They missed the brown envelope!

You got that bit right!

Let Sprake himself tell the truth. He was there - you and all the other Vermin turds who try and re-write history weren't.


"I didn't have to get involved. The story was already written. They'd had a dossier on him for two years, had statements from people like Bill McGarry and Francis Munro [Wolves' manager and captain respectively] saying the same about Revie.

"I spoke the truth when I said I knew of two games he tried to fix. Some Leeds players can't get over it. I'm the black sheep because I've said something 'wrong' about the great Don Revie. He was a fantastic manager, but flawed. He was often too cautious and negative, filling our heads with boring dossiers about inferior teams instead of letting us off the leash. When he finally did, in '72, we thrashed Southampton 7-0 and Manchester United 5-1 and were absolutely brilliant.

"But I stand by what I said. Near the end of a season, Revie would ask certain people [opponents] whether they would like a nice holiday. Because I said that, some team-mates have blown me out of the family... I told the truth in '78. Not one person sued me. When I had to finish at Birmingham, aged 28, no one from Leeds got in touch. The bribery story broke and suddenly I had calls from Billy [Bremner] and Don. A testimonial and a job were offered. Revie arranged to meet me at a Leicester hotel. My solicitor went instead. The paper paid me £7,000. If I'd taken what he offered, I could have made £20,000. But it was about principle, not money. My conscience is clear."

Over to you.

 

As I've said before, this is merely your opinion, because you were always going to believe the words of others against Revie. You're conjuring these other cases out of thin air. You also conveniently ignore that the one person willing to testify was an opposition player testifying against Sprake, this is a case of the word of someone who is known to have had a troubled relationship with Revie against a completely impartial party. By your logic any time someone claims something to a newspaper (probably for financial gain) there is little doubt that thing happened no matter how little evidence there is to back up the claim. I could run to the Mirror now claiming to be the illegitimate love-child of Sven Goran Eriksson and in your world this leaves little doubt that I am.

I have little doubt Revie used underhand tactics to get youngsters to sign, it was hardly unheard of at the time. There is also no evidence for or against Stokoe's claims concerning our time at the bottom of the 2nd division, but if anything the evidence of bribery taking place to win tournaments was to our disadvantage (Milan, Bayern, Tinkler etc.).

 

I think with Stokoe on BBC footage stating he was offered a bung, any claim Revie never offered bungs has to be readjusted at least.

 

No, it's actually my INFORMED opinion. Any claims you make to it not being correct are simply your take on the evidence.

I have no vested interest one way or the other in it being true or not true. On the balance of probabilities, there's more than enough out there for me to feel it's true.

You have hung your support on this brief blip in Leeds history and therefore have a more than vested interest in it not being true.

Any impartial observer would see which version of events is more unbiased and credible. Let's face it, plenty of clubs were at it at the time, to believe TWS weren't can only be seen as delusional fantasy, and that's before looking at all the circumstantial and factual evidence that's around.

Ultimately, if a bloke repeatedly saying "Revie offered me a bribe" isn't proof enough for you, I'd be interested to know what is.


Your analogy to being a love child would also need several years of many other people making the same allegation. To hang a belief on one claim would be foolish, but that's in effect what you're doing with your demands for a level of proof where much of the evidence has been withheld for fear of opening a huge can of worms.

 

That's exactly what you're doing. All of your "evidence" is that someone claims there is evidence somewhere, but funnily enough no-one has ever actually exposed all this evidence. Anyway, I'm getting tired of going round in circles now, you keep ignoring my enquiry as to why the only person willing to stand up in court was supporting Revie, someone without any vested interest at all, and are yet to provide any actual evidence to support your theory. I'm afraid in this case the burden of proof is definitely on your side and there has yet to be any to come to surface. You also fail to explain how, if we bribed our way to trophies, we lost so much to suspicious refereeing/scheduling and in fact lost one final because of a referee who admitted to having been bribed by the opposition. You also clearly have your own bias by repeatedly referring to us as "TWS", where I'm fairly sure an unbiased observer would believe the side with actual factual evidence, court testimonies and official enquiries to back it up. I clearly can't do anything to change your opinion, and you've not even come close to doing anything to change mine, so I'll leave this thread here.

 

I've not hung my argument on one event, I've made reference to several and alluded to many others that you can find with little effort.

You have hung your belief on a court case, the same one I've already described why some players decided to not give evidence.

By definition, the activity is furtive and seedy, the fact that so much information is out there says much about how common it was. You have BBC footage of someone telling you they were offered bribes and they were not challenged by those they accuse. All in all, anyone impartial looking at it can only come to one conclusion. You're so desperate for it not to be true, even footage of the cash changing hands wouldn't convince you.


It makes no difference to me what you believe, I keep pointing out it's a brief blip in a history of none achievement. You'll just keep getting upset when most of the football world and fans don't give TWS much respect for what you feel are achievements.

The other thing to all of this is that it's academic. The Leeds that happened to doesn't exist anymore. Bates scrapped it and the charity of the football world let TWS continue as a franchise like MK Dons.

 

Nope, no bias here.

 

"You also fail to explain how, if we bribed our way to trophies, we lost so much to suspicious refereeing/scheduling and in fact lost one final because of a referee who admitted to having been bribed by the opposition"


AC Milan were better fixers than Leeds.

Sunderland outplayed you

Munich took their chances on a night when your scum tarnished the game again

How tacky was it when Revie somehow managed to get Admiral to make the England strip?

I wonder what he got out of the deal?

 

That's one of the few things you've managed to get right, but still managed to get it wrong. It should have been "Nope, no bias there"

 

Today, 01:08 PM 'I'll leave this thread here.'

Then

Today, 01:27 PM 'Nope, no bias here.'

Make your mind up....

 

You ****ing thieving dole wollers are so bitter because he didn't stay at your bombsite

get over it, and get a ****ing job you smelly ****s

 

Coming from you the irony is not lost on me.

 

TBH, it was before my time and I think we got a record fee for him.

Good luck with your Tourette's medication

 

**** off weekend warrior

 

Very poor, you're just making a tool of yourself.

What part of Leeds are you from again?

 

which boys brigade are you in?

 

The honest answer is I have never been in the Boys Brigade or the Territorial Army.

Just like the honest answer to my question is you're not from Leeds. You're from Ireland but due to it being in the third world left for a better place.

You chose Leeds.



What a mug.

 

I'm sure there are some reasonable Leeds fan out there somewhere, but this guy is the perfect example of why everyone hates them; he can't cope with the reasonable debate and suddenly starts swearing at everyone having a massive paddy. Next he'll tell us he doesn't care about us (we're a tinpot club) and he just accidentally reads our board often enough to spot any thread relating to Leeds...

 

Yep.

He's a bit dense so one has to make allowances.

 

Massive paddy?

ARF!