Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[sicsfingeredmong]

Sicsfingeredmong

Do you really think finishing in the top 5 for three years in succession  is better than winning the FA Cup or a European trophy or two

Qualifying for the CL twice, based on table position, and with that receiving the CL-related 'financial benefits' and the 'player pulling power in the transfer market'. Then the answer is yes. Anybody can fluke a Cup win, especially the FA Cup in any given year.

 

Lets leave aside the fact we haven't been able to 'fluke' the FA Cup for 50 years

 

We are specifically talking about chelsea after Harding joined the board.

 

The given year for the FA Cup would be 1997 - 3 years after his cash injection.

 

Chelsea won the cup in 1997 and the following season  completed a successful european campaign to win not only the cup winners cup but also the european super cup after beating real madrid in the final

 

And you would swap all that for 3 top 5 finishes?

 

Wasn't Shepherd's fault that the Halls cashed in their chips & raided the club's coffers accordingly during one particular Summer of transfer market inactivity on our part- ie. The Partizan Summer - or that Robson decided that he'd have the team sit back and defend a 1 goal lead against Partizan, a tactic which blew up in his and ultimately the club's face in a big way.

 

Apparently it was the fault of the manager who was starved of funds for his last 18 months .

 

You know the one who got you the successive top 5 finishes in the first place - the ones you'd prefer to collecting trophies at wembley or winning cups in europe.

 

It could never be the fault of an inept chairman who was unable to raise funds for the transfer market until he'd sacked the said manager responsible for the 3 top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years and appointed a complete dickhead from a lower placed league club in his place.

 

I'd swap Chelsea's cups for those top 5 finishes, especially the former two of which gave us the opportunity to qualify the CL. I'd also swap Chelsea's Cups for Keegan's accomplishments, you know that manager who you've shat on the past who guided us to within 90 minutes of winning the league.

 

Back to those 3 seasons - in particular 01/02 & 02/03 - gave us a substantial platform in which to build on. And you seem to forget that Chelsea, prior to Roman stepping in, came within days of having to offload their best players for financial reasons, at that point in time we pretty much on level terms with them in the league. It's not as if Chelsea hit a Golden Era prior to Roman's injection of cash.

 

I'll ask you a question Ozzie. Was Shepherd responsible for Cameron Hall Ltd being run into the ground by our former no.2, aka. Douglas Hall, during the 3 year span between 99 and 02? The reason i ask is because at about this time the 4.5m share buyback took place - in addition to loyalty bonuses and higher paid out to the The Halls - and if wasn't for Leeds financial plight prior to this share buyback - and i refer to the 4.5m put aside for the Halls - there was a good chance we would not have signed Woodgate. We payed half upfront, and the other half within 12 months of him registering for us so i dispute the myth that the wind changed and Shepherd just refused to back Robson. The Halls' financial plight had the potential to scupper that deal. What sort of level grounded club, financial-wise that is, would sell their best player under the terms we offered them. Shepherd seized an opportunity, based on both club's respective financial situations, and secured a great deal - ie. for Woodgate - with the knowledge that his hands would be tied in the transfer market as explained to you. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't totally s*** as you point out.

 

Whereas i've always been of the opinion, and Cameron Hall's accounts & the relevant timelines support this, is that our downturn in transfer spending ran parallel with Douglas Hall's mismanagement of the his families flagship company ie. when the Cameron Hall's accumulated debts became unmanagable. I assume that you're also aware that the Halls family trust cleared a significant portion of their debts.

 

You seem to forget that the cash used to acquire Buomsong and Babayaro - ie. Clueless' first transfer window, or as you put it thereabouts 'only raised funds for the dicckhead he replaced Robson with - was a transfer market injection that was obtained courtesy of Woodgate's departurr. And what of the 20m+ offer for Rooney in the wake of Woodgate's departure? Was that just fiction, the myth that Manchester United and ourselves worked in conjuction to forcibly remove Rooney from Everton's desperate clutches into Ferguson's waiting arms, or were our numerous bids actually the actions of  a chairman actually backing his manager with the cash that was available at the time?

