Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[NE5]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

[Thespence]

 

From what I read on SKY text Fred is not buying Leeds but may be a investor, source Ken Bates.

 

 

For the last few months, Bates has been asking businessmen in Leeds to dip their hands in their pockets and support the local team. Roughly translated, he wants some mug to pump in some money while he remains in charge. Perhaps his search for a suitable idiot is over.

 

Ken is cannier then Fred I will give him that. Fred needs to steer clear as he not the best guardian of large sums cash & this bundle he has atm is his own £££'s. He really needs to retire from all forms of work for his health more than anything else & head for the sun, not the newspaper either.

[Guest BooBoo]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

 

seems like my first impression was correct.

 

Have you contributed anything to anything ?

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

HTL - why not post my quote that your ambiguously worded quip is in response to? What were you replying 'Aye' to?

 

 

In my original reply I placed in bold the part of your post I was commenting on.  There's nothing ambiguous about it but then you aren't very bright.

 

I think you don't understand the meaning of "quip" either. Here's a link to help you.... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quip

 

 

[Northern Monkey]

Fat fred was by no means the worst Chairman we've ever had

 

Bramble wasn't the worst defender we've ever had

 

he's the joint worst we had last season.

[2sheds]

HTL just for you here's your original post and response. As you can see I've already explained why it was ambiguous so repeating this point is redundant. :nay:

 

 

Great reply but we were talking about Bates first 10 years vs Freddies.

 

You foolishly claimed Chelsea's success was all down to Harding (who joined after Bates had been in the job 12 years) and that they won nowt before that.

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

As for the Champions League did that exist in Bates first 10 years?

 

If it didn't it is idiotic to mention it.

 

BTW the full members cup and the zenith data cup were not the league cup - wrong again Mr 'Facts'

 

 

Aye, they were the same competition and one that none of the big teams took seriously. It's quite amazing that you're submitting this as proof  of how great your man Ken Bates is, but then was it you who mentioned diarrohea earlier on? You certainly seem to fill your posts with it regardless. The assertion that this competition is an indicator of great work by your man Bates is a s**** on, for sure.

 

I suppose you'll soon be telling everybody that the Newcastle Board ousted by SJH was actually excellent because we won the Texaco Cup (twice) and the Anglo Italian Cup?

 

Awwww thats so sweet coming to your buddy's rescue because he needs a rest from lying through his teeth.

 

I'll clarify your first sentence now.

The Full Members Cup and the Zenith Data Systems Cup were the same competition but they were not the League Cup as your fellow Shepherd leghumper NE5 seems to think.

I mentioned the two trophies not 'as proof of how great Ken Bates is' - as you seem to think - but merely to prove he brought trophies to Stamford Bridge - a feat Freddie was unable to surpass for us.

 

BTW its a very tired old trick to put words into your opponents mouth then to rubbish what they have supposed to have said.

 

Its also very pathetic.

 

As for your last line suppose all you want - just don't attack me on the basis of your poorly thought out conclusions.

 

More diarrohea I see. You say you'll "clarify" my first sentence and then you don't. Are you mentally challenged, or just a liar?

 

Your 'ambiguous' line was open to interpretation - check to see what your dictionary says about that HTL.

 

As for being 'not so bright', missing my sarcastic use of the word 'quip' hardly makes you an Einstein.

 

Anyway back on topic - do you agree Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Fat Fred has seen come to SJP?

 

Its a simple yes or no.

 

PS for your info I never mentioned 'diahorrea' but you make abundant use of the word

 

 

[ChezGiven]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/09/12/how_deins_dead_money_helped_ki.html

 

Sir John Hall made the grandest of claims when he took over Newcastle United between 1989 and 1992; he was doing it, he said, for "the Geordie nation," the club would be central to the north-east's renaissance, running it was part of his social conscience.

