Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[2sheds]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

[2sheds]

No, don't make another thread.

 

Dave I need to separate the wheat from the chaff

[Howaythelads]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is.

 

By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5.

 

On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected.

[2sheds]

Policy suspended for this post

 

 

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

 

 

I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is.

 

By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5.

 

On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected.

 

Re read the bits in bold again.

 

I am more than happy to address the points in your post under the conditions I have indicated.

 

However linking why the teams did not play well at the final to the board is a concept your mate introduced into this thread.

 

Read from post 133 and you'll see what I mean.

 

You popped up shortly afterward and backed him in this line of debate.

 

I haven't addressed the issue at all but you two have been going hammer and tongs against my supposed position on the matter.

 

Perhaps now you can see why I would prefer to separate you two.

 

Better still why not communicate directly to NE5?

 

After all its the words he puts into my mouth you take issue with :giggle:

[NE5]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

[Guest BigSamsBarmyArmy]

Shepherd will take Leeds to where they belong, hopefully. The Blue Square North

[Howaythelads]

Policy suspended for this post

 

 

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

 

 

I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is.

 

By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5.

 

On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected.

 

Re read the bits in bold again.

 

I am more than happy to address the points in your post under the conditions I have indicated.

 

However linking why the teams did not play well at the final to the board is a concept your mate introduced into this thread.

 

Read from post 133 and you'll see what I mean.

 

You popped up shortly afterward and backed him in this line of debate.

 

I haven't addressed the issue at all but you two have been going hammer and tongs against my supposed position on the matter.

 

Perhaps now you can see why I would prefer to separate you two.

 

Better still why not communicate directly to NE5?

 

After all its the words he puts into my mouth you take issue with :giggle:

 

I don't "back" NE5, although I can see why you'd want to churn out that daft line. I make my own responses according to what I read.

 

As for "hammer and tongs."  This is as clear an exaggeration as I've ever seen, but whatever excuse suits you....

Cheers

[Mick]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish spent almost £16 million more than he brought back in through sales, he was backed more than any manager other than Souness under Shepherd so I think the theory that the floatation of the club caused us financial restraints goes straight out of the window.  Dalglish spent something like £26 million while bringing in £10.4 million.

 

Sir Bobby was backed the least per year, then comes Gullit followed by Roeder.

 

As for the figures produced by Chris Mort, he hasn't really said anything about how much debt we had that we didn't already know, the only thing he's really added is that he thought that we were going to have problems repaying the debt.

 

Yesterday I read something you posted about the Hall's selling shares for £4.5 million, they did do that but they deferred half of that amount, they didn't take it all in one go and they also sold the shares to the club for a fraction of what they could have sold them for on the open market, they sold them for 27.1p at a time that the market valued them at 40p each.  They could have sold 25% less shares on the open market and raised the same amount of cash and received the total amount a year earlier.

 

Cameron Hall was in a very poor position but I'm not sure how that effected the club although the football club did guarantee a loan which Cameron Hall had taken out, obviously the club would have taken a financial hit if Cameron Hall had of defaulted on the loan but I don't think that happened.

 

[Mick]

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Is the league table the barometer which we should judge us and Chelsea during the times being debated?  I'm guessing that you will agree that it is as you're happy to dismiss cups won by Chelsea while we won nothing but did better than they did in the league.

[NE5]

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Is the league table the barometer which we should judge us and Chelsea during the times being debated?  I'm guessing that you will agree that it is as you're happy to dismiss cups won by Chelsea while we won nothing but did better than they did in the league.

 

I'm not dismissing anything. You should read through this thread again. I'm looking at the bigger picture. The fact is that the board have backed our managers more than enough to enable them to put together teams that have been good enough to lift trophies. The fact that Chelsea won a couple of cups and we didn't quite manage it is not down to the chairmen of either club. There are a number of things that determine such things, such as level of opposition, managers getting tactics and team selection wrong, attitude and courage of players on the day. None of these things can be effected by any chairman. YOu should know this, and Isuspect that you do, but you are just trotting out a line that suits you because its a rod to beat our ex board with, although you appear to have forgotten they have been the best board of the last 50 years that we have had anyway.