 

I still find it amazing that you believe that Shepherd was the bloke responsible for sacking the man who guided us those top 5 finishes. There's a reason as to why the club's major shareholders have a boardmember who as executive decision maker has the power to pull the trigger when needed. Amidst a panic-button driven sacking there was only notable boardmember who was bleating "Robson would've got us relegated".

[Cronky]

Sfm - I agree that Shepherd wasn't in control of the amount of money that was available for transfers, and in that area he did a reasonable job. What's more, I don't think that Chairmen should be expected to dip into their own money, or to not get a return on any investment.

 

Where I think he fell down was in two areas. He started to get too much influence over how the money was spent, and which players came and went. (ref Sir Bob's autobiog) Secondly, he gave Shearer this special status within the club, which ended up with Shearer playing on too long. It also limited the number of managers who would be prepared to take on the job after Sir Bob.

 

It's those two areas that led to our decline over the last four seasons.

[2sheds]

Sicsfingeredmong

And you seem to forget that Chelsea, prior to Roman stepping in, came within days of having to offload their best players for financial reasons, at that point in time we pretty much on level terms with them in the league.

 

FFS why don't you read the post you are replying to?

 

I'm talking about Hardings cash he invested in 1994 not Abramovic's in 2003

 

And we were not that financially secure when Ashley bought us.

 

In fact Bates and Shepherd left strikingly similar levels of debt

 

It's not as if Chelsea hit a Golden Era prior to Roman's injection of cash.

 

A quote worthy of using as a signature there

 

Apart from winning the FA cup twice, the League cup once, the cup winners cup, the super cup and the charity shield your answer is 100% correct

 

BTW FWIW I am not Ozzie

 

 

 

 

[Guest alex]

I agree that I'd much rather have the trophies they had in that period over the Keegan and Robson years. No contest for me.

[NE5]

NE5 I'd rather bump this thread to be honest.

 

Claiming Bates success at Chelsea is totally down to Hardings cash is very silly and helps show how inept Freddie was.

 

IF Chelsea's success is due to the £25 million Harding injected into the club - why didn't fred match this level with the £25 million he got from Northern Rock?

 

To quote yourself

I remember Chelsea before Harding stepped in, they were no better than the mackems, and us at the time for that matter, for a long time with Bates as chairman.

 

Yet they won loads of trophies with this cash while we didn't.

 

How can this be? :sad2:

 

 

I'm sorry for you. I've tried to explain and show you that nobody took this cup you are harping on about seriously, but as you are so desperate to show anything that puts Shepherd in a bad light you wish to consider it important, thats your problem.

 

You are clearly young, and know nothing, and won't even be told anything.

 

How about comparing Shepherd and Hall to the 87 other chairmen who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did ? I'm not really surprised this hasn't sunk in yet.

 

You're the sort of hypocrite who will congratulate Ashley when we win a game under Allardyce but criticise Shepherd for appointing him when we lose a game.

 

Now bugger off. You're a pain in the neck, and boring to boot.

 

Nice bit of waffle there NE5 but I don't believe this thread is about '87 other chairmen'

 

Its about Bates and Shepherd and how Bates managed to achieve more success after a cash injection while Freddie didn't.

 

EDIT PS I'm 42 - the last time anyone thought I was 'young' was in a different millennium 

 

 

well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it.

 

Which says something and its quite easy to guess what.

 

Also, how insignificant this cup was that you keep harping on about. Never mind, nobody is worried about it, or was, apart from you.

 

Yes you made your feelings on the various trophies clear at the bottom of page 10 when you wrote:

Don't agree at all with the micky mouse cup analogy. Sorry like. I'd be pleased to win the UEFA Cup or the League Cup, but couldn't give a toss about the Full Members Cup, the Zenith Data Cup, the north east league or even the intertoto for that matter, just so long as we go through to the real competition the next time we are in it.

 

And thus dismissed the only piece of silverware fat fred brought home

 

Now is there any chance of you addressing which chairman used their cash injection most effectively?

 

oh dear.

 

The bit of your post I have highlighted is pretty pathetic for 3 reasons.

 

1 Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

2 Your second sentence says that you were wrong in the first one and is therefore invalid

 

3 (My personal favourite amongst the latest line of s**** from you) - to say 'Also, how insignificant this cup was that you keep harping on about. Never mind, nobody is worried about it, or was, apart from you.' is idiotic when you consider its a comparison of what happened AFTER the cash injections.