 

The family's majority stake cost them around £3m, and they too have since sold in stages - 9.8% to the cable company NTL for £16m in 1998 and 1999, then in 2003, the club itself bought some of the family's shares back for £4.5m. In June this year, Mike Ashley paid £55.34m for the family's remaining 42% stake, bringing the total reaped by the Halls to £75.8m. Freddy Shepherd, and his brother Bruce, who paid around £2.4m for their 28% shareholding, received £37.3m from Ashley.

 

Never understood why Shep gets more grief than the Halls.... The RoI calculation can be done from the figures in bold.

[NE5]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/09/12/how_deins_dead_money_helped_ki.html

 

Sir John Hall made the grandest of claims when he took over Newcastle United between 1989 and 1992; he was doing it, he said, for "the Geordie nation," the club would be central to the north-east's renaissance, running it was part of his social conscience.

 

The family's majority stake cost them around £3m, and they too have since sold in stages - 9.8% to the cable company NTL for £16m in 1998 and 1999, then in 2003, the club itself bought some of the family's shares back for £4.5m. In June this year, Mike Ashley paid £55.34m for the family's remaining 42% stake, bringing the total reaped by the Halls to £75.8m. Freddy Shepherd, and his brother Bruce, who paid around £2.4m for their 28% shareholding, received £37.3m from Ashley.

 

Never understood why Shep gets more grief than the Halls.... The RoI calculation can be done from the figures in bold.

 

its because its either :

 

not fashionable,

 

or

 

too many people without a mind of their own.

 

 

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

[2sheds]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

 

sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it.

 

Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case.

 

We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

HTL just for you here's your original post and response. As you can see I've already explained why it was ambiguous so repeating this point is redundant.

 

If you say so, pet.

 

[fredbob]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

 

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

 

seems like my first impression was correct.

 

Have you contributed anything to anything ?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

This REALLY winds you up doesnt it?! 

[fredbob]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

 

sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it.

 

Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case.

 

We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case.

 

 

 

What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4,  the bottom line is that 2shed is trying to underline a chairmans and directors broad achievements for the club, and the broadest form of evaluations will be the trophys that they have won and as it stands Ken Bates did more for Chelsea pre Harding than Shepard did for nufc "post" SJH its the broadest and the most crudest form of evaluation because everyone knows that chairmen and directors arent directly responsible for the on field achiments but it is near impossible to do an accurate evalutation, if we were to use another curde form of evaluation we'd look at the debt and both teams stood in simialr positions, only one team has a cabinet full of silver and the other doesn't.

Add the the fact that Bates appointed reasonable astutely and you see where most people who are against Sheprad, to sum it up, while Bates in his time of Chelsea was pro active, Shepard was reactive.

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

 

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius

 

 

I've said that I only care about worthwhile trophies.

 

You can't get a much simpler question than asking someone who they blame for us not even winning the League Cup, and not performing in a LOT of big matches, when they are making such a fuss about it.

 

Your opinion on this would be particularly interesting, do you also think the board had an input into the players not performing in these big matches ?

 

If not, who do you blame ? This is a serious question, as a lot of people appear to blame the board for losing these games ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

 

seems like my first impression was correct.

 

Have you contributed anything to anything ?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

This REALLY winds you up doesnt it?! 

 

oh dear, I'm absolutely gutted  mackems.gif

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

 

sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it.

 

Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case.

 

We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case.

 

 

What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4,  

 

The only reason the League Cup diminished for a few years was because of the increased emphasis on qualification for the expanded Champions League. Recently it has gained in importance again, as you say, because Chelsea have joined manure in financiallly streaking away from the rest, and making the title harder to win.

 

During the time that clubs such as Leicester beat Tranmere, Blackburn won it, the smoggies won it, and possibly when Spurs won it too, Newcastle United for one had a better team than all those teams, and we didn't win it. The question, I believe is, why not ? If we had, then 2sheds for one wouldn't have an issue with this. I still find it amazing that people can't grasp this, and blabber on as if we have a right to win these trophies and how its all the boards fault that we haven't, when we clearly had a good enough team to win it. Which is something we certainly didn't have when we had a shite board by the way, and if you aren't old enough to be aware of this you will have to take my word for it, but if you look at the league positons for the vast majority of the 1970's and 1980's through to 1993, you will see that I am not kidding you, apart from the early to mid 1970's.