 

 

[danswan]

So is Freddy Shepherd going to buy Leeds then?

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish spent almost £16 million more than he brought back in through sales, he was backed more than any manager other than Souness under Shepherd so I think the theory that the floatation of the club caused us financial restraints goes straight out of the window.  Dalglish spent something like £26 million while bringing in £10.4 million.

 

Sir Bobby was backed the least per year, then comes Gullit followed by Roeder.

 

As for the figures produced by Chris Mort, he hasn't really said anything about how much debt we had that we didn't already know, the only thing he's really added is that he thought that we were going to have problems repaying the debt.

 

Yesterday I read something you posted about the Hall's selling shares for £4.5 million, they did do that but they deferred half of that amount, they didn't take it all in one go and they also sold the shares to the club for a fraction of what they could have sold them for on the open market, they sold them for 27.1p at a time that the market valued them at 40p each.  They could have sold 25% less shares on the open market and raised the same amount of cash and received the total amount a year earlier.

 

Cameron Hall was in a very poor position but I'm not sure how that effected the club although the football club did guarantee a loan which Cameron Hall had taken out, obviously the club would have taken a financial hit if Cameron Hall had of defaulted on the loan but I don't think that happened.

 

 

The bold section i've highlighted - in reference to Dalglish's reign - is what i refer to 'not being sufficiently backed'. Timing in the transfer market is everything isn't it Mick, especially when the groundwork has been layed during the previous season.

 

But Dalglish's first transfer market here, after we'd secured a CL finish, saw him railroaded when he should've further builded. Purchasing the likes of Barnes, Rush and giving an opportunity to his son - and these guys were the replacements at varyign stages for Ginola (Barnes: creative predominantly left-sided/central midfielder) Ferdinand and Asprilla (Rush and Dalglish respectively - *smells more of a manager having to use his previous links/history to inexpensively replace players he's had to offload. *That was my opinion then, and this is still the case to this day.

 

With regards to Halls' share sell-off. Given the financial situation of Cameron Hall at the time, and they needed money quick - C.Hall between 99 and 02/03 experienced a profit-loss turnaround over 100m - they weren't exactly in the power position of strength when negotiating selling terms with the club. Mick, if you look at the accounts which pertain to the period relating to Partizan Summer & payments made out to the Halls on the back of our CL campaign, you'll notice the 'loyalty payments' 'bonuses' and the 'high dividends' so often complained. Those extra payments, minus the dividends of course, partially make-up for the Halls offloading their shares for less than the going rate. I still stand by my argument that more than enough the 01/02 CL revenue ended up in the Halls' pockets, when C.Hall hit the wall financially.

 

One other thing if Wenger's respective net spend, on a per-yearly basis, works out close to or less than Dalglish/Gullit/Souness/Roeder - ie. our 4 most backed managers according to the popularly used net-spend figure when those bash our total transfer expenditure over the last decade+ - will you be prepared to say that Arsenal similarly don't back their managers.

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

Cameron Hall was in a very poor position but I'm not sure how that effected the club although the football club did guarantee a loan which Cameron Hall had taken out, obviously the club would have taken a financial hit if Cameron Hall had of defaulted on the loan but I don't think that happened.

 

 

 

 

It does have a bearing *if the major shareholders are taking out bonuses and dividends which are disproportionate to the club's lack of silverware/sustained success.        *an argument often used by those against the Halls in particular.