 

You have just dismissed the FA Cup (twice), the league cup (again), the cup winners cup and the super cup

 

What a clown you are

 

I don't think so. I just can't be arsed with you.

 

As HTL has said, the stupidest comments I ever see, are from people like you who think the chairman of a football club is the person who decides where the cash is spent.

 

Its even more stupid than someone saying that qualifying for the Champions league, qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4, and NUFC achieving 3 top 5 league finishes for the first time in 50 years is "failure". The fact that you don't understand this, tells its own story.

 

As you are so insistent on blaming a chairman for the club not winning the FA Cup, perhaps in your wisdom you could tell us precisely why it is anyone else's fault other than the players for not turning up in 2 FA Cup Finals ?

 

Only an utter clown would make such an absurd insinuation 

 

 

Your tying yourself in knots here with your bull NE5

 

If you can't be arsed with me - why do you quote and reply to my posts - then ask further questions?

 

Do you really think finishing in the top 5 for three years in succession is better than winning the FA Cup or a European trophy or two?

 

 

Qualifying for the CL twice, based on table position, and with that receiving the CL-related 'financial benefits' and the 'player pulling power in the transfer market'. Then the answer is yes. Anybody can fluke a Cup win, especially the FA Cup in any given year.

 

Wasn't Shepherd's fault that the Halls cashed in their chips & raided the club's coffers accordingly during one particular Summer of transfer market inactivity on our part- ie. The Partizan Summer - or that Robson decided that he'd have the team sit back and defend a 1 goal lead against Partizan, a tactic which blew up in his and ultimately the club's face in a big way.

 

Unfortunately, daft people like 2sheds, think it is.

 

mackems.gif

 

Not to mention the 2 FA Cup finals where players failed to perform, or some League Cup games where Robson fielded a weakened team. Good job his chairman didn't overrule him eh, and tell him to play his best players ? I expect he would have been slaughtered if he had 

 

 

[NE5]

Sfm - I agree that Shepherd wasn't in control of the amount of money that was available for transfers, and in that area he did a reasonable job. What's more, I don't think that Chairmen should be expected to dip into their own money, or to not get a return on any investment.

 

Where I think he fell down was in two areas. He started to get too much influence over how the money was spent, and which players came and went. (ref Sir Bob's autobiog) Secondly, he gave Shearer this special status within the club, which ended up with Shearer playing on too long. It also limited the number of managers who would be prepared to take on the job after Sir Bob.

 

It's those two areas that led to our decline over the last four seasons.

 

pure speculation as always

 

 

[NE5]

Sicsfingeredmong

Do you really think finishing in the top 5 for three years in succession  is better than winning the FA Cup or a European trophy or two

Qualifying for the CL twice, based on table position, and with that receiving the CL-related 'financial benefits' and the 'player pulling power in the transfer market'. Then the answer is yes. Anybody can fluke a Cup win, especially the FA Cup in any given year.

 

Lets leave aside the fact we haven't been able to 'fluke' the FA Cup for 50 years

 

We are specifically talking about chelsea after Harding joined the board.

 

The given year for the FA Cup would be 1997 - 3 years after his cash injection.

 

Chelsea won the cup in 1997 and the following season  completed a successful european campaign to win not only the cup winners cup but also the european super cup after beating real madrid in the final

 

And you would swap all that for 3 top 5 finishes?

 

Wasn't Shepherd's fault that the Halls cashed in their chips & raided the club's coffers accordingly during one particular Summer of transfer market inactivity on our part- ie. The Partizan Summer - or that Robson decided that he'd have the team sit back and defend a 1 goal lead against Partizan, a tactic which blew up in his and ultimately the club's face in a big way.

 

Apparently it was the fault of the manager who was starved of funds for his last 18 months .

 

You know the one who got you the successive top 5 finishes in the first place - the ones you'd prefer to collecting trophies at wembley or winning cups in europe.

 

It could never be the fault of an inept chairman who was unable to raise funds for the transfer market until he'd sacked the said manager responsible for the 3 top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years and appointed a complete dickhead from a lower placed league club in his place.

 

utter tripe.

