ewerk 30631 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Weve been on TV loads this season though :S The telly reason is a total load of bollocks, we've been on more than Man City and Tottenham. 500k per game, as if that makes a difference, someone like Jol would cost £2m more than Hughton a year anyway. Poor journalism from Bird who I know from years ago and is a really good lad. It chimes with what some people ITK have said elsewhere, especially the bit about him milking the applause. Cant see how the manager of a club has any bearing on whether there on sky other than the team is playing very good football (which we have at times this season). I have never thought to myself, I must watch such and suchs club game so that I can hear the post match comments from manager x Aye, but you're applying logic there, that's why you're confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I can't help but wonder if Ashley is petty enough to be in some way jealous of Hughton and his standing amongst the supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4728 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 next two hours on talk shite is basically ashley is a cunt for anyone who wants to sit and nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 13882 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Ashley and Llambias regard themselves as knowledgeable football fans, whose opinion is valid on even small tactical matters. You've got to laugh, haven't you? Their track record suggests that like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Yup, I don't know whether it's arrogance or naivity but it appears that they truly do believe that we can become a force in the PL on the cheap. No one is saying or demanding we spunk millions on players, but if we don't invest then we can't compete and it'll soon reflect on our league status. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WDP Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Ashley and Llambias regard themselves as knowledgeable football fans, whose opinion is valid on even small tactical matters. You've got to laugh, haven't you? Their track record suggests that like. You all know what Ron Noades did at Brentford don't yous ANYTHING is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Ashley and Llambias regard themselves as knowledgeable football fans, whose opinion is valid on even small tactical matters. You've got to laugh, haven't you? Their track record suggests that like. You all know what Ron Noades did at Brentford don't yous ANYTHING is possible. Funnily enough I was thinking the same. I reckon Ron Noades had a bit more idea what he was doing than these two mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4728 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Contrary Twat tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Weve been on TV loads this season though :S The telly reason is a total load of bollocks, we've been on more than Man City and Tottenham. 500k per game, as if that makes a difference, someone like Jol would cost £2m more than Hughton a year anyway. Poor journalism from Bird who I know from years ago and is a really good lad. Whether its bollocks or not, people are only too willing to believe his only transfer policy is to make a couple million quid here or there (I don't think that way for the record, but lots of people do) so I don't know why the sky theory is so outlandish by comparison. Again, whether it's true or not. The notion of it isn't outlandish, but on this occasion it's unlikely. As I say if we were on four more times than we have been we'd be on more than Man Utd. He made a mistake Bird. The TV stuff is basically cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4728 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Contrary Twat tbh. Typical shit reply tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. Fuck off with your contrary bollocks CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4728 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. Fuck off with your contrary bollocks CT True like, very outlandish suggestions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Hey, this could be a perfectly thought out plan. But history errs on the side of is it fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Contrary Twat tbh. Typical shit reply tbh At least you admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Tell you what like, it's sad as fuck how may times in the 10 year history of this message board and it's predecessor we've been in this situation saying the same things. You could literally cut and paste the Roeder, Souness, Allardyce, Keegan, JFK etc appointment/dismissal posts into this thread and you'd only need to change the names for it to read seamlessly. What does that tell you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Seriously though CT. What evidence could you possibly cite that this is well planned? You were gutted Hughton went yesterday and were having a pop at Ashley and now you're putting forward the notion it may all be part of some master plan. And you wonder why you have about as much credibilty and Kevin and Attain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. What a load of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Tell you what like, it's sad as fuck how may times in the 10 year history of this message board and it's predecessor we've been in this situation saying the same things. You could literally cut and paste the Roeder, Souness, Allardyce, Keegan, JFK etc appointment/dismissal posts into this thread and you'd only need to change the names for it to read seamlessly. What does that tell you? It's too perpetual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. What a load of shit. Parky and CT do a complete role reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... Good point. What exactly do they want? I reckon Ashley changes his mind all the time. Wakes up one day and decides Dennis Wise is good for the club, etc. He's very unpredictable. Think old Roman dictator styleee but not so good with the Latin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 If I've got this right, it's better to not give a manager money to spend, then blame the manager for the poor results, then sack him. Since the only alternative is to let a manager spend big then sack him. I'd prefer a happy medium like. Is that really unreasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Obviously ESPN aren't paying as much as Sky What I can't fathom with this is they got rid of Keegan because he was too high profile for them - wanted too much control for their liking, they wanted a 'yes' man who would quietly do his job without question. Now they've got rid of Hughton citing that they want a profile who is as close to Keegan's stature as you can get! Contrary beyond belief these two fuckers... The way I see it they got rid of Keegan for not doing as he was told (signing players he hadn't seen) and they've got rid of Hughton for not doing as he's told (appointing Beardo number 2). Allegedly Beardsley didn't want the number 2 job as he thought Hughton wouldn't last long anyway so he'd be tarred with the same brush. I think you're right though in that neither toed the line so that is unltimately why they 'had' to go. They want a fucking utopian manager that lot. One that's cheap, will deliver them the title, do everything they say and turn ordinary, cheap players into world superstars still only paying them pittance whilst keeping them happy. Fucking hell man, they need to wake up. Or They know a lot more about whats going on behind the scenes than we do and realise that Chris is a great first team coach but nothing more. They may also realise that money does need to be spent in January to try and guarantee prem status. Add those two together and you get a wise decision which goes against our recent history of letting managers spend big, then sacking them. This all depends really on them having someone in mind to walk straight in. What a load of shit. Parky and CT do a complete role reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 13882 Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 If I've got this right, it's better to not give a manager money to spend, then blame the manager for the poor results, then sack him. Since the only alternative is to let a manager spend big then sack him. I'd prefer a happy medium like. Is that really unreasonable? Ashley and Llambias regard themselves as knowledgeable football fans, whose opinion is valid on even small tactical matters. tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now