Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[Mick]

 

Sir John rang Keegan and said they were the only 2 people who could save Newcastle after Keegan walked out after the Swindon game.

 

What do you think of a businessman, or a football chairman, who puts friendships above the interests of the football club when the club was on the way down to the 3rd division  ?

 

 

 

Keegan seemed to think it was when he first got the job, he said as much in the Chronicle earlier this year.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2007/04/18/exclusive-full-kevin-keegan-interview-72703-18923168/

 

"When Newcastle came calling for me it was very exciting," recalled Kevin.

 

"John Hall phoned and said `Only two people can save Newcastle United and they are talking to each other right now.' That was a powerful message.

 

"We went on a rollercoaster ride, all of us together. Douglas Hall and Freddy Shepherd were great when I was there. John was the figurehead but they drove the club forward. And chief executive Freddie Fletcher – we called him the Jockweiler – was also vital in our era.

 

As for your second comment, Sir John Hall would have been stupid to let a friendship get in the way of making the right decision, it's a good job that he didn't do it.

[Mick]

 

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 ?

 

 

 

You claim that Sir Bobby had lost the plot at the time of writing the book yet you were more than happy to use him to endorse Shepherd later on when he said something good about him, how does that one work?

 

You have been told many times that we did make an accounting profit on Carl Cort as we'd paid for him in full.

[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

 

You are - as I have proven.

 

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

 

I'm not so sad that I can be bothered looking, I've better things to do with my time. Tell you what though, you can clarify if the point you are making is that Chelsea won 2 cups that nobody gave a toss about compared to us, or a couple of meaningful trophies in which case explain how the chairman is responsible for how players perform in a major Cup Final.

 

Its totally up to you. Others will decide on the merits of chairman being responsible for players not performing in a Cup Final, or otherwise.

 

You are most definitely the person who has mentioned both of these points to me, if you deny it then you are without doubt a liar.

 

 

[NE5]

 

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 ?

 

 

 

You claim that Sir Bobby had lost the plot at the time of writing the book yet you were more than happy to use him to endorse Shepherd later on when he said something good about him, how does that one work?

 

You have been told many times that we did make an accounting profit on Carl Cort as we'd paid for him in full.

 

Buying for 7m quid, making about 10 appearances a season and selling for 2m doesn't equate to any profit in any book.

 

Surely only Bobby Robson believed that 

[NE5]

 

Sir John rang Keegan and said they were the only 2 people who could save Newcastle after Keegan walked out after the Swindon game.

 

What do you think of a businessman, or a football chairman, who puts friendships above the interests of the football club when the club was on the way down to the 3rd division  ?

 

 

Keegan seemed to think it was when he first got the job, he said as much in the Chronicle earlier this year.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2007/04/18/exclusive-full-kevin-keegan-interview-72703-18923168/

 

"When Newcastle came calling for me it was very exciting," recalled Kevin.

 

"John Hall phoned and said `Only two people can save Newcastle United and they are talking to each other right now.' That was a powerful message.

 

"We went on a rollercoaster ride, all of us together. Douglas Hall and Freddy Shepherd were great when I was there. John was the figurehead but they drove the club forward. And chief executive Freddie Fletcher – we called him the Jockweiler – was also vital in our era.

 

As for your second comment, Sir John Hall would have been stupid to let a friendship get in the way of making the right decision, it's a good job that he didn't do it.

 

he says in page 215 of his book, talking about the events after the Swindon game "he (Sir John) was reneging on our deal. I told him this when he rang. He urged me to calm down, and it was then he said that the only 2 people who could save the club were talking to each other at that moment, and that I would get the money he had promised".

 

Interesting that the great Sir John [who of course had no say whatsoever in anything the club did as major shareholder after he stepped down as chairman) was attempting to tell porkies to his manager and even worse show a reluctance to back him after giving his word, we won't even mention a total lack of understanding of the needs of the club at that stage.

 

It's a good job he listened to Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd, or Keegan would never have been appointed.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the shit people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

[2sheds]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the s*** people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

 

To me?

 

To you

 

Bye

[NE5]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the s*** people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

 

To me?

 

To you

 

Bye

 

Now. I didn't expect you to answer me, but HTL has put together all the relevant points into a single post for you, and you still don't.

 

I think that speaks volumes.

 

Bye.

 

 

[GM]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the s*** people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

 

To me?

 

To you

 

Bye

 

Now. I didn't expect you to answer me, but HTL has put together all the relevant points into a single post for you, and you still don't.

 

I think that speaks volumes.

 

Bye.

 

 

 

Can't wait for the next riveting instalment.