 

the bottom line is that 2shed is trying to underline a chairmans and directors broad achievements for the club, and the broadest form of evaluations will be the trophys that they have won and as it stands Ken Bates did more for Chelsea pre Harding than Shepard did for nufc "post" SJH its the broadest and the most crudest form of evaluation because everyone knows that chairmen and directors arent directly responsible for the on field achiments but it is near impossible to do an accurate evalutation, if we were to use another curde form of evaluation we'd look at the debt and both teams stood in simialr positions, only one team has a cabinet full of silver and the other doesn't.

Add the the fact that Bates appointed reasonable astutely and you see where most people who are against Sheprad, to sum it up, while Bates in his time of Chelsea was pro active, Shepard was reactive.

 

In the broadest terms the Halls and Shepherd have improved this club massively during their time in charge, even MICK can reluctantly admit that. If you want to expand on this and talk about trophies, and I repeat I'm not the slightest bit interested in 2 bob cups that nobody remembers like the Full Members Cup, I've asked already. If the directors have supplied their managers the backing and capability to put together teams good enough to win these cups, and the players don't win them, who do you blame ?

 

I think its absolutely amazing how people could prefer Bates to Shepherd. That must some bee in their bonnet that they have.

 

Lucky for them, they haven't seen a really shite board, and shite chairman, is all I can say.

 

 

[fredbob]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

 

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius

 

 

I've said that I only care about worthwhile trophies.

 

You can't get a much simpler question than asking someone who they blame for us not even winning the League Cup, and not performing in a LOT of big matches, when they are making such a fuss about it.

 

Your opinion on this would be particularly interesting, do you also think the board had an input into the players not performing in these big matches ?

 

If not, who do you blame ? This is a serious question, as a lot of people appear to blame the board for losing these games ?

 

 

 

Well the answer to that is that it was the players fault, simple. From what i gather you're trying to imply that is wasnt the board or chairmens fault for the lack of trophy and to an extent your quite obviously correct, they cant possibly be made accountable for a teams perfomances, not directly anyway. However, and i think i have made this cleaar in my previous post, what is the true measure of a chairman and boards successs?, in the end, isnt the boards and chaimans overall objective for a club is to manange the business in order to ensure success on the pitch  the realest form of success in silverware and the big big picture is that we havent succeeded, its a conclusion which is neither here nore there but to a lot of people makes some sense.

[Guest BooBoo]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

 

seems like my first impression was correct.

 

Have you contributed anything to anything ?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

This REALLY winds you up doesnt it?! 

 

oh dear, I'm absolutely gutted  mackems.gif

 

[fredbob]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

 

sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it.

 

Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case.

 

We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case.

 

 

What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4,  

 

The only reason the League Cup diminished for a few years was because of the increased emphasis on qualification for the expanded Champions League. Recently it has gained in importance again, as you say, because Chelsea have joined manure in financiallly streaking away from the rest, and making the title harder to win.

 

During the time that clubs such as Leicester beat Tranmere, Blackburn won it, the smoggies won it, and possibly when Spurs won it too, Newcastle United for one had a better team than all those teams, and we didn't win it. The question, I believe is, why not ? If we had, then 2sheds for one wouldn't have an issue with this. I still find it amazing that people can't grasp this, and blabber on as if we have a right to win these trophies and how its all the boards fault that we haven't, when we clearly had a good enough team to win it. Which is something we certainly didn't have when we had a s**** board by the way, and if you aren't old enough to be aware of this you will have to take my word for it, but if you look at the league positons for the vast majority of the 1970's and 1980's through to 1993, you will see that I am not kidding you, apart from the early to mid 1970's.

