Jump to content

 

 

John Eustace Arrives In Glasgow


Recommended Posts

Behave! :D

Leeds history consists of half a dozen years of trophies under Don Revie and a championship win in 1992. Nowhere near the top 5.

 

:rolleyes:

 

EUROPEAN CUP

1974-75 European Cup finalists

1969-70 European Cup semi finalists

UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

2000-01 Champions League semi finalists

EUROPEAN CUP WINNERS CUP

1972-73 European Cup-Winners Cup finalists

INTER CITIES FAIRS CUP/UEFA CUP

1967-68 European Fairs Cup winners

1970-71 European Fairs Cup winners

1966-67 European Fairs Cup finalists

1965-66 European Fairs Cup semi finalists

Edited by Anchorman
Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

EUROPEAN CUP

1974-75 European Cup finalists

1969-70 European Cup semi finalists

UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

2000-01 Champions League semi finalists

EUROPEAN CUP WINNERS CUP

1972-73 European Cup-Winners Cup finalists

INTER CITIES FAIRS CUP/UEFA CUP

1967-68 European Fairs Cup winners

1970-71 European Fairs Cup winners

1966-67 European Fairs Cup finalists

1965-66 European Fairs Cup semi finalists

 

 

You can roll your eyes as much as you like, you've merely confirmed what I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep you're right - they have no real history. I take it back :D

 

 

Don't be so fucking stupid, every club has real history. You stated that it could be argued that they were just below the top three or four in Britain, something which is patently nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair though,both these teams would kick our asses right now,most English Championship sides would!,no?.

They would destroy anyone in Scotland and there probably isn't an awful lot between them and Celtic either. That doesn't mean we should put too much stock in those clubs showing interest in a player - they aren't good teams and they sign a lot of poor players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two far better teams than us and in a better Champonship than us. Leeds could arguably stand up with most of the best in Britain outside the top 3 or 4 as far as history is concerned.

It counts for plenty, or should I say it counts more than your condescending comment to my post would suggest.

My feelings (and others) on the player are made even clearer than yours.

Nobody is disputing they are not far better teams than us, they are still poor sides in the grand scheme of things. Both those teams would get horsed by just about anyone in the Europa Cup and we should be looking at being a half decent Europa Cup team pretty soon.

 

I'm not sure what the history of Leeds United has to do with anything, all that matters is where they are now. It seems your are completely wrong though - they are ranked 13th in English football for most trophies won. I would challenge you to take a look at the current Leeds United and Sheffield Wednesday squads and tell me all the particularly good players they have? Given their interest in players seems to prove something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down. I think it's fair to say Leeds have a significant place in history. However, to say that they were just below the top 4 sides in Britain is stretching it IMO. How does one measure history? I checked the number of trophies won (a decent measure, I think). The top English sides are:

 

1 Manchester United 62

2 Liverpool 60

3 Arsenal 42

4 Chelsea 28

5 Aston Villa 24

= Everton 24

= Tottenham Hotspur 24

8 Manchester City 17

9 Newcastle United 13

= Nottingham Forest 13

= Wolverhampton Wanderers 13

12 Blackburn Rovers 12

13 Leeds United A.F.C. 9

 

Then the Scottish sides:

 

1 Rangers 115

2 Celtic 98

3 Aberdeen 19

4 Heart of Midlothian 16

5 Queen's Park 10

6 Hibernian 9

 

Leeds are joint-13th in the English table, and that would be joint-19th (?) in a British table.

 

Perhaps I took your 'argument' a bit too far, but I thought it was an interesting point. How does one measure history? It's mostly subjective. And, of course, 'history' is unrelated to current form. Then, does one apply greater weighting to English sides because of their greater challenge, or greater weighting to the rank of trophies won? Tricky question. (I think I took it too far...)

Edited by Rousseau
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down. I think it's fair to say Leeds have a significant place in history. However, to say that they were just below the top 4 sides in Britain is stretching it IMO. How does one measure history? I checked the number of trophies won (a decent measure, I think). The top English sides are:

 

1 Manchester United 62

2 Liverpool 60

3 Arsenal 42

4 Chelsea 28

5 Aston Villa 24

= Everton 24

= Tottenham Hotspur 24

8 Manchester City 17

9 Newcastle United 13

= Nottingham Forest 13

= Wolverhampton Wanderers 13

12 Blackburn Rovers 12

13 Leeds United A.F.C. 9

 

Then the Scottish sides:

 

1 Rangers 115

2 Celtic 98

3 Aberdeen 19

4 Heart of Midlothian 16

5 Queen's Park 10

6 Hibernian 9

 

Leeds are joint-13th in the English table, and that would be joint-19th (?) in a British table.

 

Perhaps I took your 'argument' a bit too far, but I thought it was an interesting point. How does one measure history? It's mostly subjective. And, of course, 'history' is unrelated to current form. Then, does one apply greater weighting to English sides because of their greater challenge, or greater weighting to the rank of trophies won? Tricky question. (I think I took it too far...)

I don't think it's a tricky question, it goes without saying. Otherwise you could say that Linfield's trophy haul is better than Man Utd's.

 

By the way, I had not realised how close Chelsea are creeping up to Arsenal! No history they say? In 10-15 years Chelsea will have won more than Arsenal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a tricky question, it goes without saying. Otherwise you could say that Linfield's trophy haul is better than Man Utd's.

 

By the way, I had not realised how close Chelsea are creeping up to Arsenal! No history they say? In 10-15 years Chelsea will have won more than Arsenal.

 

10 years ago that gap was huge about 40 v 15. The roman millions have played the part. But Arsenal have been rebuilding for the long term in that and in 10-15 years Id still bet that Arsenal will be clear of Chelsea.

 

Its a good debate though. Id class Leeds as a sleeping giant and Sheff Wed. There is always the debate about how you define a big club / team: History / Stadia and Facilities / Fan Base / trophy count & on what level / turnover.

I always thought of Rangers and Man Utd as the big 2 in the mid 90s. (Pretty sure we beat a full strength Man U side in Aug 1996.) Liverpool and Arsenal for sure in the top 3 in England.

Rangers and Celtic still have big ticks in most categories but the TV money has moved the English clubs poles apart. Even Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were decent clubs in the 80s on a Euro level but neither were giants.

 

Leeds are just a bad ran club but have huge potential due to fan base in the local area. Yhey have been in and out of the top flight in pretty much every decade but id class them as a big club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.