Howaythelads

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact. Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan. You got me. wtf are you on about? The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect. Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!") FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere! If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected? I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth. You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that .... 1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****. 2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club. Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality. I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff. If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well. The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact. Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan. You got me. wtf are you on about? The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

It's not a lack of ability to defend the signing of Duff, it's more to do with there being no reason to defend the signing of Duff. Why would anybody need to defend the signing of Duff? Because it was a poor signing. Quantify the statement otherwise your contribution means very little. You know, explain to me why it was a poor signing.

It's not a lack of ability to defend the signing of Duff, it's more to do with there being no reason to defend the signing of Duff. Why would anybody need to defend the signing of Duff?

Stats tell you very little, that you think they do means you should stick to golf. He's hopeless. He's on his arse half the game, he slows down our game like nobody I've ever seen because he has no reading of the game, anticipation or vision. He doesn't know what's around him until he's got the ball and takes a look, it's why he continually spins full circle. A quality player in his position often moves the ball straight on without controlling it, they act like a wall, the ball is moved on at speed with just one touch because they know what they're going to do before the ball even reaches them. You can disagree with me and I won't call you an ignorant fucker for doing so. That's your style. Cheers

Good post. Don't expect many to agree though. All we need is a left back.... mackems.gif Disagree. We need to sign a 3rd left winger. What happens if Zog has another because-hes-a-youngster dip in form, and Duff gets injured? Milner, Luque, Dyer, Emre, CANT play on the left wing, theyre not good enough even as backup. If the club has any ambition, it needs as many left wingers as possible to succeed. You obviously have no idea how immature and pathetic you come across in that post. It's an absolute classic. Well done for that anyway, you've given me a laugh on what has been a bad day for me. Why? We need more left wingers, especially if its a top left winger who is available. If Robben moves in the summer, we should snap him up. You need top wingers to win titles, not fullbacks. Babayaro and Huntington will suffice. Or can you not handle the truth? Tripe. As usual.

He's better than Roeder, there's no doubt about that. No doubt whatsoever Sven would be a quantum improvement...Whatever you say about the horny Swede he knows his football. If you've spent any time in Sweden, mate, you'd be horny anarl.

I agree, just sent you one.

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****. A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward. No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father". Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child. I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much. Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious. The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like. mackems.gif What the f*** are you on about you utter spaz? I dont listen to Talksport, or any radio show, for that matter, so what exactly are you attempting to achieve by claiming I do like the prick that you are? mackems.gif Rather this tripe than you trying to babble on about football.

It's fun behaving like a juvenile, ain't it.....

Sshhh. The Bulgarian who has never seen Parker play will accuse you of hating him.

How many more Parker/Emre posts will we see during the build up to the next match? Just can't get the reason why some people still want to persist with Parker/Emre in the middle. It's been shown consistently to be a pile of cack and the worst CM pairing from the players currently at the club. I realise some people just hate Butt though and wouldn't select him, even though selecting him ahead of Parker is in the best interests of the team. All this stuff about "IF" Parker does this and "IF" Parker does that is a load of tosh imo. He's shown to be no better than average at this level and average is not good enough for the ambition we should have at this club. It's like saying let's stick with Bramble "IF" he can cut out the errors. I've said this myself about Bramble but the time has come to accept he won't cut out the errors so he needs to be replaced despite having plenty of attributes of a CB. Consider the Bramble situation with Parker, who has almost zero attributes of a defensive midfielder yet people still insist that he'd be "great" if he was used in that role. Well it's about time people took the blinkers off put there in the first place by his workrate. At least I wish Roeder would take those same blinkers off. Yes, his workrate is very commendable, I'd like to see such heart and effort from Luque and slate him for not having it, but a player needs more than that at this level, they also need a high level of ability that Parker simply does not have. Comparisons of Parker with Rob Lee make me cringe, tbh. It's like chalk and cheese. Rob Lee was a top player, a true box to box player who could threaten the opposition with his creativity and his goal threat, which he coupled with great defensive ability, power, strength and awareness too. It's quite an insult to Rob Lee comparing him to Parker.

He's better than Roeder, there's no doubt about that.