 

BTW i'm happy the Halls have cleared the scene. As the club's major shareholder, whose financial empire lies in ruins when compared to its former glory, they became a liability. Douglas Hall, from what i've heard/read, garnered himself a reputation as being an impulsive decision maker during his chairmanship reign at C.Hall. The sacking of Robson, which barely a month into the season had Hall crying out "he would've got us relegated", was an impulsive sacking which had 'panic button' written all over it. I'm relieved the club is free of this type of 'uninformed decision making' as the big occasion should be free of. IMO D.Hall was a harbinger of this unwarranted decision making process.

[Mick]

 

 

It does have a bearing *if the major shareholders are taking out bonuses and dividends which are disproportionate to the club's lack of silverware/sustained success.         *an argument often used by those against the Halls in particular.

 

BTW i'm happy the Halls have cleared the scene. As the club's major shareholder, whose financial empire lies in ruins when compared to its former glory, they became a liability. Douglas Hall, from what i've heard/read, garnered himself a reputation as being an impulsive decision maker during his chairmanship reign at C.Hall. The sacking of Robson, which barely a month into the season had Hall crying out "he would've got us relegated", was an impulsive sacking which had 'panic button' written all over it. I'm relieved the club is free of this type of 'uninformed decision making' as the big occasion should be free of. IMO D.Hall was a harbinger of this unwarranted decision making process.

 

I'm glad they've all gone, Sir John did a good job and Shepherd has done Ok at times, mainly the ground expansion and with the appointment of Sir Bobby.  I can't think anything good to say about Douglas although I'm sure he must have done something positive during his time here, possibly in bringing Keegan in, I'm scratching my head after that.

 

I knew somebody 5 years ago who had known Douglas for most of his life and he said that he was a very nice person, he would go drinking with him down the quayside most weekends, I guess the spotlight must have changed his personality.

[madras]

 

 

It does have a bearing *if the major shareholders are taking out bonuses and dividends which are disproportionate to the club's lack of silverware/sustained success.        *an argument often used by those against the Halls in particular.

 

BTW i'm happy the Halls have cleared the scene. As the club's major shareholder, whose financial empire lies in ruins when compared to its former glory, they became a liability. Douglas Hall, from what i've heard/read, garnered himself a reputation as being an impulsive decision maker during his chairmanship reign at C.Hall. The sacking of Robson, which barely a month into the season had Hall crying out "he would've got us relegated", was an impulsive sacking which had 'panic button' written all over it. I'm relieved the club is free of this type of 'uninformed decision making' as the big occasion should be free of. IMO D.Hall was a harbinger of this unwarranted decision making process.

 

I'm glad they've all gone, Sir John did a good job and Shepherd has done Ok at times, mainly the ground expansion and with the appointment of Sir Bobby.  I can't think anything good to say about Douglas although I'm sure he must have done something positive during his time here, possibly in bringing Keegan in, I'm scratching my head after that.

 

I knew somebody 5 years ago who had known Douglas for most of his life and he said that he was a very nice person, he would go drinking with him down the quayside most weekends, I guess the spotlight must have changed his personality.

that alone was enough.

[macbeth]

Yesterday I read something you posted about the Hall's selling shares for £4.5 million, they did do that but they deferred half of that amount, they didn't take it all in one go and they also sold the shares to the club for a fraction of what they could have sold them for on the open market, they sold them for 27.1p at a time that the market valued them at 40p each.  They could have sold 25% less shares on the open market and raised the same amount of cash and received the total amount a year earlier.

 

Yes and no. There was, and never has been, an active market in the club's shares. To see ~16m shares as they did would have bben nigh on impossible. The 27p the club paid when the market share price was about 40p was fair given the amount that was being dumped in one go. Nobody else would hav epaid the Halls that amount of money for the shares. This can be seen from the fact that they spent the next 4 years trying to offload and no one made them any sort of offer.

 

The thing that was annoying was that the club was comfortable to spend £4.5m (and a fuurther £4m in divis) on their own shares when it was not spending money on the side. I know that money had been spent recently on Woodgate and Ambrose, but there is no way spending money on shares is the correct thing to do unless you have bucket loads of cash swilling around with nothing to spend it on.