[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

 

I'm not so sad that I can be bothered looking, I've better things to do with my time. Tell you what though, you can clarify if the point you are making is that Chelsea won 2 cups that nobody gave a toss about compared to us, or a couple of meaningful trophies in which case explain how the chairman is responsible for how players perform in a major Cup Final.

 

Its totally up to you. Others will decide on the merits of chairman being responsible for players not performing in a Cup Final, or otherwise.

 

You are most definitely the person who has mentioned both of these points to me, if you deny it then you are without doubt a liar.

 

You were in a posting frenzy replying almost instantly right up to the point where I asked you to prove I mentioned the 2 fa cup finals we lost - the timestamps on your posts prove this.

 

You return 2 hours later claiming 'you can't be bothered to look'

 

Thats believable

 

You then repeat the same assertion you cannot prove

 

You are now up to question number 457869457634 you have asked me yet haven't answered my original point - and you expect a reply? :nay:

 

Clown

[2sheds]

Less of the tag teaming chuckle brothers you know my policy on answering both of you in the same thread.

[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

 

You are - as I have proven.

 

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

 

I'm not so sad that I can be bothered looking, I've better things to do with my time. Tell you what though, you can clarify if the point you are making is that Chelsea won 2 cups that nobody gave a toss about compared to us, or a couple of meaningful trophies in which case explain how the chairman is responsible for how players perform in a major Cup Final.

 

Its totally up to you. Others will decide on the merits of chairman being responsible for players not performing in a Cup Final, or otherwise.

 

You are most definitely the person who has mentioned both of these points to me, if you deny it then you are without doubt a liar.

 

You were in a posting frenzy replying almost instantly right up to the point where I asked you to prove I mentioned the 2 fa cup finals we lost - the timestamps on your posts prove this.

 

You return 2 hours later claiming 'you can't be bothered to look'

 

Thats believable

 

You then repeat the same assertion you cannot prove

 

You are now up to question number 457869457634 you have asked me yet haven't answered my original point - and you expect a reply? :nay:

 

Clown

 

Clowns refuse to deny the quite obvious opinion they have that Chairman of football clubs have a direct influence on players in one- off football matches.

 

I've never heard anything so stupid, and you don't even attempt to defend your comments that suggest so.

 

It was worth making a few other posts, just to amplify how much of an idiot you are making yourself look.

 

For someone who says they are 42, to deny all the points and facts that have been raised, concerning the history of the club and the comparison with the ex boards predecessors to emphasise the massive progress they made under their time running the club, is quite staggering.

 

You had your chance to provide some intelligence and good comment to this thread. It's clearly beyond you, and I bet you haven't even looked at the league tables that HTL mentioned, which may have helped you.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the s*** people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

 

To me?

 

To you

 

Bye

 

You make me laugh. You have an opportunity to engage in a proper debate with me yet you refuse to do so. I think I made some decent points to counter your argument and you have no answer.

 

I know people are bored by the subject under discussion, but I think you've just made yourself look very much a fool with that post above.  I'll leave it to other members to decide whether or not you've realised you'll fall flat on your face by trying the debating idea.

 

Cheers

 

Leg Humper

 

[2sheds]

I just thought I'd quote my first post in this thread - reply number 79

Great wikipedia link there NE5

By the end of his chairmanship Stamford Bridge had been substantially refurbished and modernised, while he had become (at the time) Chelsea's most successful chairman. The club had won several major trophies and were consistently finishing in the top six of the Premiership, with a top-class playing squad containing the likes of Gianfranco Zola and Marcel Desailly. However, its future was threatened by an estimated debt burden of £80 million.

 

 

That sounds like the shepherd story here - only without the trophies and the consistent top 6 finishes.

 

 

********sits back and awaits the inevitable response of ' pre 1992 s*** board/4th best finishes over last 10 years/skyboy with an axe to grind etc etc etc'*******************

 

Just call me Nostradamus 

 

 

[NE5]

shed bloke

 

In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred.  I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture?

 

Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board.

 

Some of these reasons could be...

1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck)

2. Poor team selection

3. Poor tactics

4. Players performing badly on the day

5. Just bad luck on the day

 

None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection?

 

You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the s*** people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old.

 

 

Leg Humper

 

To me?

 

To you

 

Bye

 

You make me laugh. You have an opportunity to engage in a proper debate with me yet you refuse to do so. I think I made some decent points to counter your argument and you have no answer.

 

I know people are bored by the subject under discussion, but I think you've just made yourself look very much a fool with that post above.  I'll leave it to other members to decide whether or not you've realised you'll fall flat on your face by trying the debating idea.

