DEADMAN 0 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 na id rather see em relegated so it destroys there club hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 877 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I reckon Blackburn are doomed. They look exactly like we did in 08-09: lost and confused, a club ran by incompetent owners who got rid of a perfectly capable manager (even if he is a frog-faced slimy fat bastard) to install someone who has absolutely no clue and who the fans (and likely the players) despise. Expect sales of key players in January and a rapid slide toward relegation unless something drastic changes, which it will not because the deluded chicken salesmen really think that Kean is the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 its not the manager thats the problem at blackburn its the sodden players they dont give a toss if they get relegated then they will be doomed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11361 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 It's funny to see but I hope Bruce hangs on for a while yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Beaten at home by Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 You can get 16/5 for us to beat Chelsea (Victor Chandler). Worth a squirt imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11361 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Championship - Portsmouth owners in administration Tue, 29 Nov 15:34:00 2011 Vladimir Antonov has resigned as chairman of Portsmouth after the club's parent company was placed into administration. The Russian businessman, whose company Convers Sports Initiatives bought Pompey in June, has also quit as a director of the club following the news. The company responsible for operating the team - Portsmouth Football Club Limited - continues to trade and is not in administration, though it is now actively seeking new funding. Pompey chief executive David Lampitt said: "After the extraordinary amount of work put in by so many people over the last 18 months to get to this point, it is incredibly disappointing for the club to find itself in this position. I want to assure staff and fans that we will continue to do everything possible to safeguard the position of the club and its longer-term future." An official statement released by Portsmouth said: "The club's parent company, Convers Sports Initiatives plc (CSI), has been placed into administration. Vladimir Antonov has resigned as chairman and director of Portsmouth Football Club. "The club has funding in place for the short term, but will now be seeking alternative investment for its longer-term requirements."PA Sport Good to see the FA's fit and proper person test is working as well as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 They're not having much luck at all down there. Hopefully they won't get the 10 point deduction this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Just watched Lion king, best film ever made?! On topic, signing Pieters in January? He has a broken foot, golden opportunity to sign him for a cutprice, 3 million being the latest sum thrown around.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Carroll looks under more pressure than he can cope with, his pen miss made matters worse. He looked a worried man walking down the tunnel at half time "fuck me" he said. I don't think it's the pressure of playing for Liverpool, in some ways there's more pressure playing for Newcastle than them, but it's clear the price tag is a massive burden to him. Dalglish's way of looking it is a good one though saying Carroll only cost them £9m. They paid £35m + £24m for Carroll and Torres, and got £50m back for Torres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 He's a chequebook manager who's never had to give a second thought to how much money he spends so his attitude is hardly surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. No, the price for Torres was dictated by the Carroll price. Chelsea were told they could only have Torres if they paid 15 million over the Carroll price, so if Carrol would have gone for 30 million Torres would have cost Chelsea 45 million. I have heard Dalglish refer to Carroll as the minus 15 million man, but never the 9 million man. Alex, I wouldn't call a manager spending 33 million net a cheque book manager, but I suppose in comparison to some he is. I'm more than happy with what he's spent his money on anyway, even Carroll to an extent, although his form is disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8669009/Sergio-Aguero-completes-35-million-transfer-to-Manchester-City.html http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-city-move-felt-right-says-sergio-aguero-2328171.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) It was a comment on his career rather than just the 5 minutes he's been back managing Liverpool. Edited November 30, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph...ester-City.html http://www.independe...ro-2328171.html Being the last day of the window, and already short of strikers, the club felt the need to buy and make a statement of intent at the same time. Personally I'd rather have hung on to Torres but the club felt it would have had a negative effect after he'd asked for a transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Alex, I wouldn't call a manager spending 33 million net a cheque book manager, but I suppose in comparison to some he is. I'm more than happy with what he's spent his money on anyway, even Carroll to an extent, although his form is disappointing. £55m for Carroll and Henderson? Value for money? City paid less for Balotelli and Silva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30569 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph...ester-City.html http://www.independe...ro-2328171.html Being the last day of the window, and already short of strikers, the club felt the need to buy and make a statement of intent at the same time. Personally I'd rather have hung on to Torres but the club felt it would have had a negative effect after he'd asked for a transfer. Statements of intent won't win you anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Alex, I wouldn't call a manager spending 33 million net a cheque book manager, but I suppose in comparison to some he is. I'm more than happy with what he's spent his money on anyway, even Carroll to an extent, although his form is disappointing. £55m for Carroll and Henderson? Value for money? City paid less for Balotelli and Silva. We paid 1/12th for Ba and Cabaye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 It was a comment on his career rather than just the 5 minutes he's been back managing Liverpool. I see, Blackburn aside, I can't see where he spent excessively. Even at Blackburn he spent a British record 3.3 million on a player who left for 15 million 4 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 It was a comment on his career rather than just the 5 minutes he's been back managing Liverpool. I see, Blackburn aside, I can't see where he spent excessively. Even at Blackburn he spent a British record 3.3 million on a player who left for 15 million 4 years later. For every Shearer there was a Paul Warhurst though, and at Newcastle for every Nobby Solano there was two Des Hamilton's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Alex, I wouldn't call a manager spending 33 million net a cheque book manager, but I suppose in comparison to some he is. I'm more than happy with what he's spent his money on anyway, even Carroll to an extent, although his form is disappointing. £55m for Carroll and Henderson? Value for money? City paid less for Balotelli and Silva. I didn't say value for money at all, we have a Premiership full of players who aren't value for money, but yes I'm pleased with the money spent. Henderson at 16 million looks to have great technique, is young and has shown some really good signs of the player he'll develop into. Benitez had Silva all but signed two or three years ago, everything agreed, but fell through because the club wouldn't pay the price. He most definitely wouldn't have come to us recently with no CL to offer, neither would any other big player. The club went for youth and the future, I don't have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 They didn't pay £9m though, they paid £35m. That's the same price City paid for Aguero ffs. The price was dictated by the Torres price, and Man City paid for £40m for Aguero. I understand how the price was worked out but when you compare Carroll to what they could've gotten for that money they still paid way way over the odds. The wise thing to do would've been to bank the £50m and wait til the summer to spend it. And the Aguero deal was reported as being £35m. http://www.telegraph...ester-City.html http://www.independe...ro-2328171.html Being the last day of the window, and already short of strikers, the club felt the need to buy and make a statement of intent at the same time. Personally I'd rather have hung on to Torres but the club felt it would have had a negative effect after he'd asked for a transfer. Statements of intent won't win you anything. It was a statement of intent to the fans mostly, and it remains to be seen what we do or don't win with the new influx of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts