Leeds United

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

Can't remember who it was against but Pedro scored a similar goal for at SJP at a later date.

I was at the Grand National that day, and me da had me season ticket Was against Norwich leazes end.

[Guest alex]

Can't remember who it was against but Pedro scored a similar goal for at SJP at a later date.

I was at the Grand National that day, and me da had me season ticket Was against Norwich leazes end.

So it was. It looked good but tbh you only appreciated how good on TV. Or that was case from where I was sitting back then anyway (other corner more or less in the Miburn).

Edited July 29, 2010 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

I've never heard that about Cole and drugs. If he was taking any drugs it certainly didn't affect his performance. I'd be inclined to think it would've shown up in a medical as well so I'd have thought manure would've knocked him back. Anyway, it wasn't the brightest move selling him to them at almost a goal every two games.

 

Have to say i have doubts about it as well, firstly that Cole and Clark were massively into drugs and that secondly Fergie wouldn't touch a player known for that with a bargepole. Wasn't sorting out the drinking culture one of the first things he did at manu, i don't see him being stupid enough to take on a drug problem.

 

I also agree you don't sell your no.1 striker to your then rivals to help them, even if we got a winger KK wanted in part exchange. However if Keegan thought it best then i'd back him (well, i did eventually back then!) after everything he'd done, but personally i'd never have given them Cole if i was selling him.

 

 

Having read SAF's book and observing his attitude to players which drink, and his views on their lifestyle, I'd be amazed if he had signed Andy Cole with the knowledge he was into drugs, allegedly !!!

 

It's all about backing your manager however, and if Keegan was happy to sell him to manu, then they were right to back him.

[sniffer 0]

So in your opinion, LM, Keegan did the right thing? Setting manu up for years in the goalscoring department?

 

I understand hindsight is 20/20, but you didn't have to be a mental giant to work out that this would come back to bite us in the arse. Any board has to go along with their manager even if the decision is, IMO, as absurd as this one was? Sell him by all means, but not to your main rival. Gillespie wasn't that good.

 

I honestly don't think Keegan thought this one through.

[LeazesMag 0]

So in your opinion, LM, Keegan did the right thing? Setting manu up for years in the goalscoring department?

 

I understand hindsight is 20/20, but you didn't have to be a mental giant to work out that this would come back to bite us in the arse. Any board has to go along with their manager even if the decision is, IMO, as absurd as this one was? Sell him by all means, but not to your main rival. Gillespie wasn't that good.

 

I honestly don't think Keegan thought this one through.

 

 

What I'm saying, is that if Keegan chose this course of action, then he is the manager and they were right to back him. Was Keegan right or wrong to sell him to ManU, it turned out to be not the wisest decision but he said on those steps that he would take the credit or the blame for it, but to trust him to run his team the way he wanted. I find it difficult if not impossible to blame Keegan for anything, personally. I just wish he had stuck it out.

 

We DID in fact end up with a better team, not quite enough to topple Manu unfortunately. Such is life, I'm sure ManU would rather have had Shearer than Cole.

[sniffer 0]

I'd love to ask Keegan his thinking around this some day as I think it was a critical decision that manu definitely came out ahead. Ferdinand was short lived here in comparison.

 

Anyway, I wonder what would've happened if we had decided to keep Cole and just find the money to buy Ferdinand and play them both up front? Admittedly, we may not have signed Shearer in that scenario, he may have gone to manure, stayed injury free and......so on. Might have been worse for us but an interesting thought. Cole and Ferdinand. And Beardsley.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd love to ask Keegan his thinking around this some day as I think it was a critical decision that manu definitely came out ahead. Ferdinand was short lived here in comparison.

 

Anyway, I wonder what would've happened if we had decided to keep Cole and just find the money to buy Ferdinand and play them both up front? Admittedly, we may not have signed Shearer in that scenario, he may have gone to manure, stayed injury free and......so on. Might have been worse for us but an interesting thought. Cole and Ferdinand. And Beardsley.

 

do you think signing Cole was instrumental in keeping ManU ahead of us ?

 

Personally, I don't. I know he was a good signing for them, but the changes Keegan made to Newcastle got them closer, which was the whole point ?

 

I appreciate your point, but would ManU have just signed someone else of a high calibre ? I just think the main difference between them and us in 1995/96 was they had experience of the pressure in both the playing and managerial departments. The only player we had was Beardsley, arguably you could say selling Venison was a mistake too, I certainly think so.

[Kid Dynamite 7168]

I heard they used to knock about with some of the Sears, even inviting them into the players lounge after matches etc. Or was that Nobby!?

 

One or the other.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

I'd love to ask Keegan his thinking around this some day as I think it was a critical decision that manu definitely came out ahead. Ferdinand was short lived here in comparison.

 

Anyway, I wonder what would've happened if we had decided to keep Cole and just find the money to buy Ferdinand and play them both up front? Admittedly, we may not have signed Shearer in that scenario, he may have gone to manure, stayed injury free and......so on. Might have been worse for us but an interesting thought. Cole and Ferdinand. And Beardsley.