 

Investigate how much the manager spent in the 3 seasons preceding champions league qualification ie attempting - and succeeding - to qualify for the Champions League. Then ask yourself if you have criticised the spending on Owen, Luque and Boumsong. You can't have it both ways, but I expect you wont' see that. BTW, you are also giving away the fact that you are a bandwagon jumper of the highest order, because if you weren't, you simply wouldn't argue with the significance of having a board that isn't prepared to back their managers, you would have witnessed the results of such a policy first hand.

 

Clueless.

 

I think it's time I left you to make an utter prat of yourself, instead of trying to keep you right 

[NE5]

Sicsfingeredmong

And you seem to forget that Chelsea, prior to Roman stepping in, came within days of having to offload their best players for financial reasons, at that point in time we pretty much on level terms with them in the league.

 

FFS why don't you read the post you are replying to?

 

I'm talking about Hardings cash he invested in 1994 not Abramovic's in 2003

 

And we were not that financially secure when Ashley bought us.

 

In fact Bates and Shepherd left strikingly similar levels of debt

 

It's not as if Chelsea hit a Golden Era prior to Roman's injection of cash.

 

A quote worthy of using as a signature there

 

Apart from winning the FA cup twice, the League cup once, the cup winners cup, the super cup and the charity shield your answer is 100% correct

 

BTW FWIW I am not Ozzie

 

 

he's also made a long post, but as expected - just like you do with me - you ignore the facts that don't suit your "opinion"

 

[2sheds]

To save bandwidth NE5 (and to save you making 1/2 a dozen posts arguing against what you imagine I'm thinking) here is my reply to post 291

 

We are discussing who we would prefer as chairman, Bates or Shepherd.

 

WRONG.

 

YOU may be discussing who you'd prefer, I'm merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that Bates saw more trophies going to Chelsea than freddie did for us

 

 

 

You clearly think that Bates is better because you think he had a direct influence on the performance of Chelsea's players in a couple of Cup Finals. Laughable, and clearly shows you understand absolutely jack s*** about the managerial structure of a football club.

 

See above you do not know what I'm thinking as you have demonstrated.

 

 

 

You are clearly completely unable to see that NUFC is much better off now than it was pre-Shepherd and Hall, as I said, this tells me everything I need to know.

 

I refer you to post 285 where in response to a similar pile of crap from you I said:

Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

Do you have learning difficulties?

 

 

 

Why not compare us to the mackems ? After all, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, we were pretty much level with them, as we had been for a few decades. In fact we were below them, as they were above us in the league, and had also reached the FA Cup Final, where they were soundly beaten by Liverpool which was of course all the fault of Bob Murray  Cry laughing

 

Why do you keep mentioning the mackems?

 

Once again this is about us and chelsea

 

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective. I can tell you that before Harding, Chelsea sometimes got crowds of under 10000, while Bates was chairman, and I know this is true, because I was there a couple of times with a Chelsea supporter that I knew very well. Were you ?

 

On the same occasions you were?

 

I'd need a clue like the date

 

I did go to a couple of games at stamford bridge in the 80s and it was a right hovel - whats your point?

 

 

 

So i you prefer Ken Bates to Shepherd that is your prerogative, but if you read through this thread, other people do too, but laughingly you don't answer my observations and continue to blame the chairman for the poor performance of NUFC players in 2 FA Cup Finals. Hilarious.

If you answered my original point about who saw the most success come to their club with or without a cash injection you might find me a bit more responsive.

 

 

 

I've sussed you out as a bandwagon jumper with a very limited view of the history of the club, in fact you don't even want to know the history of the club. And whats more, you know it.

 

More of the legendary mind reading I see.

 

[2sheds]

he's also made a long post, but as expected - just like you do with me - you ignore the facts that don't suit your "opinion"

 

He also thinks I'm ozzie.

 

He also thinks I'm on about abramovic's cash

 

He appears to have the same learning difficulties as you do.

[NE5]

he's also made a long post, but as expected - just like you do with me - you ignore the facts that don't suit your "opinion"

 

He also thinks I'm ozzie.

 

He also thinks I'm on about abramovic's cash

 

He appears to have the same learning difficulties as you do.

 

nah, I've quoted you solid facts. I'm trying to educate you and explain the bigger picture, and how much the Halls and Shepherd improved the club, but you appear to be a hopeless case, who didn't support the club prior to that, which is why you don't understand.