 

Cheers

 

Leg Humper

 

 

bump

 

[Dave]

He's offline. Who are you bumping it for?

[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

 

You are - as I have proven.

 

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

 

I'm not so sad that I can be bothered looking, I've better things to do with my time. Tell you what though, you can clarify if the point you are making is that Chelsea won 2 cups that nobody gave a toss about compared to us, or a couple of meaningful trophies in which case explain how the chairman is responsible for how players perform in a major Cup Final.

 

Its totally up to you. Others will decide on the merits of chairman being responsible for players not performing in a Cup Final, or otherwise.

 

You are most definitely the person who has mentioned both of these points to me, if you deny it then you are without doubt a liar.

 

 

 

bump

 

 

[NE5]

He's offline. Who are you bumping it for?

 

anyone who fancies a laugh Dave, basically.

 

As I don't expect him to engage an intelligent discussion, he lost that a while back

 

 

[Dave]

There's only you who finds it funny to be fair. Just bookmark it.

[TRon]

So is Freddie Shepherd buying Leeds then?

 

 

[Dave]

So is Freddie Shepherd buying Leeds then?

 

 

 

Not until they get to 5th in League One (or Two, if you're Deep).

[sicsfingeredmong]

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

 

 

 

 

 

Post 94/Harding's cash contribution: I'd say that we've still matched, or even bettered, Chelsea's spending in the transfer market - and that's despite having a period which also conincided with the share floatation ie. a point in time where it was apparent that transfer spending & expenditure would become tight. This is a significant reason identified as to why Keegan walked away/why he couldn't take the team any further. While i was in favour of the form & fitness induced departure of Asprilla at a later time is it not a coincidence that Keegan's successor immediately broke-up an attacking quartet in one swoop only to paper over the cracks with an unproven Dane.

 

I'd say that Dalglish was the one manager who didn't get the backing other managers received, yes. But circumstances dictated this at the time. But apart from that every other manager has been sufficiently backed. In the case of Souness, had we not taken the multi-year sponsorship from Northern Rock in one hit - to fund Owen's transfer, we would have been relegated. So yes we weren't in a financially stable position - ie. akin to pre-Abramovich Chelsea - but would you have preferred? Football in the Fizzy Pop League - and that's what we would've copped had it not been for Owen's goals two years ago, & a sharp rise in what was managed debt ie. the SJP redevelopment debt getting out of control when the club would most likely not have filled the seats required to pay it off  ie. a drop off in season tickets sold.

 

Mort, and blokes like yourself for that matter, can bleat on about the accounts. They're probably not that pretty and let's not forget that Real Madrid is what you'd call a 'bank-financed rolling debt machine', and we've got to solely take Mort's word for it as the accounts are no longer accessible for the everyday punter, but would they/Ashley have been interested in buying a club struggling in the First Division - ie. after we'd sold our best players - with a 1/3 or 1/2 empty stadium to show for that position.

 

You speak of Bates' reign, in comparison with Shepherd's, in glowing terms................. yet it's taken two major cash injections, from separate investors, to bail them out of the s****. What our board has been guilty of, and this has been the case on two occasions & this relates to transfer expenditure, is not strengthening the team when a strong platform had been built, and this is due to timing isn't it. But these 2 missed opportunities were brought about by two significant chapters as illustrated - one of which involved the club directly, the other - Douglas Hall's management of C.Hall - being an external influence yet the said companie's downfall had far reaching implications on our club's finances.

 

 

With regards to that signature ie. the Golden Era between 94 and 03. How many league titles, or better yet how many top 3/4 finishes did they secure in that time, afterall league placing is the true barometer in which to judge a club/team's impact over a period, as opposed to an incompetantly managed club such as ours.

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

There's only you who finds it funny to be fair. Just bookmark it.

 

I find it funny, and slightly sad, to be honest. That someone can be so ignorant, and refuse to engage in a debate while professing that they know what they are talking about. Because, he doesn't.

 

I do, which is why I kept on going.

 

You can't put the points made by myself any clearer than I and HTL have done. He's had a chance to explain his logic, whatever it is.

 

EDIT. I forgot to add Shaman to myself and HTL. Nice of him also to find the post where shed mentions the FA Cup, despite him denying it  mackems.gif

 

 

 

[2sheds]

 

 

 

 

HTL if you want me to address your post form a separate thread and I will go through it line by line

 

I do think its quite a good post worthy of a response - in all seriousness

 

I won't bother with your mate there though

 

FWIW you are now the leg humpee after the sycophant display of NE5 in his last few posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

No, don't make another thread.