Prev: If Pompey go bust who stands to lose points ?
Next: Great ! now pakis want to BBQ themselves
From: Baldoni on 14 Feb 2010 13:03
SteveH expressed precisely :
> Lescor <lescor(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> - The Busby Babes weren't as good as people like to think, they had
>>> potential, nothing more.
>>>
>>> (This despite them already having won the league)
>>
>> And Chelsea won it the year before with what must have been the
>> worst side ever to do so. (52pts) Not just my opinion. The English top
>> division when through a very poor patch at that time. I know, because
>> I was there watching it.
>>
>> Question. Did you ever see the Busby babes as i did so many times,
>> or is your opinion based on football folklore? Is it opinion based on
>> newspapers or actual experience? You understand the question?
>
> I think you should stop right there.
>
> Won the league by 11 points in 56 - the team had an average age of just
> 22.

Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

--
Count Baldoni

In hoc signo vinces


From: SteveH on 14 Feb 2010 13:12
Baldoni <BaldoniXXV(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

> > Won the league by 11 points in 56 - the team had an average age of just
> > 22.
>
> Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Rather more impressive than your 'kids' who have won feck all. Despite
all the media hype essentially declaring that Wenger can walk on water
every time they win an early round of the Carling Cup.

--
SteveH
From: Baldoni on 14 Feb 2010 13:42
SteveH wrote on 14/02/2010 :
> Baldoni <BaldoniXXV(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Won the league by 11 points in 56 - the team had an average age of just
>>> 22.
>>
>> Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
>
> Rather more impressive than your 'kids' who have won feck all. Despite
> all the media hype essentially declaring that Wenger can walk on water
> every time they win an early round of the Carling Cup.

All this Busby Babes bullshit gets very boring after a while. Move on
ffs !

--
Count Baldoni

In hoc signo vinces


From: Lescor on 15 Feb 2010 08:25


"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fVWdn.150348$2R.33107(a)newsfe11.ams2...
>
> "Lescor" <lescor(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:buSdnasELLq2lOXWnZ2dnUVZ8mudnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Les, old fruit, you do like to rewrite history, don't you mate.
>>>
>>> I love impartiality, disinterest and objectivity, what I'm not so keen
>>> on is charlatans claiming they posess the above to try and add weight to
>>> their opinions when they quite clearly do not.
>>>
>>> Here's some highlights from your posts, Les:
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Busby Babes weren't as good as people like to think, they had
>>> potential, nothing more.
>>>
>>> (This despite them already having won the league)
>>
>> And Chelsea won it the year before with what must have been the
>> worst side ever to do so. (52pts) Not just my opinion. The English top
>> division when through a very poor patch at that time. I know, because
>> I was there watching it.
>>
>> Question. Did you ever see the Busby babes as i did so many times,
>> or is your opinion based on football folklore? Is it opinion based on
>> newspapers or actual experience? You understand the question?


> See Steve H's reply to you in this thread. If you're feeling up to it, you
> could even venture a little reply .

So, you ignore my question....again. Did you ever see them? Obviously
not!


>> Flattered though I am that you record my past posts, you seem to leave
>> out my replies.
>
>
> Au contraire Les mate, they 'are' your replies.
>
>
>
>
> Your garbage......god forgive me......was covered more than
>> once but ignored. So, just one more time. If being placed in a very
>> high
>> population area is not an essential advantage for a football clubs
>> continued
>> success then explain why such clubs seem to win the league titles year
>> after year after year. With one exception, the Prem has been won by a
>> Manchester or London side every year since it started. The mayjor Euro
>> leagues show the same big city trend.
>>
>> Obviously just a coincidence? Just an unusual statistical quirk that we
>> don't find Shrewsbury or Tiverton or Crewe competing for the title. No
>> doubt
>> that, in time, teams like these with a potential fan base of a couple of
>> thousand, will start to win title after title just to set the stats
>> straight.
>> Why not? All that they need is a genius manager. SAF would have
>> done the job if he had gone there, regardless of poor potential support.
>>
>> No, it won't happen, and there is a reason why. From the early 60's, it
>> became more difficult for smaller clubs to succeed where they had done.
>> occasionally, before. You have probably never heard of this. You have to
>> know a bit about the game, but they bought in the end of the maximum
>> wage. Clubs were allowed to pay whatever wages they liked rather than
>> all being the same. It was then that the gate money from highly
>> populated
>> areas started to play a greater part.
>>
>> You see the point "old fruit".... it is pretty bloody difficult to get
>> 50.000
>> into a ground on a wet Saturday afternoon when that number makes up
>> for such a high proportion of the total population. Far easier for clubs
>> from big cities. Not so difficult if you give it some thought is it?
>> No, it is not the sole reason for Man U's success, or Arsenals', or
>> Chelsea's
>> or any other club......but it is a VITAL requirement without which there
>> won't
>> be any success.
>
>
> But Les, you keep saying this, and I have already given you several
> examples of teams who have enjoyed success without the VITAL large local
> population to call on.

LOL.......when?
>
> I even pointed out to you that United had a lot more competition for its
> support from other local clubs than Chelsea enjoys but you didn't get
> round to responding to that.