 

the bottom line is that 2shed is trying to underline a chairmans and directors broad achievements for the club, and the broadest form of evaluations will be the trophys that they have won and as it stands Ken Bates did more for Chelsea pre Harding than Shepard did for nufc "post" SJH its the broadest and the most crudest form of evaluation because everyone knows that chairmen and directors arent directly responsible for the on field achiments but it is near impossible to do an accurate evalutation, if we were to use another curde form of evaluation we'd look at the debt and both teams stood in simialr positions, only one team has a cabinet full of silver and the other doesn't.

Add the the fact that Bates appointed reasonable astutely and you see where most people who are against Sheprad, to sum it up, while Bates in his time of Chelsea was pro active, Shepard was reactive.

 

In the broadest terms the Halls and Shepherd have improved this club massively during their time in charge, even MICK can reluctantly admit that. If you want to expand on this and talk about trophies, and I repeat I'm not the slightest bit interested in 2 bob cups that nobody remembers like the Full Members Cup, I've asked already. If the directors have supplied their managers the backing and capability to put together teams good enough to win these cups, and the players don't win them, who do you blame ?

 

I think its absolutely amazing how people could prefer Bates to Shepherd. That must some bee in their bonnet that they have.

 

Lucky for them, they haven't seen a really s**** board, and s**** chairman, is all I can say.

 

 

 

Do you think that Bates would have done worse a job than Shepard if he was in the exact saem circumstance? I kinda disagree with this mickey mouse cup thing as well, in the end, you'd could quite easily arguw that the UEFA cup is a mickey mouse cup, in the end i'd say there must be about 16 quality teams in the entire competition. And most of them are drop outs from the CL. Its a poor argument to say its mickey mouse, most competitions can be described that way.

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

 

Irony at its unintentional best. when i have you ever answered a straight answer? Genius

 

 

I've said that I only care about worthwhile trophies.

 

You can't get a much simpler question than asking someone who they blame for us not even winning the League Cup, and not performing in a LOT of big matches, when they are making such a fuss about it.

 

Your opinion on this would be particularly interesting, do you also think the board had an input into the players not performing in these big matches ?

 

If not, who do you blame ? This is a serious question, as a lot of people appear to blame the board for losing these games ?

 

 

 

Well the answer to that is that it was the players fault, simple. From what i gather you're trying to imply that is wasnt the board or chairmens fault for the lack of trophy and to an extent your quite obviously correct, they cant possibly be made accountable for a teams perfomances, not directly anyway.

 

Logically, of course. There isn't any other possible answer. And people who saw most of those abject performances wouldn't even begin to dispute it. Lets hope 2sheds and many other people read this and actually realise there is no other possible answer, whatever else they try to convince themselves of.

 

However, and i think i have made this cleaar in my previous post, what is the true measure of a chairman and boards successs?, in the end, isnt the boards and chaimans overall objective for a club is to manange the business in order to ensure success on the pitch  the realest form of success in silverware and the big big picture is that we havent succeeded, its a conclusion which is neither here nore there but to a lot of people makes some sense.

 

What exactly is success on the pitch then ? How many clubs are truly successful, and how many are failures. There are 3 domestic trophies a season. Do you consider regular european qualification, and a 50000 crowd every home game failure ? Do you think the smogs have done better than us because they have won the League Cup, meaning you would swap that along with their relegations ? When people produce comments like this, are they saying that 17 premiership clubs should change managers because they have "failed" ?

 

When you are saying we have "failed", I'm telling you that the vast majority of other premiership clubs would swap their past decade for ours. Whats your opinion on that ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

oh dear

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

one day, you may say something worthwhile, booboo

 

 

 

 

seems like my first impression was correct.

 

Have you contributed anything to anything ?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

This REALLY winds you up doesnt it?! 

 

oh dear, I'm absolutely gutted  mackems.gif

 

 

[NE5]

I see 2sheds still won't explain why he thinks the players failed to even win the League Cup, despite finishing in the top 5 of the league for 3 consecutive years, and qualifying for europe more than any club in the country bar 4.

 

We are going to have to presume that its because he thinks the chairman and directors told them to lie down and not perform, on numerous occasions in numerous big games in particular 2 FA Cup Finals, or else the other team played with an extra man, or something, and nobody noticed.