 

do you think signing Cole was instrumental in keeping ManU ahead of us ?

 

Personally, I don't. I know he was a good signing for them, but the changes Keegan made to Newcastle got them closer, which was the whole point ?

 

I appreciate your point, but would ManU have just signed someone else of a high calibre ? I just think the main difference between them and us in 1995/96 was they had experience of the pressure in both the playing and managerial departments. The only player we had was Beardsley, arguably you could say selling Venison was a mistake too, I certainly think so.

 

Tend to agree, for all i wouldn't have sold him to manu, as you say KK ultimately did what he set out to after the sale and made us better overall, and but for a tiny bit of luck etc would have got us the title and who'd have cared about the sale then.

[sniffer 0]

I don't think signing Cole hurt them, thats for sure. 93/195 appearances according to wiki is a good return over about 5 years and allowed them to keep pace with us and Ferdinand for that two year period. I think he was a big part of it but they had a lot of good players, just like us but as you say, a bit more experience.

 

Venison was a good player but didn't he have a run in with Keegan about something and looked like he was on the outs after that? Still played but there was a bit of tension. I can't remember why and then he was gone. Couldn't have been much over 30 either.

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think signing Cole hurt them, thats for sure. 93/195 appearances according to wiki is a good return over about 5 years and allowed them to keep pace with us and Ferdinand for that two year period. I think he was a big part of it but they had a lot of good players, just like us but as you say, a bit more experience.

 

Venison was a good player but didn't he have a run in with Keegan about something and looked like he was on the outs after that? Still played but there was a bit of tension. I can't remember why and then he was gone. Couldn't have been much over 30 either.

 

 

yes he did fall out with Keegan, so he sold him. I suppose at the time he was enforcing internal discipline but that decision maybe bit us on the arse, Venison had been there before and he was a good captain and a leader at the back. My own opinion is if he had been there during that run in we just may not have lost some of those games we did, but we will never know.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I'd love to ask Keegan his thinking around this some day as I think it was a critical decision that manu definitely came out ahead. Ferdinand was short lived here in comparison.

 

Anyway, I wonder what would've happened if we had decided to keep Cole and just find the money to buy Ferdinand and play them both up front? Admittedly, we may not have signed Shearer in that scenario, he may have gone to manure, stayed injury free and......so on. Might have been worse for us but an interesting thought. Cole and Ferdinand. And Beardsley.

 

do you think signing Cole was instrumental in keeping ManU ahead of us ?

 

Personally, I don't. I know he was a good signing for them, but the changes Keegan made to Newcastle got them closer, which was the whole point ?

 

I appreciate your point, but would ManU have just signed someone else of a high calibre ? I just think the main difference between them and us in 1995/96 was they had experience of the pressure in both the playing and managerial departments. The only player we had was Beardsley, arguably you could say selling Venison was a mistake too, I certainly think so.

I could be wrong, but wasn't Cole rubbish when he first went to Man U? He was intimidated by Cantona and there was absolutely no chemistry between them iirc.

 

He didn't return to his best until Fergie paired him with Dwight Yorke.

 

And Venison got the elbow for breaking a curfew and going for a drink with Steve Howey and someone else. Venison took the rap for it as the senior player who should've known better. Tremendous player too, real shame.

[Guest alex]

The closest we've ever come to winning the league (since we last won it anyway) was after we sold Cole, which suggests it wasn't the mistake Sniffer is making it out to be.

[Craig 6700]

I've never heard that about Cole and drugs. If he was taking any drugs it certainly didn't affect his performance. I'd be inclined to think it would've shown up in a medical as well so I'd have thought manure would've knocked him back.

 

Whoever said anything about him taking drugs?

[Guest alex]

Rumour I heard involved him and two other people mentioned in this thread and underage lasses. It was all over the shop at the time. No idea if it's true or not though.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

This bloke is a lunatic. Les Ferdinand made us a better team than with Cole, that's a fact. It wasn't Les' fault he went after 2 years.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

The drugs thing iirc centred around Fox not Cole. You just see it as well he looks the type, well they both do.

[Craig 6700]

I'd heard that one too Alex. It was all a case of mixing in the wrong circles, that's for sure. The club told him to pack it in and he'd have none of it so was sold.

 

What is undeniable is that we definitely got the best out of his career and I still put that mainly down to him being alongside Beardsley who provided for Cole in a similar vein to how Lineker was fed for England. Paired alongside Ferdinand during that same 93/94 season, I strongly doubt Cole would have ever got anywhere near 41 goals.

 

FWIW I don't think he was the same player after his shin-splints problem and IIRC, he only got 1 goal in the last 7 or 8 games he played for us.

 

It'll be a contraversial comment but IMHO, Ferdinand was the better player of the two.

[Craig 6700]

The drugs thing iirc centred around Fox not Cole. You just see it as well he looks the type, well they both do.

 

Fox who only lasted another 9 months after Cole was sold. The pair were as thick as thieves by all accounts.