When have I ever suggested someone has edited my post? I said across the entire thread you're on about that the entire Board should consider their position if Roeder fails. That is my position now. I ask you again. What is your point? If a better Board comes along I'd take it before you would because I'd recognise it sooner. What I don't assume is that any replacement Board would be better than the current one. What is your problem with that? You would recognise it sooner? It took you two awful managerial appointments to realise you were wrong to have faith in Shepherd ffs. Here's a couple of questions for you, mate. Read what I said in my previous post that you replied to above and then read the 2 questions below. 1. How does the Board making two poor managerial appointments identify the set of people who may make up a new Board? 2. How does the current Board making 2 poor managerial appointments show that this fictional new Board will automatically be better than the current one? I think you haven't understood what I said, even though it's plain English.

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****. A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward. No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father". Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child. I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much. Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious. The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like. mackems.gif

yes you right... but no insurance is on 100% replacing the loss. in any kind of way NUFC still suffer. Well every club with international players suffers from time to time. Just because in this case, we're suffering more than others doesn't mean the rules should change retrospectively to suit us. so it's fair? ahhh come on... FA got profit also from international players... got profit also from NUFC each season. If it's not fair, then lobby for a change in the rules. But you can't change the rules in retrospect. No club likes to release their players for international duty, because of the risk of injury. There needs to be rules governing this area, or else international football will die, or at best become an irrelevant sideshow. Grrr... what do you think fat fred doing right now if not lobbying???.... ffs.... who said fat fred can change the rule???? at some point Fat Fred might be lose in this case. But a good chairman is at least do whatever the best he can do for the club... some fans are really don't get it perhaps they'll be happy if fat fred just sit behind the desk... then just enjoy eating 3 hot dog at the same time Some just want to slate him no matter what he does. It's the way of it on this forum.

When have I ever suggested someone has edited my post? I said across the entire thread you're on about that the entire Board should consider their position if Roeder fails. That is my position now. I ask you again. What is your point? If a better Board comes along I'd take it before you would because I'd recognise it sooner. What I don't assume is that any replacement Board would be better than the current one. What is your problem with that?

Good post. Don't expect many to agree though. All we need is a left back.... mackems.gif Who said that? Or were people just pointing out that we don't have one left back on our books of a Premiership standard so as far as strengthening the squad goes that would be a good place to start? Good post mate. Btw didn't you say Freddie should go if Roeder failed? 1. Aye, I thought it was as good as yours. 2. No, I didn't say the Chairman should go if Roeder failed. I know what I said and I haven't changed my opinion. What is your point?

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly shite. A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward.

Good post. Don't expect many to agree though. All we need is a left back.... mackems.gif Disagree. We need to sign a 3rd left winger. What happens if Zog has another because-hes-a-youngster dip in form, and Duff gets injured? Milner, Luque, Dyer, Emre, CANT play on the left wing, theyre not good enough even as backup. If the club has any ambition, it needs as many left wingers as possible to succeed. You obviously have no idea how immature and pathetic you come across in that post. It's an absolute classic. Well done for that anyway, you've given me a laugh on what has been a bad day for me.

Good post. Don't expect many to agree though. All we need is a left back.... mackems.gif Who said that? Or were people just pointing out that we don't have one left back on our books of a Premiership standard so as far as strengthening the squad goes that would be a good place to start?

Good post. Don't expect many to agree though. All we need is a left back.... mackems.gif

Agreed. Amazingly. We were better in 0102 when we finished 4th, it's why even though we finished 3rd the following season I thought Robson should have been moved "upstairs". We had a higher finish but we needed changes to make more progress and it didn't happen. We were a worse team when we finished 3rd than when we finished 4th. Not making that managerial change was a major mistake by the Board imo. BTW We did make efforts to strengthen the defence during the time you were dripping on by signing Woodgate.

I think both Solano and Emre would be fantastic in that system as they could influence the game much more with there passing, also Dyer and N'Zogbia as interchanging inside wingers would be interesting to see. However long term with Michael Owen return, the best formation of us will be 4-4-2 to fit the firepower of both Obafemi Martins and Michael Owen in the side and for us to use our wealth of good wingers at the Club. And HTL why on earth would you play Craig Moore? considering hes made it clear hes leaving at the end of the season, Steven Taylor and Onyewu need to be given a good run as a partnership. Well it's kind of forced, isn't it? By moving Solano to midfield means we need a RB and Taylor can do the job unless Carr moves to RB, which brings in Babayaro. So the back four could be Carr, Taylor, Bramble, Babayaro. That's the only alternative I can see because I wouldn't select Ramage except as a last resort and is the Yank upto it? I'd select Moore ahead of the Yank, that's for sure.