 

Not really going to apologise for putting words into his mouth, as he's been asked enough. It's up to him if he wants to refute this suggestion.

 

 

Certainly - as soon as you concede Bates saw more trophies coming to chelsea than Freddie did in his time for us.

 

That has been my verifiable claim (from YOUR wikipedia link) throughout this thread and I'll get deflected by your latest question as soon as you acknowledge my original point.

 

sorry, I don't consider them to be worthwhile trophies, pretty much the same as most clubs who entered it.

 

Basically, I don't really care who wins Micky Mouse cups, but YOU care that we haven't won the League Cup, so you could explain why, when the directors have clearly backed the managers to create a good enough team to do it, this is the case.

 

We will have to presume you think it is the directors fault for telling the players not to perform, in numerous big occasion games over the last 10-15 years, for some reason, unless you confirm this is not the case.

 

 

What difference does the size of the cup competition make? Surely up until 2 or 3 years ago the league cup was considered a "mickey mouse competion" as well only until Chelsea came onto the scene and became an automatic title contender did the importance of getting some silverware in the cabinet magnify the importance of the cup for the big 4,  

 

The only reason the League Cup diminished for a few years was because of the increased emphasis on qualification for the expanded Champions League. Recently it has gained in importance again, as you say, because Chelsea have joined manure in financiallly streaking away from the rest, and making the title harder to win.

 

During the time that clubs such as Leicester beat Tranmere, Blackburn won it, the smoggies won it, and possibly when Spurs won it too, Newcastle United for one had a better team than all those teams, and we didn't win it. The question, I believe is, why not ? If we had, then 2sheds for one wouldn't have an issue with this. I still find it amazing that people can't grasp this, and blabber on as if we have a right to win these trophies and how its all the boards fault that we haven't, when we clearly had a good enough team to win it. Which is something we certainly didn't have when we had a s**** board by the way, and if you aren't old enough to be aware of this you will have to take my word for it, but if you look at the league positons for the vast majority of the 1970's and 1980's through to 1993, you will see that I am not kidding you, apart from the early to mid 1970's.

 

the bottom line is that 2shed is trying to underline a chairmans and directors broad achievements for the club, and the broadest form of evaluations will be the trophys that they have won and as it stands Ken Bates did more for Chelsea pre Harding than Shepard did for nufc "post" SJH its the broadest and the most crudest form of evaluation because everyone knows that chairmen and directors arent directly responsible for the on field achiments but it is near impossible to do an accurate evalutation, if we were to use another curde form of evaluation we'd look at the debt and both teams stood in simialr positions, only one team has a cabinet full of silver and the other doesn't.

Add the the fact that Bates appointed reasonable astutely and you see where most people who are against Sheprad, to sum it up, while Bates in his time of Chelsea was pro active, Shepard was reactive.

 

In the broadest terms the Halls and Shepherd have improved this club massively during their time in charge, even MICK can reluctantly admit that. If you want to expand on this and talk about trophies, and I repeat I'm not the slightest bit interested in 2 bob cups that nobody remembers like the Full Members Cup, I've asked already. If the directors have supplied their managers the backing and capability to put together teams good enough to win these cups, and the players don't win them, who do you blame ?

 

I think its absolutely amazing how people could prefer Bates to Shepherd. That must some bee in their bonnet that they have.

 

Lucky for them, they haven't seen a really s**** board, and s**** chairman, is all I can say.

 

 

 

Do you think that Bates would have done worse a job than Shepard if he was in the exact saem circumstance? I kinda disagree with this mickey mouse cup thing as well, in the end, you'd could quite easily arguw that the UEFA cup is a mickey mouse cup, in the end i'd say there must be about 16 quality teams in the entire competition. And most of them are drop outs from the CL. Its a poor argument to say its mickey mouse, most competitions can be described that way.

 

I really have no idea, but I would rather have Shepherd than Bates, I know that.

 

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.