 

His worthwhile points are waiting for a reply from you though.

 

You also may be ozzie, as you share a common trait, despite what you say but I can't say I'm bothered

 

 

[NE5]

To save bandwidth NE5 (and to save you making 1/2 a dozen posts arguing against what you imagine I'm thinking) here is my reply to post 291

 

We are discussing who we would prefer as chairman, Bates or Shepherd.

 

WRONG.

 

YOU may be discussing who you'd prefer, I'm merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that Bates saw more trophies going to Chelsea than freddie did for us

 

 

 

You clearly think that Bates is better because you think he had a direct influence on the performance of Chelsea's players in a couple of Cup Finals. Laughable, and clearly shows you understand absolutely jack s*** about the managerial structure of a football club.

 

See above you do not know what I'm thinking as you have demonstrated.

 

 

 

You are clearly completely unable to see that NUFC is much better off now than it was pre-Shepherd and Hall, as I said, this tells me everything I need to know.

 

I refer you to post 285 where in response to a similar pile of crap from you I said:

Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

Do you have learning difficulties?

 

 

 

Why not compare us to the mackems ? After all, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, we were pretty much level with them, as we had been for a few decades. In fact we were below them, as they were above us in the league, and had also reached the FA Cup Final, where they were soundly beaten by Liverpool which was of course all the fault of Bob Murray  Cry laughing

 

Why do you keep mentioning the mackems?

 

Once again this is about us and chelsea

 

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective. I can tell you that before Harding, Chelsea sometimes got crowds of under 10000, while Bates was chairman, and I know this is true, because I was there a couple of times with a Chelsea supporter that I knew very well. Were you ?

 

On the same occasions you were?

 

I'd need a clue like the date

 

I did go to a couple of games at stamford bridge in the 80s and it was a right hovel - whats your point?

 

 

 

So i you prefer Ken Bates to Shepherd that is your prerogative, but if you read through this thread, other people do too, but laughingly you don't answer my observations and continue to blame the chairman for the poor performance of NUFC players in 2 FA Cup Finals. Hilarious.

If you answered my original point about who saw the most success come to their club with or without a cash injection you might find me a bit more responsive.

 

 

 

I've sussed you out as a bandwagon jumper with a very limited view of the history of the club, in fact you don't even want to know the history of the club. And whats more, you know it.

 

More of the legendary mind reading I see.

 

 

So, have you any experience of Chelsea during the era's of bates and Harding ? Did you go to Stamford Bridge ? Do you know any Chelsea supporters, past and present ? Did you support Newcastle United pre-1992, if so, how often ?

 

 

[2sheds]

To save bandwidth NE5 (and to save you making 1/2 a dozen posts arguing against what you imagine I'm thinking) here is my reply to post 291

 

We are discussing who we would prefer as chairman, Bates or Shepherd.

 

WRONG.

 

YOU may be discussing who you'd prefer, I'm merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that Bates saw more trophies going to Chelsea than freddie did for us

 

 

 

You clearly think that Bates is better because you think he had a direct influence on the performance of Chelsea's players in a couple of Cup Finals. Laughable, and clearly shows you understand absolutely jack s*** about the managerial structure of a football club.

 

See above you do not know what I'm thinking as you have demonstrated.

 

 

 

You are clearly completely unable to see that NUFC is much better off now than it was pre-Shepherd and Hall, as I said, this tells me everything I need to know.

 

I refer you to post 285 where in response to a similar pile of crap from you I said:

Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

Do you have learning difficulties?

 

 

 

Why not compare us to the mackems ? After all, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, we were pretty much level with them, as we had been for a few decades. In fact we were below them, as they were above us in the league, and had also reached the FA Cup Final, where they were soundly beaten by Liverpool which was of course all the fault of Bob Murray  Cry laughing

 

Why do you keep mentioning the mackems?

 

Once again this is about us and chelsea

 

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective. I can tell you that before Harding, Chelsea sometimes got crowds of under 10000, while Bates was chairman, and I know this is true, because I was there a couple of times with a Chelsea supporter that I knew very well. Were you ?

 

On the same occasions you were?

