment, i think that estabilishing ourselves amongst the top4 is the ultimatess goal if am honest and i would happily sacrifice cup wins to get there although that is quite a contradictory statement to make.

It's horrible to see him not play, i cant help but think this is the beginning of the end, i just get the feeling that SA either doesnt rate him or has such a defniitve way of playing that Martins doesnt fit in, personnaly i think its the latter, Martins naturally drops deep which is not how SA wants him to operate, its clear SA likes the long ball, he wants his smaller strikers to play off the shoulder of the bigger striker, probably the best striker in the world who does this is Owen, which is not only unlucky for MArtins but pretty unfair because i think he has immense talent. Hopefully am completely wrong.

Ok, so the performance was terrible, i think everyone generally agrees that last night was tripe, however i cant beleive some of the comments that are being made on this board, how short are peoples memeories when they cant remeber some of the crap we've had over the past 2/3 years, it goes to show how fickle some ppl actually are, i think its pretty clear that are team isnt balanced well with no attacking midfield who can open defences up but we have so much talent and mathc winners who will be available soon, at this point of time, i believe that SA has done more good for this club than GS or GR had done, this is one bad performance but there is so much to come from this side, we have Emre, Duff, Barton to name but 3 players who are all capable of chainging hthe whole balance of the side. Be patient people, i can guarantuee we wont see a perfomrnace like this when we have a full squad, its gonna be interesting to see how things will pan out.

Would have Taylor and Roz or Taylor and Cacapa, i think it's essential that theres a bit of premiership experiience n the centre, and last night proved it, Roz and Taylor played well together, both seemed to have a mutual understanding from what i saw.

For me i'd love to see martins and owen working together, but think it'll be a partnership we'll rarely see, i think Smith will get a chance before martins does if viduka is injured. Owen is the obvious starter and its a matter of fitting the strikeforce around him, a few years ago pre injuries i genuinely think martins and owen would be successfull because martins likes to drop deep whereas owen is always on the last man, opening up spaces between the 2 allowing for through balls, but nowadays owen has adapted his game to playin off a big man and playing in the box, which isnt what martins can provide. Definitely will be Viduka and Owen

i think ferdinand is clas to be honest, his biggest problem is probably his arrogance as a player on the pitch and that can lead him into dangerous situations, if he had the mentality of John terry then he would be the perfect defender. Strong, quick, intelliagent(always one step ahead), calm, composed, timing of tackle, very good posisiotnally.

would have to say Robert, Ginola, Asprilla or Martins They were/are always capable of something special that ya dont often see in football, not often you see players who can get ya emotions going like these, one minute you can be "hating! them in a game, the next they produce pure magic which sends ya through the roof. Some of my favourite memories are wth these players even though they didnt all stay for a great period of time. Would have to give an honourary mention to Rob Lee as well!

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. sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it. Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case. We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case. What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4, The only reason the League Cup diminished for a few years was because of the increased emphasis on qualification for the expanded Champions League. Recently it has gained in importance again, as you say, because Chelsea have joined manure in financiallly streaking away from the rest, and making the title harder to win. During the time that clubs such as Leicester beat Tranmere, Blackburn won it, the smoggies won it, and possibly when Spurs won it too, Newcastle United for one had a better team than all those teams, and we didn't win it. The question, I believe is, why not ? If we had, then 2sheds for one wouldn't have an issue with this. I still find it amazing that people can't grasp this, and blabber on as if we have a right to win these trophies and how its all the boards fault that we haven't, when we clearly had a good enough team to win it. Which is something we certainly didn't have when we had a s**** board by the way, and if you aren't old enough to be aware of this you will have to take my word for it, but if you look at the league positons for the vast majority of the 1970's and 1980's through to 1993, you will see that I am not kidding you, apart from the early to mid 1970's. In the broadest terms the Halls and Shepherd have improved this club massively during their time in charge, even MICK can reluctantly admit that. If you want to expand on this and talk about trophies, and I repeat I'm not the slightest bit interested in 2 bob cups that nobody remembers like the Full Members Cup, I've asked already. If the directors have supplied their managers the backing and capability to put together teams good enough to win these cups, and the players don't win them, who do you blame ? I think its absolutely amazing how people could prefer Bates to Shepherd. That must some bee in their bonnet that they have. Lucky for them, they haven't seen a really s**** board, and s**** chairman, is all I can say. Do you think that Bates would have done worse a job than Shepard if he was in the exact saem circumstance? I kinda disagree with this mickey mouse cup thing as well, in the end, you'd could quite easily arguw that the UEFA cup is a mickey mouse cup, in the end i'd say there must be about 16 quality teams in the entire competition. And most of them are drop outs from the CL. Its a poor argument to say its mickey mouse, most competitions can be described that way.

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius I've said that I only care about worthwhile trophies. You can't get a much simpler question than asking someone who they blame for us not even winning the League Cup, and not performing in a LOT of big matches, when they are making such a fuss about it. Your opinion on this would be particularly interesting, do you also think the board had an input into the players not performing in these big matches ? If not, who do you blame ? This is a serious question, as a lot of people appear to blame the board for losing these games ? Well the answer to that is that it was the players fault, simple. From what i gather you're trying to imply that is wasnt the board or chairmens fault for the lack of trophy and to an extent your quite obviously correct, they cant possibly be made accountable for a teams perfomances, not directly anyway. However, and i think i have made this cleaar in my previous post, what is the true measure of a chairman and boards successs?, in the end, isnt the boards and chaimans overall objective for a club is to manange the business in order to ensure success on the pitch the realest form of success in silverware and the big big picture is that we havent succeeded, its a conclusion which is neither here nore there but to a lot of people makes some sense.

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. sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it. Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case. We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case. What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4, the bottom line is that 2shed is trying to underline a chairmans and directors broad achievements for the club, and the broadest form of evaluations will be the trophys that they have won and as it stands Ken Bates did more for Chelsea pre Harding than Shepard did for nufc "post" SJH its the broadest and the most crudest form of evaluation because everyone knows that chairmen and directors arent directly responsible for the on field achiments but it is near impossible to do an accurate evalutation, if we were to use another curde form of evaluation we'd look at the debt and both teams stood in simialr positions, only one team has a cabinet full of silver and the other doesn't. Add the the fact that Bates appointed reasonable astutely and you see where most people who are against Sheprad, to sum it up, while Bates in his time of Chelsea was pro active, Shepard was reactive.

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius

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. would you rather we qualify for CL or win a league cup then? Overall, a club which qualifies for europe on a regular basis, including the Champions League, is a better run club than a club with an isolated League Cup win. You won't understand this if you don't understand that teams who freeze and bottle big games, or managers pick weakened teams in knock out competitions, isn't really the fault of the board or chairman Which I find quite unfortunate, and sad, to be honest. lol, i was hoping you'd say that, i rememeber a while back having a debate with you about whther you'd rather we played attractive football without a league cup win but good poisitons and regular champ qualification or turgid football with a league cup win, and you opted for league cup win, granted the scenario was in the context of "attractivenessof football" but the overall point of CL qual or League cup win is the same, and funnily e nough you opted for the league cup win because of how 'important it was to the club and its fans'. i can find the post for you if you'd like, make you look idiotic twice in one thread if ya want?? Kind of undermines you're opion when you vehemenetly fight against one point only to contradict yourself in the end.

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. would you rather we qualify for CL or win a league cup then?

lol, finally ne5 ha been busted wide open, i came close the other night but i think you take the biscuit there, i take my hat off to you kind sir!

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 He does that alot, i tried highlighting bits i wanted him to answer, i gave him instructions on how to answer them and he still wouldn't answer the fucking questions, gettin a straight answer out of ne5 is like nailing diarrophea to a wall both impossible and messy