Freddie Shepherd to buy Leeds?!

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

[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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made.

 

I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour.

 

Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

[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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

 

I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made.

 

I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour.

 

Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

 

I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into.

 

It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that.

 

My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level.  What is your opinion ?

 

Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ?

 

I have not shirked a response, unlike you.

 

I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ?

 

Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ?

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

 

I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made.

 

I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour.

 

Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

 

I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into.

 

It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that.

 

My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level.  What is your opinion ?

 

Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ?

 

I have not shirked a response, unlike you.

 

I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ?

 

Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ?

 

 

Post where I harped on about us not winning the league cup - or is this yet another lie?

 

And again you are not right about teams playing in europe, in fact you couldn't be more confused.

 

The Full Memebers Cup The competition was created after the Heysel Stadium disaster, when English clubs were banned from European competition, as an additional competition for clubs in the top two divisions (hence the name - these clubs were 'Full Members' of the Football League, with full voting rights.

 

Check some facts next time.

[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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

 

I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made.

 

I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour.

 

Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

 

I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into.

 

It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that.

 

My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level.  What is your opinion ?

 

Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ?

 

I have not shirked a response, unlike you.

 

I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ?

 

Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ?

 

 

Post where I harped on about us not winning the league cup - or is this yet another lie?

 

And again you are not right about teams playing in europe, in fact you couldn't be more confused.

 

The Full Memebers Cup The competition was created after the Heysel Stadium disaster, when English clubs were banned from European competition, as an additional competition for clubs in the top two divisions (hence the name - these clubs were 'Full Members' of the Football League, with full voting rights.

 

Check some facts next time.

 

you keep harping on abuot lying, pathetic really.

 

Like most people, I expect, I had forgotten all about the Full Members Cup because I didn't give a toss about it, pretty much the same as the teams who entered.

 

Do you therefore count the intertoto as a cup, if not, why not, or are you also lying ? [what a daft angle you've started here, again btw]

 

Most people will be wondering why you don't tell us what you think the reason is that we didn't win the League Cup, despite having a better team than a sample of the clubs I've mentioned.

 

Don't by shy, I won't call you a liar or anything daft like that, I'm just curious as to who you blame and why.

 

In fact, here is the list of winners of the Full Members Cup. Lots of big clubs took it seriously then. People can look for themselves to see where some of these winners were in their leagues at the time.

 

1986 - Chelsea 5 Manchester City 4

1987 - Blackburn Rovers 1 Charlton 0

1988 - Reading 4 Luton 1

1989 - Nottingham Forest 4 Everton 3 (aet)

1990 - Chelsea 1 Middlesbrough 0

1991 - Crystal Palace 4 Everton 1

1992 - Nottingham Forest 3 Southampton 2

 

 

[thomas]

oh my fucking god get off the forums until you learn how to edit out quotes that have no bearing on the current conversation.  both of you.

[Dave]

oh my fucking god get off the forums until you learn how to edit out quotes that have no bearing on the current conversation.  both of you.

 

 

You have a point. It's not that hard.

[Thespence]

Anyone know where we are at with this?

 

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

 

Fred & Ken both sold the shares they had in the clubs they were Chairman at for a tens of millions & both clubs were left with huge debts & needed billionaires to take them over. It is no surprise to me that both these fuckwits have realised  all they need to do is awake a club that is classed as a sleeping GIANT, borrow shit loads (against the club, not themselves) get it into the Premiership, don't worry about balancing the books & some fucker will them give tens of millions for it & they may have only invested a few million quid. The pair of  them are fucking geniuses in my eyes.

[Dinho lad]

NE5...what a character! WHAT. A. CHA. RAC. TER!

[NE5]

NE5...what a character! WHAT. A. CHA. RAC. TER!

 

Omarzidanepelebestcruyffmaradonarivaldino, are you still digging holes in the ground 

[NE5]

oh my fucking god get off the forums until you learn how to edit out quotes that have no bearing on the current conversation.  both of you.

 

 

You have a point. It's not that hard.

 

Amusing how 2sheds has suddenly burst into life.

 

I know who he is now on another message board.  blueyes.gif

 

Must admit Dave, I'm quite disappointed he doesn't comment on what I've asked him, as he thinks he's such a clever lad elsewhere.

 

 

[Dave]

 

Why are you bringing me into this? I'm just trying to save bandwidth.

[Cronky]

 

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.

[OzzieMandias]

will be good for leeds IMO, a chairman with a bit more cash than bates, and who genuinly, despite how fookin shi*e he is, does appaear to care. One things for sure though, leeds will have graeme souness in charge to help them climb through the ranks

 

Alan Shearer ?

 

 

 

Rob Lee, Les Ferdinand and Stephen Spence as his backroom team apparently.

 

Is Ken Bates really Ozzie or 2sheds do you think ?

 

 

 

Ozzie possibly, he's similar to Bates in that he knows little about football.

