fredbob

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

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. To be fair, i haven't really got a good thing to say about Ken Bates, am not completely aware of all the facts, i was just qeurying your view of a chairmans role beccause it seems very contradictory and inconsistent.

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?

None of these players are without faults, they just happen to have less than Emre does. Dyer has less faults than Emre? Unfortunately true. Its why a club paid £7m for him, while Emre we'd be lucky to receive the £3.8m we paid for him. West Ham have overpaid for everyone this summer, and English players always come at a premium, eg., Darren Bent. And how does the price dictate that Emre has more faults than Dyer. Its very difficult to have a discussion with you when you don't answer the actual questions put to you. If you really think that list of players you gave have achieved anything in the last two years, you're dillusional. THey've achieved nothing, and the likes of Parker, Dyer and N'Zogbia (last year) have more to do with that than Emre does.

Isn't the idea of these forums to try and debate these points at your will, irrespective of how many time it might of been discussed in the past, everything on the this forum is cast iron sooner or later but if people had 'left it' the second that there point was proved or not, we wouldn't have much of a forum

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being. lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself. Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved. mackems.gif To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one. I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it. During the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the majority shareholders, and the board and chairman as a whole, appointed managers, some were better than others, some years we did better than others, but essentially the board didn't change, in their outlook or ambition for the club. Thats my answer. The Keegan years, with Sir John as chairman, and the Robson years, with Shepherd as chairman, were undoubtedly the highlights. I can't see your problem, other than naively thinking it is inconceivable that a club should slip a few positions down the league for a short period. In fact, its not naive, its plain daft. By the way, I don't think I asked you a stupid question at all, but I do think you asked me one. Simple fact is, the same majority shareholders have been the same majority shareholders since 1992 until a few months ago. If you can try to understand that they don't allow others to run the club for them, then you may be on the way to reaching a correct "opinion" surely FS in a respresentative of the Boards opinions and while it may not of been his direct decisions to what occured a the club, irrespective he will be held repsonsible and it would be on his head that those decisions are placed. You seem keen to attribute Shepards success as a chairman down to the appointments he made, which i dont consider the big picture, i have already explained that i dont consider this the big picture and i have already stated that if the club were in the poisiton it was on the playing side but was more stable on the financial side i would respect FS alot more than i do now, however, he left us in a precarious posiiton, and i don want to gt into the nitty gritty details on why we have the debt, but overall from my point of view, i see a club from 92-97 which was going places, doing very well and had a bright future, from 97 onwards the shareholders stayed the same accoriding to you, but the chairman changed we have not achieved anywhere near the saem sort of success, now is this a coincidence or not?

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being. lets make it easy for you, I know you are a WUM, but I'll answer out of politeness and give you a chance to redeem yourself. Lets just pretend that every club who thinks they should be top of the league, is actually top of the league. All at the same time. Problem solved. mackems.gif To be fair, i am not a Wind up merchant, i just find it increasingly difficult to get a decent straight answer out of you, you aksed a stupid question, i gave you a stupid answer, again, all i asked for was a yes or no, you actually haven't directly answered a single question i have put to you, so i find it increasingle frustrating to make a debate with you when you are continually avoiding the answers, being faecicious in your responses and avoiding the big ones. Its a shame, cos its clear you know a lot about this club, and have a good understanding of the history of the club but your arguments continue to fall short of major point of someone elses argument, i find you always pick off the little arguments and miss the big one. I highlighted the questions i would of liked you to answer, even gave you intstructions on how to answer them (yes or no) and yet you've still avoided answering the questions. Its a clear sign of defeat, when someone cant answer a question directly. So thats how i will take it.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done you keep missing the point. Managers change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Why do you think nobody appoints managers who are sometimes not as good as a previous one ? This is a completely different thing to the structure and ambition of a football club and the board by the way. Your problem is like others, you simply don't understand this. i think you're missing the point, you're absolutley right about managers changing, and it would be very naive to blame shepard completely for what transpired although on the flip side, the appointents didnt seem to fit the job, but again that is my opioion and a different debate. You seem to keep referring to the relatively smaller issues, im looking at the big picture. However what i am trying to draw out of you, my entire argument, the big big picture is, was Shepard a success in his 10 years or not? its a simple yes or no answer.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done f*** off. I'm not saying Shepherd is great, but that point is utter, utter bollocks. f*** off. I'm sayin Shepard was crap, but this point is utter irrelavent. the point you made was a stupid one, and it backed up your argument not one jot, so well done. to be fair to my good self, i wasn;t actually making a point in that bit of txt you decided to quote, in fact i was offereing my opinion, and in my opinion i cant think of too many (if any) chairmen/ managers/ business owners who would allow there business to get behind in the current market and still be considered a success. its a simple point and seems to make complete sense to me. The minute you get behind your projected targets you intanstanly become "inaffective", the minute you fail any of yours targets you're a failure. In the real world thats how it works, i'm not for one second sayin Sheapard was a failure but he was by no means even considered a success.

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a f****** disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done f*** off. I'm not saying Shepherd is great, but that point is utter, utter bollocks. fuck off. I'm sayin Shepard was crap, but this point is utter irrelavent.

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . errrr would you like to answer this part please, we'll start slow so a simple yes or no will do for the time being.

Yes martin was a big success , and a good singing by Shepard , but in the big picture is that really an achievement to substantiate the claim he was a good chairman? This was the same chairmen would paid £11m for Luque (nufc.com) £8m for Boum-shlong etc? it can all be flipped around, in fact i dont know why i'm even arguing that point, you've made it for me, why the hell under his chairmenship were we fighting relegation in the first place?? LEt me ask you this then, from when FS took charge, do you think we are where we could/should of been? Do you think that we have progressed as a club in the 10 years he has been in charge? Do you think that from when he took us over when we were title challengers (2nd) to where we are now (Uefa Cup hopefuls) shows a significant level of improvement? If yes then you're a fool, if the answers to theses questions are no, then you are forced to agree therefore that overall he wasn't a succes. Note i have generalised his tenure as Chairmanship and not picked out specific events to make my arguments. he was a signing by Roeder, not Shepherd, and from this point on your argument is pointless, as you clearly don't understand the management structure of a football club. Sorry like . lol, can you read? am not sure why that invalidates my argument, i was replying to someone elses query, in fact yet again, you miss the point of the entrie argument and pick out one tiny insignificant bit, you're embarressingly infuiriating. You seem to have ignored some of my others posts, ones that were directed to you. not being funny like, but where exactly do you come from, and what do you know about the football club ? [ i just know that the skyboys will not approve of this question ] I know they play in black and white, i know they play at Saint Jermeys PArk, i know the players can kick the ball hard....what more is there to know....

In short, the appointment of Allardyce is taking us forwards again, so what is your opinion on that lol, so you admit we were behind? Crikey that sounded alwfully like a minor concede of defeat there, because if you ask me a compentent chairman doesnt allow us to be behind in the first place. Game set and match me thinks. From the moment Shepard said he wasnt going to replace SBR contract hes been a fucking disaster and now you admit we're going back in the right dierection having been in the wrong one for so long. It wasnt that hard ne5 but we got it out of you. Well done