> Which is exactly the point I made in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - United wouldn't have had their success if they'd come from Exeter.
>>>
>>> - Chelsea's money is just as deserved as United's.
>>>
>>> - United were lucky to win the league last season due to Chelsea's
>>> injuries.
>>>
>>> (When I point out the United's injuries were more extensive than
>>> Chelsea's
>>> you evade the point like the plague again)
>>>
>>> And your denial that the overwhelming majority of fans in a stadium will
>>> be partial is an amusing indication of how far you will try and go
>>> before
>>> admitting you're wrong.
>>
>> That was due to your strange reading. I said the opposite.
>>
>>>> But you didn't old mate. You produced three, who.you said had major
>>>> success, obviously comparable with the type of MU Arsenal type
>>>> sustained
>>>> succes we were talking about, and you.....wait for it, named
>>>> Huddersfield??? Ipswich? and Blackpool all of which had success
>>>> although
>>>> with less populations than my example, which could have been chosen
>>>> from
>>>> scores but happened to be Exeter. So, according to you, this proves
>>>> that
>>>> as Exeter has a bigger population than all your named 3 it proves that
>>>> my
>>>> argument is wrong. lol........Do you have any idea of what a non
>>>> sequitur
>>>> is?
>>
>> You obviously don't.
>>
>>
>>> You said a big population base was a 'requirement' of success. I clearly
>>> pointed out, with examples, that this isn't necessarily the case.
>>
>> So....the floor is yours, (and I said "continued success") Name a
>> successful
>> Prem side from a small town with low population. How many of this type
>> have
>> won the top div title since the late 60's compared to "big city" clubs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You really are going to have to get better at dealing with adversity.
>>>
>>> And let's not forget that this all stemmed from your pathological
>>> inability
>>> to acknowledge United's success without some bizarre rider such as they
>>> wouldn't have had it if they'd come from Exeter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would prove no such thing, but put your mind to this. Exeter.in
>>>> fact,
>>>> has a lower population to the three you named......lol.....unfortunate
>>>> but
>>>> true old chump.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly for you Les, not true at all.
>>>
>>> Latest official figures has Exeter's population as being over 3000
>>> larger
>>> than Ipswich's.
>>>
>>> But I know how hard you find it to ever admit you're wrong so let's
>>> gloss
>>> over this.
>>>
>>> Let's just recognise just what kind of 'impartial' mind would gain
>>> comfort
>>> from the idea that United would never have been successful if they'd
>>> come
>>> from Exeter.
>>
>> A sensible mind old chum. One that realises that some clubs could afford
>> to
>> buy Dennis Law from Italy , and to pay his wages, and some couldn't.
>> Why?
>> Because of the population/gate money equation. Easy isn't it ...-)) ?
>
>
> Not really Les, by your reckoning Birmingham should have won the European
> cup countless times.

Logic just isn't your strong point is it old chap?. You should be ashamed
to
publish that schoolboy type reasoning. Shall I bother to advance
your basic reasoning powers by a few years? OK, but only because I have
10 spare minutes. Try to concentrate.

The concept that you need 'A' to produce ' B' is NOT identical to
suggesting
that 'A' will always produce 'B' That might be a bit complicated for you,
so let's
expand. You need a strong water supply in order to run a hydro electric
plant
but just having plenty of water will not produce one.

Think about it.................................Think
again......................once more.

Now lets relate it to the idea that you need population in order to be
continually successful (water). You might find it getting difficult from
here,
but keep at it......., but although population is vital to continued
success
it does not guarantee it, just like having a big river does not give you
electricity, but you would be a bloody fool to try to build one without it.

Was that too difficult? Now just look at those sides which, since the
mid 60's have enjoyed long periods of reasonable success in the top
league positions All from large population areas. And that was my
original comment about Man U's success. I said that, first of all,
you need the good fortune to be based in a high population area.
A simple and easily proved statement of the obvious as we find
by just browsing through the sides involved in the top league. and
then the lower leagues where we find the Histons, Tamworths,
Crawley, Ketterings and scores of others who's position has
absolutely nothing to do with their location.

You say that you have named small population sides who have achieved
continued success. But when? I must have missed them, and despite my
invitations, seem reluctant to repeat them. We know why, don't we?









> Les mate, you seemed to have missed my points about your arguing that
> United didn't deserve to win the league over Chelsea because of Chelsea's
> injury problems. United's were worse in the season in question. You dodged
> the point.

I cannot reply to that, mainly because I never said it. Your problem with
not being able to read what is written hasn't improved has it?



> And your bizarre claim that Chelsea deserve their Abramovich money as much
> as United deserve the money they've gained from continued success on the
> pitch. That strikes me as not a very rational stance, mate.

Irrational? Try explaining your idea of "deserve". That is the emotive and
irrational
part. Man City are as "deserving" of success as Man U depending how well
they
do on the pitch. So are Arsenal, and Chelsea, Spurs and Crewe. What the
hell
has funding got to do with results? Football is a business and business can
bring investment of different types. "Deserving" is hardly appropriate for
a club
which put itself up for sale and now trades carrying over �700m in debts,
compared
with Chelsea and ( probably) Man City and Burnley who will have none., or
Arsenal
who have more little.

No argument that MU fans deserve better than the uncertainty the debt
brings, but, as
a club they have no right to the moral high ground after such a greed driven
balls-up.



> But the funniest thing about your whole ABU perspective is that you go to
> such lengths to qualify United's success, undermining the Busby Babes,
> desperately clinging on to the fact that United come from Manchester and
> not Exeter, and try to pretend that it's a rational, neutral view. It's
> not mate. It's a desperate and transparently bitter view from a Chelsea
> fan who probably wouldn't even be on these ngs if a Russian billionaire
> hadn't bankrolled his history-free zone of a club.

So I am once again a Chelsea fan? I am sure they will be pleased to have
me.
Not sure what to do with my membership of Spurs, Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool,
and Man City I am supposed to hold, plus a few others I cannot remember.
If I were a Chelsea addict I would probably not be at all bitter. They must
be
the happiest fans around. Doing OK, A football crazy and very rich owner,
and no debts? They are more likely to create bitterness than feel it
surely?



LC



















First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: If Pompey go bust who stands to lose points ?
Next: Great ! now pakis want to BBQ themselves