 

My, what a sparkling sense of humour you have, Baggio. It must brighten up the playground no end.

[Dinho lad]

NE5...what a character! WHAT. A. CHA. RAC. TER!

 

Omarzidanepelebestcruyffmaradonarivaldino, are you still digging holes in the ground 

 

Are you still doing it in your pants? class name by the way. :giggle:

[2sheds]

oh my f****** god get off the forums until you learn how to edit out quotes that have no bearing on the current conversation.  both of you.

 

 

You have a point. It's not that hard.

 

Amusing how 2sheds has suddenly burst into life.

 

I know who he is now on another message board.  blueyes.gif

 

Must admit Dave, I'm quite disappointed he doesn't comment on what I've asked him, as he thinks he's such a clever lad elsewhere.

 

 

Another lie

 

I do not post on any other forums.

 

I've already told you I do not post on toontastic (if thats what you are referring to)

 

So lets hears how you 'know who I am on another message board

 

This should be fun

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Yet again your first sentence is another lie.

 

You weren't  responding to 'others', you were responding to ME, thats why you have quoted ME

 

 

substitute "You" for "others" then, if it makes you happy.

 

Sigh.

 

i take it you have no further comment to when I have said that you have zero experience or knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined the board then ?

 

mackems.gif

 

Do you post on toontastic  care to tell us what name you use 

 

 

Yes your stupid question made me chuckle aswell.

 

Having repeatedly  demonstrated that I have knowledge of Chelsea before Harding joined their board I can only laugh at you for asking such an idiotic question.

 

Tee Hee

 

And I don't post on toontastic and therefore don't have a username

 

 

you don't appear to have much knowledge of Chelsea, pre Harding. Or Newcastle if you think Shepherd was so bad  mackems.gif

 

Tee hee

 

 

Once again I have demonstrated my knowledge of Chelsea pre Harding - I believe I informed YOU about the success they had under Bates before Harding joined.

 

 

 

To the rest of the board I do apologise for these quote pyramids buts its the only way to keep track of a proven serial liar.

 

For some reason, you seem to be quite venomous. Are you sure you aren't one of that toontastic crowd  mackems.gif

 

The fact that I wondered what those cups are, shows how important they were. Hardly much to trumpet about really.

 

Do you think that when Leicester beat Tranmere, and the smogs and Spurs won the League Cup, that they won because they had better directors than we did ?

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

 

You could explain how we didn't win a cup under Keegan if you like, when we clearly had a better team than Everton who beat us in the quarter final in 1995 and went on to win it ? Was that the directors fault too  mackems.gif

 

And losing the lead we had in 1996, was that the directors fault ?

 

Tee hee.

 

Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in ages, and thats saying something. Are you Ozzie Mandiarse in disguise ?

 

 

The biggest load of bollocks you've heard in ages is your own thoughts - I've never said any of those things you imply I've said.

 

If I have - post them.

 

BTW I've just ticked off your little friend HTL for attempting to pull the same shoddy trick.

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

 

Its a pity you can't accept that fact - instead you just want to post a succession of meaningless bluster and flat out lies to justify your weak position in this matter.

 

Ok then, why do you think we haven't won a cup in the last 15 years, and the last 10 years.

 

Who do you blame, for the bottled Cup Finals, other big games, and the manager fielding weakened teams. Or do you think the managers were not allowed the resources to give us a better team than some of the clubs that have won the League Cup.

 

Answer truthfully, or be branded a liar or an idiot.

 

I haven't lied, I posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, and since you joined in, have responded to your childish anger and bile.

 

 

You lied about chelsea winning nowt before Harding joined their board - despite me repeatedly pointing out otherwise.

 

You lied when you said you were never talking about Bates first decade - despite introducing that timeframe into this yourself.

 

You lied when you said you were responding to 'others' when in fact you were replying (and quoting) me.

 

And you lied at the end of your last post.

 

Is there any more to come?

 

 

pathetic response, to be honest. I think even the biggest fool will realise these 2 insignificant competitions aren't what most people have in mind as trophies. They will also see that I have only answered your bile comments.

 

Why don't you answer my perfectly reasonable enquiry of your opinion ?

 

 

 

I will respond to your points when you stop lying and address the one assertion I have made.

 

I tend not to take orders from people who have repeatedly lied to me because it tends to encourage their behaviour.

 

Be a man, admit that you have been thoroughly dishonest and I may give you a response.

 

I've said that I would prefer Shepherd to Bates every time, and the reasons why. My responses to you have been exactly that, responses to you on specific angles you moved the topic into.

 

It's a shame you don't answer a reasonable question, as you are harping on about us not winning the League Cup, I am only asking you who you blame for that.

 

My opinion is that players win football matches, and directors support their managers as best they can to the point where they have a team good enough to win these competitons, at least, if the club is up to that level.  What is your opinion ?