I have heard the excuse given that it was good business in the long run as it redcued the number of shares out there, so that meant that in subsequent years the dividends paid would be reduced.

The lending back of half the £4.5m was a strange thing to do. It helped the cash flow for a year, but it smacks of a guilty conscience.

 

 

Cameron Hall was in a very poor position but I'm not sure how that effected the club although the football club did guarantee a loan which Cameron Hall had taken out, obviously the club would have taken a financial hit if Cameron Hall had of defaulted on the loan but I don't think that happened.

 

Cameron Hall  had only one asset on there books by the time these transactiuons were taking place. This asset was their shareholding in NUFC. Acording to the Cameron Hall accounts they paid ~10p per shares for the NUFC shares. All their borrowings against their out of control debts were made against the price of the NUFC shares. They did superbly well to cash in some at 27p, and they also did well in subsequent years to keep talking up the price with phantom buyers 

 

 

 

[2sheds]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

So is Freddy Shepherd going to buy Leeds then?

 

No idea.  And you shouldn't be going off topic by asking

[NE5]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

[2sheds]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

 

OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

 

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

 

OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

 

 

To be fair, what the fuck have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs?

 

The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a cunt of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not.

[Howaythelads]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

 

OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

 

 

To be fair, what the fuck have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs?

 

The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a cunt of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not.

 

Exactly. Absolutely spot on, Chez.

 

The only possible reason behind the shed bloke making this assertion was to imply Bates is better than Shepherd. He can claim differently all he likes (which is hilarious, tbh) but there can be no other reason.

[2sheds]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

 

OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

 

 

To be fair, what the f*** have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs?

 

The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a c*** of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not.

 

Exactly. Absolutely spot on, Chez.

 

The only possible reason behind the shed bloke making this assertion was to imply Bates is better than Shepherd. He can claim differently all he likes (which is hilarious, tbh) but there can be no other reason.

 

Little boys

 

I have maintained only one thing - and for the umpteeth time it is that Bates saw more trophies going to chelsea than freddie saw for us.

 

Thats it.

 

End of fucking story.

 

At no point have I said who I'd prefer as chairman.

 

Perhaps if you actually read what I've posted and stopped putting words in my mouth you would get this.

 

Eejitts

[NE5]

Another classic

 

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

 

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread

 

That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out.

 

Which one is it?

 

And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply

 

are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either :

 

1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about

 

2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ?

 

If number 1, you're an idiot.

 

If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players.

 

Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you.

 

 

 

Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer.

 

And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria.

 

So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot 

 

All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP.

 

You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact.

 

shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do.

 

As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things

 

 

 

OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa)

 

 

To be fair, what the f*** have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs?

 

The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a c*** of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not.

 

Exactly. Absolutely spot on, Chez.

 

The only possible reason behind the shed bloke making this assertion was to imply Bates is better than Shepherd. He can claim differently all he likes (which is hilarious, tbh) but there can be no other reason.

 

Little boys

 

I have maintained only one thing - and for the umpteeth time it is that Bates saw more trophies going to chelsea than freddie saw for us.

 

Thats it.

 

End of fucking story.

 

At no point have I said who I'd prefer as chairman.

 

Perhaps if you actually read what I've posted and stopped putting words in my mouth you would get this.

 

Eejitts

 

mackems.gif

 

2sheds destroyed

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

Little boys

 

I have maintained only one thing - and for the umpteeth time it is that Bates saw more trophies going to chelsea than freddie saw for us.

 

Thats it.

 

End of fucking story.

 

At no point have I said who I'd prefer as chairman.

 

Perhaps if you actually read what I've posted and stopped putting words in my mouth you would get this.

 

Eejitts

 

 

I've read what you've posted and it's a load of tripe, that's obvious for all to see.

 

It doesn't seem possible but this latest effort from you reduces your credibility even further.