Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[NE5]

NE5 in trouble, where are LeazesMag and Beermonster to the rescue?

 

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.

 

 

[2sheds]

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

 

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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

 

 

 

 

[Delima]

NE5 in trouble, where are LeazesMag and Beermonster to the rescue?

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?

[Cronky]

If this is true, Freddie had better watch out. Bates will eat him for breakfast.

[fredbob]

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

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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.

[NE5]

NE5 in trouble, where are LeazesMag and Beermonster to the rescue?

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.

 

 

 

[NE5]

If this is true, Freddie had better watch out. Bates will eat him for breakfast.

 

mackems.gif

[NE5]

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

 

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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 

[NE5]

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

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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.

 

Aside of the fact that deciphering your poor grammar doesn't make replying so easy, you can dig up any post you like, but you will see that in context I have said that a League Cup win would be good for the club, on the platform of a good and improving League position, and it would release a lot of pressure on the club to win a trophy at last. I saw the belief that the players had after winning the Fairs Cup in 1969, so understand what such things can do. Did you ? The most tragic thing is that we had a shite board, who didn't even attempt to build on this success, the only player they bought on the back of it was an enigmatic and inconsistent Scottish midfield player for the amount of money that they would otherwise have paid in tax from the proceeds of the Cup run. Do you remember this ? Or are you going to tell me that you know best 

 

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, however, that a solitary League Cup win ie when Leicester beat Tranmere for instance, is nowhere near qualifying for europe more than everyone but 4 teams over the course of a decade.

 

Care to answer a question ? Why do you think we didnt' win the League Cup in the years that Leicester beat Tranmere ? Or the smoggies won, and Blackburn won, for instance ? Do you think its because they had a better board of directors ?

 

Hilarious that like, but sadly, its the point you appear to be making  mackems.gif

[2sheds]

NE5 in trouble, where are LeazesMag and Beermonster to the rescue?

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

[2sheds]

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

 

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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

 

[Rob W]

I can't beleive th e discussion about harding v Bates -

 

Harding was a really good guy, hard businessman, did a great deal for CHelsea

 

Bates hides behind starnge companies in offshore jurisdictions, lots of strange deals and nearly sank Chelsea - they were 4 days away from banruptcy when Roman turned up.............. 

 

I'm no big friend of fat Fred's as you probably know but I beleive, on balance, he meant well and didn't do a really bad job at SJP

[Dinho lad]

I said I wasn't this beermonster,

 

you're fooling us all. 

[Syrette]

Quote pyramid time!

[Dave]

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

 

Yeah!

[Guest DazzaNufc1892]

will be good for leeds IMO, a chairman with a bit more cash than bates, and who genuinly, despite how fookin shi*e he is, does appaear to care. One things for sure though, leeds will have graeme souness in charge to help them climb through the ranks

[Mick]

 

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.

 

 

 

Do you think an FA Cup final defeat is better than a League Cup win?

[James]

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Quote pyramid time!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

Yeah!

 

Dude, stop.

[NE5]

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

 

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the only time we achieved 3 consecutive top 5 finishes in the last 50 years, was when Shepherd was chairman. Fact.

 

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

 

 

[NE5]

I said I wasn't this beermonster,

 

you're fooling us all. 

 

you're not easily fooled you, are you Dinho lad.

 

mackems.gif

 

Fraser will vouch for that

[NE5]

 

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.

 

 

 

Do you think an FA Cup final defeat is better than a League Cup win?

 

 

what are you on about now 

 

Edit: if you can answer the question I asked at the end of post nr 133, it may help you understand, but then again, if you don't understand by now, or bring yourself to admit it by now .........

 

 

[NE5]

will be good for leeds IMO, a chairman with a bit more cash than bates, and who genuinly, despite how fookin shi*e he is, does appaear to care. One things for sure though, leeds will have graeme souness in charge to help them climb through the ranks

 

Alan Shearer ?

 

 

[Dokko]

Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has confirmed weekend reports suggesting he had spoken to Freddy Shepherd recently, but insists he is not about to sell the League One side to the former Newcastle United supremo.

 

Bates says he discussed future investment opportunities with Shepherd but is adamant that he has no plans to sell United.

 

He told Yorkshire Radio: "This is inspired speculation because Freddy and I had lunch last week in Newcastle.

 

"But he's not about to swoop in a 'sensational deal' for Leeds and I'm not about to sell it either.

 

"Inevitably the subject of football came up, and he's still a bit sore about what happened at Newcastle. He'd like to get back in and I would like an investor, so the two fit in.

 

"Freddy is a wise old man - although he's younger than me - he's experienced and he would be an ideal partner, but it's gossip. I'm here for the long haul."

[Guest Phil K]

oh Leeds'll cost in the region of...what... £2:50 ?

[Mick]

 

 

what are you on about now 

 

Edit: if you can answer the question I asked at the end of post nr 133, it may help you understand, but then again, if you don't understand by now, or bring yourself to admit it by now .........

 

 

 

I haven't read the question in post 133.

 

I couldn't get past the first line for some reason.  I just read up to where you of all people were having a go at somebody for his use of grammar, I cringed and skipped the rest of the post.