 

I'd need a clue like the date

 

I did go to a couple of games at stamford bridge in the 80s and it was a right hovel - whats your point?

 

 

 

So i you prefer Ken Bates to Shepherd that is your prerogative, but if you read through this thread, other people do too, but laughingly you don't answer my observations and continue to blame the chairman for the poor performance of NUFC players in 2 FA Cup Finals. Hilarious.

If you answered my original point about who saw the most success come to their club with or without a cash injection you might find me a bit more responsive.

 

 

 

I've sussed you out as a bandwagon jumper with a very limited view of the history of the club, in fact you don't even want to know the history of the club. And whats more, you know it.

 

More of the legendary mind reading I see.

 

 

So, have you any experience of Chelsea during the era's of bates and Harding ? Did you go to Stamford Bridge ? Do you know any Chelsea supporters, past and present ? Did you support Newcastle United pre-1992, if so, how often ?

 

 

 

The answer to your question is highlighted in purple.

 

You really do have learning difficulties don't you?

[NE5]

To save bandwidth NE5 (and to save you making 1/2 a dozen posts arguing against what you imagine I'm thinking) here is my reply to post 291

 

We are discussing who we would prefer as chairman, Bates or Shepherd.

 

WRONG.

 

YOU may be discussing who you'd prefer, I'm merely pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that Bates saw more trophies going to Chelsea than freddie did for us

 

 

 

You clearly think that Bates is better because you think he had a direct influence on the performance of Chelsea's players in a couple of Cup Finals. Laughable, and clearly shows you understand absolutely jack s*** about the managerial structure of a football club.

 

See above you do not know what I'm thinking as you have demonstrated.

 

 

 

You are clearly completely unable to see that NUFC is much better off now than it was pre-Shepherd and Hall, as I said, this tells me everything I need to know.

 

I refer you to post 285 where in response to a similar pile of crap from you I said:

Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

Do you have learning difficulties?

 

 

 

Why not compare us to the mackems ? After all, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, we were pretty much level with them, as we had been for a few decades. In fact we were below them, as they were above us in the league, and had also reached the FA Cup Final, where they were soundly beaten by Liverpool which was of course all the fault of Bob Murray  Cry laughing

 

Why do you keep mentioning the mackems?

 

Once again this is about us and chelsea

 

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective. I can tell you that before Harding, Chelsea sometimes got crowds of under 10000, while Bates was chairman, and I know this is true, because I was there a couple of times with a Chelsea supporter that I knew very well. Were you ?

 

On the same occasions you were?

 

I'd need a clue like the date

 

I did go to a couple of games at stamford bridge in the 80s and it was a right hovel - whats your point?

 

 

 

So i you prefer Ken Bates to Shepherd that is your prerogative, but if you read through this thread, other people do too, but laughingly you don't answer my observations and continue to blame the chairman for the poor performance of NUFC players in 2 FA Cup Finals. Hilarious.

If you answered my original point about who saw the most success come to their club with or without a cash injection you might find me a bit more responsive.

 

 

 

I've sussed you out as a bandwagon jumper with a very limited view of the history of the club, in fact you don't even want to know the history of the club. And whats more, you know it.

 

More of the legendary mind reading I see.

 

 

So, have you any experience of Chelsea during the era's of bates and Harding ? Did you go to Stamford Bridge ? Do you know any Chelsea supporters, past and present ? Did you support Newcastle United pre-1992, if so, how often ?

 

 

The answer to your question is highlighted in purple.

 

You really do have learning difficulties don't you?

 

haha.......no, I don't have learning difficulties. I don't think you can teach me very much though.

 

You are showing your ozzie trait again, if you think you are so expert on Chelsea, why don't you answer what I asked you, because I will tell you now, that I do know Chelsea supporters past and present, and I have been to Stamford Bridge during the era of Bates, Harding, a few times in fact. Apart from admitting that it was a hovel, during the time of bates but not Harding, what exactly is your other experience of this that you think you know of 

 

 

[2sheds]

haha.......no, I don't have learning difficulties. I don't think you can teach me very much though.