[Guest alex]

I did hear (sort of ITK but it may well have been a sanitised version) that he simply had a bit of an attitude on him and wasn't seen as someone who joined in with the rest of the lads. I suppose in any case he was seemingly sold for non-footballing reasons which could be seen as a mistake. I mean, him and Sheringham hated each other but they were still professional enough to put that to one side. I still think having a go at KK is bit off, when you look at the overall picture. I also think it's funny having a pop at people from Yorkshire whilst defending Keegan, as an aside

[Guest alex]

The drugs thing iirc centred around Fox not Cole. You just see it as well he looks the type, well they both do.

I know someone who saw Fox in the players lounge and he had some of the Sayers in with him so it would appear he was mixing in dodgy circles (and blatantly at that). Phillipe Albert reputedly had his nose in the same trough, so to speak.

[Guest alex]

I'd heard that one too Alex. It was all a case of mixing in the wrong circles, that's for sure. The club told him to pack it in and he'd have none of it so was sold.

 

What is undeniable is that we definitely got the best out of his career and I still put that mainly down to him being alongside Beardsley who provided for Cole in a similar vein to how Lineker was fed for England. Paired alongside Ferdinand during that same 93/94 season, I strongly doubt Cole would have ever got anywhere near 41 goals.

 

FWIW I don't think he was the same player after his shin-splints problem and IIRC, he only got 1 goal in the last 7 or 8 games he played for us.

 

It'll be a contraversial comment but IMHO, Ferdinand was the better player of the two.

Tbf though Craig, while I agree there, you only can play the through balls if the player you're supplying has excellent movement (and of course he still has to put the ball in the back of the net).

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

I'd heard that one too Alex. It was all a case of mixing in the wrong circles, that's for sure. The club told him to pack it in and he'd have none of it so was sold.

 

What is undeniable is that we definitely got the best out of his career and I still put that mainly down to him being alongside Beardsley who provided for Cole in a similar vein to how Lineker was fed for England. Paired alongside Ferdinand during that same 93/94 season, I strongly doubt Cole would have ever got anywhere near 41 goals.

 

FWIW I don't think he was the same player after his shin-splints problem and IIRC, he only got 1 goal in the last 7 or 8 games he played for us.

 

It'll be a contraversial comment but IMHO, Ferdinand was the better player of the two.

He did I remember his last goal against Ipswich. Ipswich were the biggest mugs who have ever come here, their tactic was 10-0-0, I'm not exaggerating they were just kicking the ball in to touch, worst team ever. We should've been 8-0 up, missed everything then we made it 1-0 Cole class goal at the Gallowgate in the 89th minute, then Ipswich attacked for the first time in the game in stoppage time and equalised. Mugs. Claus Thomsen I believe who took a side ways step in club size going to Everton.

[Craig 6700]

I'd heard that one too Alex. It was all a case of mixing in the wrong circles, that's for sure. The club told him to pack it in and he'd have none of it so was sold.

 

What is undeniable is that we definitely got the best out of his career and I still put that mainly down to him being alongside Beardsley who provided for Cole in a similar vein to how Lineker was fed for England. Paired alongside Ferdinand during that same 93/94 season, I strongly doubt Cole would have ever got anywhere near 41 goals.

 

FWIW I don't think he was the same player after his shin-splints problem and IIRC, he only got 1 goal in the last 7 or 8 games he played for us.

 

It'll be a contraversial comment but IMHO, Ferdinand was the better player of the two.

Tbf though Craig, while I agree there, you only can play the through balls if the player you're supplying has excellent movement (and of course he still has to put the ball in the back of the net).

 

Oh I agree. I'm not saying that Cole wasn't a talent - his pace, movement and finishing was top notch. But IMO Ferdinand had all that and on top was the best header of the ball I've seen play for us. Cole was a fantastic player, but Ferdinand was better.

[Guest alex]

I'd heard that one too Alex. It was all a case of mixing in the wrong circles, that's for sure. The club told him to pack it in and he'd have none of it so was sold.

 

What is undeniable is that we definitely got the best out of his career and I still put that mainly down to him being alongside Beardsley who provided for Cole in a similar vein to how Lineker was fed for England. Paired alongside Ferdinand during that same 93/94 season, I strongly doubt Cole would have ever got anywhere near 41 goals.

 

FWIW I don't think he was the same player after his shin-splints problem and IIRC, he only got 1 goal in the last 7 or 8 games he played for us.

 

It'll be a contraversial comment but IMHO, Ferdinand was the better player of the two.

Tbf though Craig, while I agree there, you only can play the through balls if the player you're supplying has excellent movement (and of course he still has to put the ball in the back of the net).

 

Oh I agree. I'm not saying that Cole wasn't a talent - his pace, movement and finishing was top notch. But IMO Ferdinand had all that and on top was the best header of the ball I've seen play for us. Cole was a fantastic player, but Ferdinand was better.

Aye, I was just saying that as I sometimes think people say Cole, Lineker or whoever wouldn't have scored as many without Beardsley forget how hard the movement and finishing part actually is. Fwiw I think Sir Les was a better player and certainly a more complete forward although I think Cole was the better finisher. I don't think either of them were great finishers though (i.e. I mean on the deck/one-on-ones, that type of thing).