Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[NE5]

I can't believe anyone can put together an argument that Ken Bates was even a remotely half decent chairman.

 

There arent many people I used to look at in the darkest days of the Ellis years and say "well, it could be worse", but Bates was one of them.

 

Remember the electrified fences plan?

 

precisely. These younger lads eh ?

 

 

Quite amazing he's suddenly found a fan club among Newcastle supporters. Makes you puke really, such is their lack of knowledge, perception, and worst of all, inability to listen to others who saw all these things

 

 

[NE5]

I can't believe anyone can put together an argument that Ken Bates was even a remotely half decent chairman.

 

There arent many people I used to look at in the darkest days of the Ellis years and say "well, it could be worse", but Bates was one of them.

 

Remember the electrified fences plan?

 

I'm not sure how many times you went to Chelsea but he did have a point.  Most of the crowd trouble was outside of the ground, especially on the tubes but the Chelsea fans were terrible.  I don't think I've ever seen as many NF mongs in any ground in my life as I've seen at Chelsea during the 80's and 90's.

 

He had a point putting up electric fences did he ?

 

Coming from someone who slates off our old board for the trivial things that you do.

 

[Mick]

 

typical of you I suppose, making parallel excuses for your idol McKeag taking over a derelict old footballl ground from his predecessors, so much so that he was proud of his new stand that was "just like the one at Watford".

 

Lucky HIS successor had higher standards than that though eh, although according to you, they were "just the same"

 

Are you another member of the Ken Bates fan club  mackems.gif

 

I'm not a member of any Ken Bates fan club at all, the blokes an idiot.  Chelsea had a ground which was terrible long before Bates arrived, you don't seem to know that so I'm just putting you right.

[Baggio]

To use Bates' time as Chelsea Chairman to say Freddy Shepherd is the better Chairman is daft because his Chelsea were far more successful than Freddie's NUFC in terms of league placing and trophies won and both clubs were left in the same debt, £80m or whatever it was. Unlike Bates however who actually saved Chelsea when he first took over, Freddy took over  a club second only to Man Utd in the country on the back of the biggest flotation of a football club in history. Furthermore, Bates knew he had to sell Chelsea to keep the club going, and he did that and boy did he find a good buyer. Freddy was forced out of NUFC.

 

The job Bates did at Chelsea was nothing short of excellent, and backed up by hard evidence in the name of silverware, Freddy's time at Newcastle in contrast was a failure except a few key seasons with Sir Bobby as manager.

 

Btw I would rather have Freddy as my club's Chairman over Bates, but it isn't down to ability , but character and given that I'd lump Freddy in with Bates as an odious little man too, but less so, my preference is still akin to scraping the barrel.

 

As to whether FS would do any good at Leeds, I doubt it, they need mega money to get back to where they once stood, and Bates is far more likely to return them there than FS, if only because he has better contacts.

 

which is the point.

 

I'm not disputing the trophies Chelsea won, but Harding was a big player in their change of fortune. I just think that Bates got lucky, very lucky in fact. I remember Chelsea before Harding stepped in, they were no better than the mackems, and us at the time for that matter, for a long time with Bates as chairman.

 

 

 

Same could be said of Freddy with SJH or even SBR though, no? I mean, take away SBR and FS's time at the club would look pretty bad. Harding wasn't there very long btw and his impact at Chelsea wasn't as big as Bates. It was Bates who decided Chelsea needed to be a more continental setup which opposed Harding's more traditional setup, the former being key to Chelsea's rise from, as you say, a level the mackems operated at and indeed NUFC before Sir John came along. You have to give Bates credit, he bought them for a quid, took on their debt and set about transforming them and he did. His impact was as big as Sir John Hall's was for us, or Fergie and Wenger to their clubs, if for different reasons.

 

I don't like the bloke though, he's an odious little man.

 

About sums it up for me, Bates is a horrible, arrogant twat but you can't fault him turning them around.

[fredbob]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

[Mick]

 

He had a point putting up electric fences did he ?

 

Coming from someone who slates off our old board for the trivial things that you do.

 

 

The remark was meant to be taken literally.

[NE5]

 

typical of you I suppose, making parallel excuses for your idol McKeag taking over a derelict old footballl ground from his predecessors, so much so that he was proud of his new stand that was "just like the one at Watford".