 

You are showing your ozzie trait again, if you think you are so expert on Chelsea, why don't you answer what I asked you, because I will tell you now, that I do know Chelsea supporters past and present, and I have been to Stamford Bridge during the era of Bates, Harding, a few times in fact. Apart from admitting that it was a hovel, during the time of bates but not Harding, what exactly is your other experience of this that you think you know of  Laughing

 

Do you see how you can save yourself from asking stupid questions by simply reading the post you are replying to?

 

You asked me 4 questions 2 of which you now admit were silly on reflection.

 

As for the rest - the games I went to at Stamford Bridge in the 80s were the ones we played in and I have been back a few times since.

 

And yes I know some chelsea fans - I've worked with one for 25 years does that help?

[macbeth]

utter tripe.

 

Investigate how much the manager spent in the 3 seasons preceding champions league qualification ie attempting - and succeeding - to qualify for the Champions League. Then ask yourself if you have criticised the spending on Owen, Luque and Boumsong. You can't have it both ways, but I expect you wont' see that. BTW, you are also giving away the fact that you are a bandwagon jumper of the highest order, because if you weren't, you simply wouldn't argue with the significance of having a board that isn't prepared to back their managers, you would have witnessed the results of such a policy first hand.

 

Clueless.

 

I think it's time I left you to make an utter prat of yourself, instead of trying to keep you right 

 

which did you think was the correct approach ?

[NE5]

haha.......no, I don't have learning difficulties. I don't think you can teach me very much though.

 

You are showing your ozzie trait again, if you think you are so expert on Chelsea, why don't you answer what I asked you, because I will tell you now, that I do know Chelsea supporters past and present, and I have been to Stamford Bridge during the era of Bates, Harding, a few times in fact. Apart from admitting that it was a hovel, during the time of bates but not Harding, what exactly is your other experience of this that you think you know of  Laughing

 

Do you see how you can save yourself from asking stupid questions by simply reading the post you are replying to?

 

You asked me 4 questions 2 of which you now admit were silly on reflection.

 

As for the rest - the games I went to at Stamford Bridge in the 80s were the ones we played in and I have been back a few times since.

 

And yes I know some chelsea fans - I've worked with one for 25 years does that help?

 

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan. In any case, as you don't appear to have much understanding of Newcastle Uniteds history, why should I believe you have any understanding of anyone else's

 

Going by your logic, we won the Fairs Cup while Lord Westwood was chairman, so it makes him better. I don't think there is a NUFC fan anywhere who would say he was a better chairman than any of the Halls and Shepherd. Apart from you, probably, which again, tells you something.

 

I think that it is you who is making a complete prat of yourself, blaming the chairman of a football club for a team not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals, which is what you are clearly doing by drawing comparison with Chelsea winning  and us losing - twice. Not to mention that fact that they also did not play the current champions going for the double.

 

Its probably the most idiotic thing I've read on any message board. I said I would let you carry looking a prat for the above, but this time I am, I would rather have Shepherd than Bates, and I really don't give a toss how many times you claim Bates is better, because I don't agree.

 

 

[NE5]

utter tripe.

 

Investigate how much the manager spent in the 3 seasons preceding champions league qualification ie attempting - and succeeding - to qualify for the Champions League. Then ask yourself if you have criticised the spending on Owen, Luque and Boumsong. You can't have it both ways, but I expect you wont' see that. BTW, you are also giving away the fact that you are a bandwagon jumper of the highest order, because if you weren't, you simply wouldn't argue with the significance of having a board that isn't prepared to back their managers, you would have witnessed the results of such a policy first hand.

 

Clueless.

 

I think it's time I left you to make an utter prat of yourself, instead of trying to keep you right 

 

which did you think was the correct approach ?

 

Backing the manager. I'm surprised you have asked this, I've made it plain enough in the past. I know you don't though, which is why I've said you must have loved it when we had directors who lost our best players through not showing ambition.

 

 

[Baggio]

Sfm - I agree that Shepherd wasn't in control of the amount of money that was available for transfers, and in that area he did a reasonable job. What's more, I don't think that Chairmen should be expected to dip into their own money, or to not get a return on any investment.

 

Where I think he fell down was in two areas. He started to get too much influence over how the money was spent, and which players came and went. (ref Sir Bob's autobiog) Secondly, he gave Shearer this special status within the club, which ended up with Shearer playing on too long. It also limited the number of managers who would be prepared to take on the job after Sir Bob.

