Not quite JLA because if Ridsdale hadn't gambled & taken us into extreme debt, Bates would never have been in a position to get involved.
So Boggers, do you want to blame every prior chairman for Bates becoming chairman and deciding to exit admin without a CVA, thereby jeopardizing Leeds United's FL membership? By way of example, if Ridsdale's predecessor had not resigned when he did, PR may never have become chairman, would not have overspent, etc. and thus Gerald Krasner and Professor McKenzie would not have and thus Ken bates would not have and thus and thus and thus.... It gets rather silly doesn't it? I suggest it is valid to evaluate each one's performance based on the hand they were dealt.
The club is moving forward in spite of bates. His looking out for himself is going to come back and bite the club in the ass eventually. He did not factor in the loss of interest from a group of fans who are deemed to be some of the most passionate in the world, expecting them to follow blindly so long as he was conservative and frugal, using the excuse of indebted clubs as his trump card any time anyone said "well why the hell aren't we spending anything?". He is looking out for himself, he is spending as little as he can get away with. Success on the pitch is just a nice bonus, he couldn't give 2 ****s if we stay in the Championship for the rest of eternity so long as he turns a profit. Putting footballing success as a low priority means we are going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere. We will never make it into the Champion's League with bates in charge, as it will simply cost too much money.
"so long as he turns a profit." I might be ok with this philosophy if I knew where the money was going. However, it is impossible to tell exactly what is in overhead, which has ballooned since administration, even in our last L1 year.
Ridsdale was living the dream, he tried to do the best he could for Leeds Utd. He got screwed over by O'Leary, he was screwed over the board, and was royally screw over by agents for players.
Ellandback, have you read PR's book? He states that the Leeds United chairman has historically pretty much done whatever he wanted and then would inform the board of his deed(s). I don't think he was a victim at all.
Hey Jonny, yep read PR AND DOL's books. PR makes some very strong allegations about DOL and others. If you havn't got a copy, I can send you one...
Ok, I don't agree with what you are saying specifically the club is moving forward in spite of Bates (I don't fully understand how any company can possibly move forward in spite of their owner/chairman but still) but it is your view. But you still MUST see that Ridsdale is by far the worst out of the 2
It's moving forward in spite of Bates because Bates has done nothing to help apart from appoint 2 good managers in a row.
Completely different to actually letting those managers have any funds for players, or to respecting the fans, or to not wasting our money on unneeded stadium renovations or letting our best talent go for next to nothing. It doesn't cost Bates any more to appoint a good manager. It's Simon Grayson who has moved us forward and Neil Warnock who is moving us forwards, not Bates.
Yes but using the saying 'in spite of' kind of implies that he has done nothing to help in any way whatsoever, I wasn't trying to argue that point however how can any company go forward if the owner/chairman doesn't want them to. I agree with your points, I dont think the stadium renovations are not needed but the rest I agree with. But he did appoint both Grayson and Warnock which has been in the best interests of the club and proves his desire to make Leeds United a better club and a Premier League club
We're talking about a man who was lining up to appoint Neil Redfearn before he was made aware that doing so was a step too far and would have really started the fires burning. He only appointed Warnock as a panic move.
Very nice of you, thank you. I read most of PR's book on a riany day in a London bookstore as I had nowhere else to go for awhile. I have DOL's book at home. I thought that his book made him look bad and his actions since then even worse. He simply has just never taken responsibility for his actions.
It means his net contribution is negative. It means that the good work of others is required to overcome his negatives. It means that without him, others would do better and the organization would be farther along. I recommend that you read the book "Good boss, bad boss." If and as you do so, think about the descriptions and anecdotes in the book and which ones are consistent with/descriptive of Ken Bates.
Of course it was. Just look at all the press releases by the club after Grayson was sacked, they were trying to butter everyone up for the appointment of Redfearn, then when the protesting became too much to handle they went after Warnock. Warnock should have been appointed within days of Graysons dismissal if they really wanted him. Forget all that QPR payoff bullshit. If you want the man, get him. Lets not forget that they felt the need to constantly remind everyone that they weren't ruling out the possibility of Redfearn getting the job on a permanent basis instead of quietly letting him get on with it. 3 points from 9 in a run of games that should never have been less than 9 points and they were commending him on the "good job" that he did. I'm going with 3 points from 12 under Redfearn considering Warnock stepped in to clean up his mess half way through the Doncaster game. While it is important to keep a positive outlook on any situation, the massive fan-fair they made about Redfearn being in charge and ramming it down our throats about how much the players love him and how well he's doing, it's so blatantly obvious that he was the clubs first choice. Warnock was only brought in because they saw that appointing Redfearn would have riled the protesters even more, caused more fans to become disillusioned and basically spelled an end for the profit machine they've set up. The only good decisions made by the board at the moment are not for the best interests of the club. They are to make the masses think they want the best for the club and to keep them quiet. It's clearly worked on you Josh.
Marko, you're presenting your interpretation as fact. You're presenting a conspiracy theory with no apparent firm evidence. You might be right, you might be wrong. I don't have the facts, so I can't make my own personal judgement. But to me you're stepping over the line by ranting at people that have an open mind, and are prepared to take a considered view (only they don't have the evidence to truly do so). Ease off.
Whitejock, let's give Ken Bates some credit. He is a crafty fellow who often uses double speak so that his words can be interpreted in many different ways. He operates very close to the edge and may even go over it from time to time but is incredibly teflonic. As we often must do in legal situations, the preponderance of evidence should tell one a story. Some choose to listen to a different channel and until the rubber meets the road, those people will never believe what is really in front of our eyes. The tricky part is eyes have to be open for the brain to get an image.