 

Lucky HIS successor had higher standards than that though eh, although according to you, they were "just the same"

 

Are you another member of the Ken Bates fan club  mackems.gif

 

I'm not a member of any Ken Bates fan club at all, the blokes an idiot.  Chelsea had a ground which was terrible long before Bates arrived, you don't seem to know that so I'm just putting you right.

 

oh, I wouldn't say that. I do know, I do know, indeed I do.

 

The day I consider you to be putting me right about anything, I'm in trouble.  mackems.gif

[NE5]

 

He had a point putting up electric fences did he ?

 

Coming from someone who slates off our old board for the trivial things that you do.

 

 

The remark was meant to be taken literally.

 

As you said

 

 

[Mick]

 

oh, I wouldn't say that. I do know, I do know, indeed I do.

 

The day I consider you to be putting me right about anything, I'm in trouble.  mackems.gif

 

If you know the state of the ground before he took over, why draw attention to it with regards to him?

[NE5]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible shit doing a shit of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, that wouldn't take much editing to look as if you've been describing another club.

[2sheds]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

 

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

[NE5]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a shit club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter shite. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

[Baggio]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a shit club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter shite. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

Bates got Chelsea into the Champions League too tbh.

[2sheds]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[NE5]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was.

 

I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why.

 

It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else.

 

Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams.

 

And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. 

 

 

[fredbob]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, i haven't really got a good thing to say about Ken Bates, am not completely aware of all the facts, i was just qeurying your view of a chairmans role beccause it seems very contradictory and inconsistent.

[fredbob]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

 

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

He does that alot, i tried highlighting bits i wanted him to answer, i gave him instructions on how to answer them and he still wouldn't answer the fucking questions, gettin a straight answer out of ne5 is like nailing diarrophea to a wall both impossible and messy

 

[2sheds]

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

 

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was.

 

I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why.

 

It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else.

 

Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams.

 

And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. 

 

 

You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade.

 

A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved.

 

When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of.

[Delima]

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

[fredbob]

lol, finally ne5 ha been busted wide open, i came close the other night but i think you take the biscuit there, i take my hat off to you kind sir!

[fredbob]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was.

 

I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why.

 

It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else.

 

Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams.

 

And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. 

 

 

 

would you rather we qualify for CL or win a league cup then?

[NE5]

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

 

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was.

 

I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why.

 

It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else.

 

Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams.

 

And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. 

 

 

You're first sentence is yet another lie, I've highlighted the bit in purple where YOU mention Bates first decade.

 

A decade where Chelsea won 2 trophies, before Harding became involved.

 

When Bates brought more success to an impoverished Chelsea than Fred brought to the hugely popular club he took charge of.

 

no, I'm responding to others. My first post was to say that I wouldn't want Bates in preference to Shepherd and I've said why.

 

I've also asked you if you know how Chelsea were before Harding joined the board, and that Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was instrumental in setting the club up for the success that followed.

 

You can dispute this all you like, but as you don't reply to my comment asking what you know about Chelsea pre-harding, it is clear that you don't know.

 

 

[NE5]

lol, finally ne5 ha been busted wide open, i came close the other night but i think you take the biscuit there, i take my hat off to you kind sir!

 

haha.....you won't bust me open mate 

[NE5]

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

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

 

FACT - shepherd wasn't most successful chairman in our history - Bates was for Chelsea FACT.

 

3 consecutive top 5 finishes does not compare in the slightest to what Chelsea won in Bates time.

 

European Cup Winners' Cup winners:  1998. Full Members Cup winners: 1986. European SuperCup winners: 1998. FA Cup winners 1997, 2000. Charity Shield winners: 2000.

 

 

 

 

probably because, Chelsea had very little history, to speak of. Before Bates.

 

Fact.

 

Certainly nowhere near ours.

 

Fact.

 

Did you go to Stamford Bridge before Harding joined the board at Chelsea ? How much about Chelsea do you know, pre - Bates, and his first decade ?

 

 

 

 

I know from my quote which once again you've chosen to ignore that they won the full members cup in Bates first decade which is more than we won in Freds 10 years in charge.

