Stars on your shirts

Right, I'll cut out the inconsequential ****e you've added for padding in the hope it looks good.

I can't believe anyone's sad enough to still believe it was all above board. In those days money was often changing hands, Peter Lorimar relates the tale of the house Man U bought his parents to acquire his services before Leeds came and persuaded him to go there . But you'd have us believe everything was above board at one of the main clubs people were describing the money they'd been offered.

 

Hold on, hold on!

The 3 stars on the Ipswich Shirt are entirely justified, as they are the biggest trophies in football!!

The First Division was the equivalent of the Premiership today. (Obviously)

The FA Cup is the biggest English Cup competition (Obviously)

The UEFA Cup, at the time, was the biggest European trophy available. The equivalent of today's Champions League. (Obviously)

Uneducated Leeds twaddle as usual I see. Idiot.

 

"The UEFA Cup, at the time, was the biggest European trophy available. The equivalent of today's Champions League. (Obviously)"

The European Cup was the equivalent of the Champions League

Who's the uneducated one?

 

The rest of my post including the 90s and 00s was integral to the argument. Not inconsequential ****e and if you want to argue against my points, I suggest you argue against them all rather than selectively deleting the ones you don't fancy tackling.

Neglects point about living memory, neglects point as I mentioned above about the years aside from Revie, neglects my point about the definition of a "natural level". Another argument shied away from. Poor form. I wonder if this trend will continue?

I look at the fact that the heavy balance of evidence was rubbished in court and no matches alleged to have been fixed were fixed.

Then why accept something as true which is clearly untrue? Look at the heavy body of evidence in the court case (in your own words "like any sane person would") and the complete lack of fixed matches.

How so?

Serious money from newspapers isn't a giggle. Nor is your apparent argument that the court's decision is false simply because the allegations were fabricated in some detail. Motive speculation is all your argument amounts to.

Wrong. I've provided solid evidence against all the major match-fixing claims, none of which you even mentioned yourself except Stokoe. You've selectively deleted large and relevant sections of my argument and given feeble, piss-poor arguments against them which stink of the bias of a Hull City supporter who wishes his club had the Revie legacy which Leeds still benefit from today. But that's just my perception, I wouldn't want this to end in an ad hominem contest, that would move away from the argument, which is something you've already inadequately tried to do.

One thing I will insist is that you back up your claims that a) Leeds United fixed any matches at all and b) that match-fixing led to Leeds United's major successes of that era. So far, you have woefully failed to do so, and those are far more significant claims than the tapping up of teenage prospects like Lorimer. Even if they weren't, I'd still want you to prove them because that's the foundation of a logical discussion, something you don't seem interested about in the slightest.

 

Aww bless you Donald my little cock bod. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you desperately cling to the hope that your chosen teams blip was earned.

Face facts, for most of their existence, Leeds United have been a mediocre second tier side. That even you cannot dispute. (Although you seem thick enough to try)

Numerous people have said that on xxx date, they were offered £xxx's to influence the result of the game against Leeds. When you look at the others that were cooking at the time, only a really desperate person would continue to plead total innocence, and that's without those going public.

The few baubles you hang on to as evidence that the few years you use as a yard stick for history are tainted.

Suck it up and move on, you're just looking more and more thick, desperate and deluded.

 

I think we have had about 30 years in the top flight, roughly a third of our 92 years not a bad little blip.

The trophy count in those years isn't too bad either.

 

You continue to evade my points which suggests you don't have any confidence in your own argument. It was not a blip and until proven otherwise, it was completely earned.

Please show me when I've tried to disprove that we've been a mediocre second tier side for most of our existence? I mentioned living memory as relevant to a club's "natural level", a point you've now ducked twice. As I said before, why would pre-1960s mediocrity have any bearing on the club's "natural level" today?

Name those people. I've rubbished all the major claims by showing how the claims were dismissed in court and how no match alleged to be fixed was fixed and yet you continue to bullshit me with conjecture.

Sigh. Avoiding the post-Revie years and the aggregation of our position over the last 50 years again. You really are an awful debater.

No.

 

One final comment on this subject...

Ask any true and knowledgable football fan to name the great British sides over the years and they will all say the Leeds United of the Revie era. Not bad for a mediocre little side.

Time you admitted Leeds United will always be revered where ever they go, the team and the supporters.