 

Do you think we had a team good enough to do it, or not ?

 

I have not shirked a response, unlike you.

 

I didn;t count those cups because they were meaningless, as most clubs who entered it considered it too. Am I right in saying that clubs who competed in europe at that time didn't enter these tournaments ?

 

Surely if you count those 2 tournaments as meaningful trophies, you would also count the intertoto, so does denying the this make you a liar ? Did the intertoto need a higher qualifying position than those other 2 competitions ?

 

 

Post where I harped on about us not winning the league cup - or is this yet another lie?

 

And again you are not right about teams playing in europe, in fact you couldn't be more confused.

 

The Full Memebers Cup The competition was created after the Heysel Stadium disaster, when English clubs were banned from European competition, as an additional competition for clubs in the top two divisions (hence the name - these clubs were 'Full Members' of the Football League, with full voting rights.

 

Check some facts next time.

 

you keep harping on abuot lying, pathetic really.

 

Like most people, I expect, I had forgotten all about the Full Members Cup because I didn't give a toss about it, pretty much the same as the teams who entered.

 

Do you therefore count the intertoto as a cup, if not, why not, or are you also lying ? [what a daft angle you've started here, again btw]

 

Most people will be wondering why you don't tell us what you think the reason is that we didn't win the League Cup, despite having a better team than a sample of the clubs I've mentioned.

 

Don't by shy, I won't call you a liar or anything daft like that, I'm just curious as to who you blame and why.

 

In fact, here is the list of winners of the Full Members Cup. Lots of big clubs took it seriously then. People can look for themselves to see where some of these winners were in their leagues at the time.

 

1986 - Chelsea 5 Manchester City 4

1987 - Blackburn Rovers 1 Charlton 0

1988 - Reading 4 Luton 1

1989 - Nottingham Forest 4 Everton 3 (aet)

1990 - Chelsea 1 Middlesbrough 0

1991 - Crystal Palace 4 Everton 1

1992 - Nottingham Forest 3 Southampton 2

 

 

 

The only thing I've asserted in this thread is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw come to SJP.

[2sheds]

Again my apologies for the pyramids but NE5 has already slithered out of one between me and him in this thread - and I think the proof of his repeated lying is worth displaying

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Again my apologies for the pyramids but NE5 has already slithered out of one between me and him in this thread - and I think the proof of his repeated lying is worth displaying

 

No, it isn't worth displaying:

 

1) No one is in the slightest bit bothered

 

2) Even if we were, can you see us reading back through that mountain of quotes?

[NE5]

 

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 term. 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.

 

Perhaps it isn't. If you like to contribute, you could tell us what exactly this makes Bates ?

 

par for the course for you, "thinking" things which are anti - Shepherd.

 

Maybe you would be better off not "thinking" things

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

oh my f****** god get off the forums until you learn how to edit out quotes that have no bearing on the current conversation.  both of you.

 

 

You have a point. It's not that hard.

 

Amusing how 2sheds has suddenly burst into life.

 

I know who he is now on another message board.  blueyes.gif

 

Must admit Dave, I'm quite disappointed he doesn't comment on what I've asked him, as he thinks he's such a clever lad elsewhere.

 

 

Another lie

 

I do not post on any other forums.

 

I've already told you I do not post on toontastic (if thats what you are referring to)

 

So lets hears how you 'know who I am on another message board

 

This should be fun

 

 

Care to comment on who you blame for the club not winning the League Cup, and any trophies, with players who were good enough to qualify for the Champions League.

 

Your avoidance of this, is hilarious

 

 

[NE5]

Again my apologies for the pyramids but NE5 has already slithered out of one between me and him in this thread - and I think the proof of his repeated lying is worth displaying

 

oh well. lets start another one off ? What is the reason for us not winning the League Cup with players good enough to play in the Champions League and qualify for europe more than every club bar 4 over the past decade ?

 

The size of the pyramid depends how many times you avoid an honest reply.

 

 

[NE5]

Again my apologies for the pyramids but NE5 has already slithered out of one between me and him in this thread - and I think the proof of his repeated lying is worth displaying

 

No, it isn't worth displaying:

 

1) No one is in the slightest bit bothered

 

2) Even if we were, can you see us reading back through that mountain of quotes?

 

I agree that nobody except 2sheds is the slightest bit bothered by his repeated show of anger and allegations of lying, most people can see that I posted my comment, and since then have responded to him as he has input various other angles.

 

It's all a bit rich and sad though, that he can't tell us who he blames for the club not even winning the League Cup, which he is doing as he is harping on and on about it, despite clearly having players good enough to win it.

 

Lets hope he gives us all the benefits of his wisdom and knowledge.

[junkhead]

obsessed with the fat fucker.. you make me sick, NE5.