 

It's those two areas that led to our decline over the last four seasons.

 

pure speculation as always

 

 

 

How can something in Sir Bobby's book be "Pure speculation" yet the part in Keegan's book where he said SJH didn't want him and it was Hall jr, Shepherd and Fletcher influenced his decision be seen as fact?

[2sheds]

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan.

 

Quote where I stated what my chelsea supporting friend did or did not say about Bates

 

I refuse to read any more of your reply past your first ill conceived assumption.

[NE5]

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan.

 

Quote where I stated what my chelsea supporting friend did or did not say about Bates

 

I refuse to read any more of your reply past your first ill conceived assumption.

 

nevertheless, you are saying that it is Shepherds fault that Newcastle Uniteds players didn't perform in 2 Cup Finals, against double winning teams, as against Bates, who's players beat inferior opposition, are you not ?

 

mackems.gif

 

[2sheds]

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan.

 

Quote where I stated what my chelsea supporting friend did or did not say about Bates

 

I refuse to read any more of your reply past your first ill conceived assumption.

 

nevertheless, you are saying that it is Shepherds fault that Newcastle Uniteds players didn't perform in 2 Cup Finals, against double winning teams, as against Bates, who's players beat inferior opposition, are you not ?

 

mackems.gif

 

 

No I'm not

 

I haven't mentioned our 2 cup final appearences - you have.

STOP WITH THE ILL CONCEIVED ASSUMPTIONS

[NE5]

Sfm - I agree that Shepherd wasn't in control of the amount of money that was available for transfers, and in that area he did a reasonable job. What's more, I don't think that Chairmen should be expected to dip into their own money, or to not get a return on any investment.

 

Where I think he fell down was in two areas. He started to get too much influence over how the money was spent, and which players came and went. (ref Sir Bob's autobiog) Secondly, he gave Shearer this special status within the club, which ended up with Shearer playing on too long. It also limited the number of managers who would be prepared to take on the job after Sir Bob.

 

It's those two areas that led to our decline over the last four seasons.

 

pure speculation as always

 

 

 

How can something in Sir Bobby's book be "Pure speculation" yet the part in Keegan's book where he said SJH didn't want him and it was Hall jr, Shepherd and Fletcher influenced his decision be seen as fact?

 

What, Bobby Robson says that people didn't want to succeed him because of the influence of Shearer ?

 

Utter bollocks.

 

Also, we all know that Bobby Robson had lost the plot and was saying daft things, in particular his absurd comment that selling Carl Cort made a profit for the club, wtf was all that about ??

 

The real point of my comment, was to highlight that Mr bobyule fairly regularly "thinks" things, and by co-incidence, they are ALWAYS anti Shepherd "thoughts". Strange, don't some people look at facts ie only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, 52000 people were unhappy enough to stump up season ticket cash, and nobody else in 50 years was chairman of the club when we finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive seasons ?

 

 

[NE5]

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan.

 

Quote where I stated what my chelsea supporting friend did or did not say about Bates

 

I refuse to read any more of your reply past your first ill conceived assumption.

 

nevertheless, you are saying that it is Shepherds fault that Newcastle Uniteds players didn't perform in 2 Cup Finals, against double winning teams, as against Bates, who's players beat inferior opposition, are you not ?

 

mackems.gif

 

 

No I'm not

 

I haven't mentioned our 2 cup final appearences - you have.

 

Well, well well, who's the little liar now then  mackems.gif

[2sheds]

Basically speaking, if he doesn't realise that Bates was giong  nowhere until Harding joined the board, he can't be much of a Chelsea fan.

 

Quote where I stated what my chelsea supporting friend did or did not say about Bates

 

I refuse to read any more of your reply past your first ill conceived assumption.

 

nevertheless, you are saying that it is Shepherds fault that Newcastle Uniteds players didn't perform in 2 Cup Finals, against double winning teams, as against Bates, who's players beat inferior opposition, are you not ?

 

mackems.gif

 

 

No I'm not

 

I haven't mentioned our 2 cup final appearences - you have.

 

Well, well well, who's the little liar now then  mackems.gif

 

You are - as I have proven.

 

If you want to prove the same for me simply quote where I have mentioned them