You're just bitter you're not part of the ride that is Leeds United.

Marching on Together.

 

Donald, you're vanishing up your own arse in your sad desperate and feeble attempt to divert attention from what everyone else sees as patently obvious.

It's not your fault, without exception Leeds message boards ban anyone who points at the naked emperor and encourages those that feed the delusions, but for the sake of what's left of your sanity, step out of that bubble and don't do what the numpties usually do and cry that it's just envy, it makes them look very shallow and parochial and misses the issue totally.


However earned, there is no argument, the period where Leeds had 'success' is a minor part of their total history, that is without any shadow of doubt, a blip. You've offered nothing that disproves it and plenty that supports it.

The Club's natural level is that which it can manage without artificial support. History has shown that without artificial support, Leeds bobble in the second tier, the facts very, very clearly support this. I'm not even sure why you embarrass yourself by trying to hide from such an obvious fact?


You've not managed to rubbish a single claim (and I've only mentioned a few) you've simply hidden behind one out of date Court case with left some people faced with choosing the lesser of two evils and not all accusers were there. Some challenged Leeds to take them to Court and Leeds didn't.

You're rubbish at this really, but as I mentioned earlier, Leeds boards are noted for not liking the truth and selectively editing posters, so you've never really faced the truth head on.

 

What's up DMD you're up a nice and early, couldn't you sleep. Has Donald got to you?

Incidently, what's this artificial support you're going on about? Can you explain this, especially regarding Sir Don and Sgt Wilko?

 

wooooo steady on. Let me just ask: have any of our teams made 100 points and attained a goal difference of +100, and made a wembley trip all in one season. I dont think so

However Coalville Town (The Ravens) did just that last season - but i dont see there army of supporters harping on about it

 

Well done Coalville Town.

 

ok.

You've frequented every Leeds message board then? Obsession.

Ignoring my point again, go back to it, read it and quote it like I'm doing. You're being ignorant and stupid.

What is artificial support? I suggest you look at some of our attendances in the mid 90s if you think we were getting 40k+ every year in the top flight. Every team has floating fans/plastic fans/Johnny come latelys or whatever you want to call them. I have no ****ing clue why that has anything to do with a club's "natural level" and I have no ****ing clue how you can define any of that totally subjective rubbish because it's completely arbitrary. What about my point about the last 50 years and living memory? Another point ignored.

Name the ****ing claims then you idiot. Tell me why the court case is out of date. Tell me why the people were choosing the lesser of two evils. Tell me which persons weren't present and why their claims were true. Tell me which matches in particular were fixed in Leeds' favour and how you can irrefutably prove that.

You're the worst debater I've ever come across on this forum. Argue against my previous points by quoting them and actually adding content to your argument rather than non sequiturs and ad hominems and I'll be tempted to respond. Until then, you're just a bitter ****ing idiot who can't logically discuss this topic to save his life. I expected better to be honest, thought you were one of the more reasonable types on here.

 

Donald, using terms you don't understand makes you look silly.

You've offered nothing of any substance but the usual tear stained nonsense to avoid the clear evidence.

A few years out of a century is a blip.

There's a stronger case against Leeds than there is against the ref in the much sobbed about Euro game.

Artificial support refers to financial not gates you nugget.

 

"A few years out of a century is a blip."

30 years is not a few.

God you're a **** wit

 

At least you got my status right if nothing else.

 

is that your reply? You pathetic excuse for a human.

Grow some bollocks and admit you're wrong.

We're still waiting for proof of the corruption and the response to the 30 years out of 92 been a blip!

 

Unlike almost every comment you've made, I'm not wrong,the rest is there and has been done to death with a far higher degree of proof than the feeble squeals from you and your ilk about the European ref.

 

And yet again you choose to ignore the questions directed at you.

We'll leave it at that I think.

 

~I've yet to see much evidence to support the claim of your last two words.


I didn't realise it was you Mr Magnussun, I thought it was a message board. I've put an outline of what I think, you've huffed and puffed with nothing of consequence.


I actually feel like the adult that's told the child Santa doesn't exist ad he's nowhere near good enough to ever make a living playing football instead of humouring the little one's fantasies.

If you're not bright enough to see that the answers are there already, life is far too short and I have very little inclination to fill in the huge gaps in your knowledge.