If you had a choice between keeping Ken Bates or the return of Peter Risdale, which would you choose?
Risdale brought me a very exciting period and a real excitement including European football and a belief that we were good enough to win the big one and that we would in time. He also brought a very depressing period of supporting Leeds and having to watch them taken apart. I believe Risdale did love the club and he meant well he did not set out to ruin the club. Risdale he was a clueless prat. Bates has took the club into receivership and done some dodgy dealings. He set out from the start to think about himself and nobody else, he doesn't like Leeds fans or the club, it is a business and nothing else. Under Bates we are never going to win anything, we are never going to be a real force. We might cause a few upsets and hope to qualify for Europe but realistically not much else. Bates he is a scheming two faced prat. Would I welcome another gamble, yes I would actually so Risdale over Bates. Theory - Gamble pays we are great, gamble fails we crumble and re-build. Alternative is Bates, we are mid table contenders causing the odd upset never winning a thing.
Thats called hobsons choice. Dont want either of them, each as bad as each other for different reasons
If science catches up and Risdale and Bates ever have a kid together, it would probably make a good chairman. They are both **** but at opposite ends of the spectrum.
TC, I did this about a week ago, most of us said Ridsdale. Ridsdale was honest (too honest sometimes), and was let down badly by O'Leary who acted dishonestly and dishonorably and cost us multi millions of pounds in agents fee's and was negotiating transfers behind Ridsdale's back, and when Ridsdale became involved the deal(s) mysteriously came to nothing. (Source united we fall) Leeds-18, hope I havnt said anything I shouldnt... rably