 

I couldn't give a toss, because I know how much of a s*** club Chelsea were before Harding stepped in - also winning nowt until that time. You clearly don't, and you also are one of those with a daft agenda against Shepherd and Hall for calling you names, or whatever your problem with them is.

 

 

So you're accounting Chelseas success to Harding, yet when we try and criticise Shepard for what he's done for this club, its the Boards fault, in your world, are chairmen responsible for anything? If you were to talk about arsenal in 10 years time and ask how Hill-wood did as chairmen, are you going to say one individual in David Dein was responsible, we know that he was very influential but does the detract from Hill Woods achievements because in the real world when your at the top of your business you are accountable for what occurs, we cant truly account for every single action and provide a proper analysis so in the end you HAVE to generalise and look at the larger picture, if Harding was influential its irrelevant, just like Dougie Hall has been irrelvant in most of your arguments FOR Shepard even though in can be argued that he was instrumental in situation we are in now. So you take a step back and try to assess everything that has occured under his tenure ship. Bates, £80m debt, refurbished stadium left the club in a very healthy situation with the new owners, 2/3 years earlier than the current billionaire owner trend. plenty of major trophies,

Shepard £80m debt, refurbished stadium left in a reasonably healthy situation.....an intertoto cup/vase/bowl. In the end, whats been described above is generally the hallmark to what all Charimen are judged against. True?

 

The common denominator is that the chairman is not the sole person responsible for anything. The situation at Chelsea was that Bates was a horrible s*** doing a s*** of a job until Harding stepped in.

 

The club then had some good success, but over the years Bates was running it back into the ground again, his Chelsea village project - which he had been advised not to proceed with, was bankrupting the club - until Abramovic came along. Or Chelsea would have gone the way of Leeds.

 

This is the scenario. Like it or not. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can have a good word to say about Ken Bates, or defend him. Whats the point

 

Chelsea fans will tell you that Harding was hugely influential, and without him, the club wouldn't have did what it did, by the way, not me. Although, I do agree.

 

 

Harding joined Chelsea in 1994.

 

By then Chelsea had already won 2 trophies under Bates (86 and 90) - a better record than your hero Freddie

 

PS I've highlighted the bits in bold that you choose to ignore , and the bit where you make a tit of yourself in red just to help you realise where you went wrong

 

on the contrary, I AM aware of how much of a s*** club Chelsea were, as I said, whereas you are not, otherwise you would have said so. If you have no experience of seeing this, and are attempting to disagree with someone who has, then there is only one tit here.

 

I am also very pleased you think winning the league cup,  is such a magnificent achievement, that it puts into context qualification for the Champions League being in your opinion, utter s****. I suggest you spill your bitterness to some of our managers for picking weakened teams in the League Cup rather than stupidly blame the directors for picking the wrong teams - and if you don't see that, then you really are a tit.  mackems.gif

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is  a lie as I have proven.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

YOu may be talking about Bates' first 10 years put against Freds, but I'm not. I never was.

 

I'm answering the post, I'm saying that I would rather Shepherd was chairman of my club than Bates. Nothing more nothing less, and I've said why.

 

It isn't idiotic to mention the Champions League at all, not when you know full well I am using it in the context of high premiership places, I think its idiotic of you to totally ignore this and these positions and put it against winning the League Cup, also ignoring the fact that poor decisions by our managers and lack lustre displays by our own players have clearly cost us trophies, and nothing else.

 

Only a complete idiot would blame the board for players underperforming in big matches, or the manager picking weakened teams.

 

And, if you seriously consider the Full members Cup and the Zenith Data cup as superior to such high league positions, it proves beyond any doubt you are an idiot. BTW, I never professed to being an expert about Chelsea, but now you mention it, I remember now, its the smoggies that Chelsea beat in the Final. And the smoggies had flags all over their town proclaiming "boro at Wembley". Yeh, right, I was really envious. 

 

 

 

would you rather we qualify for CL or win a league cup then?

 

Overall, a club which qualifies for europe on a regular basis, including the Champions League, is a better run club than a club with an isolated League Cup win.

 

You won't understand this if you don't understand that teams who freeze and bottle big games, or managers pick weakened teams in knock out competitions, isn't really the fault of the board or chairman

 

Which I find quite unfortunate, and sad, to be honest.