WhatTheFunk

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet... what about his sales ? What a load of bollocks. Sorry like. Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy. I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts. no, it wasn't a statement. Look again, and I ASKED "do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then". My comment that we didn't back him that you made is still bollocks though. We backed him with 50m quid until it was obvious to even the biggest tosspot - or most people anyway - that he had to go. As a general principle, you have to back your chosen manager. How much, depends on the size of a club you are and how ambitious the people who own/or run the club, CHOOSE to be. But when they have lost the plot, then you have to make a change. You can't "plan" in football like you do in the High Street, this lesson is being a tough one to learn for some people, it would appear, even though the events of the last 20 months or so ought to have made it crystal clear. You can't plan in football? That's a load of bollocks if I ever heard any

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we. Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one. The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income. What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive. Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish. Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract. do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ? Oh wait....... And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd. Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ? I don't think so. Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet... what about his sales ? What a load of bollocks. Sorry like. Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy. I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts.

caldwells?

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

so relegation due to lack of investment and zero ambition is the answer ? Shame on those who scorn the people who gave us the best decade and a half of the last 50 years by a million miles. As HTL said yesterday, how many of you actually thought we were winding you up, when only a handful of people including me and him knew what we were talking about. You should be telling the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal how they are doing it all wrong, and their priority should be to make a profit and sell their highest earning players. Answer his question instead of babbling on like a sexually frustrated woman

wouldn't mind Dave Jones tbh

Roberto Martinez Roy Hodgson Alan Shearer

Can you find Hitzfelds wife aswell? just incase She's still in HTT's basement. he's left here with nothing but shark magazines and a dossier

your'e deluding yourself if you think it's just the post 92 crowd who will be fcuking off next season. Ashley has achieved the impossible and driven a wedge between the club and some of it's stuanchest supporters. Well, if they're fickle, what can you do? IMO anyone fucking off if we go down can stomp their feet, protest and fuck off all they like. I'll protest for change, but I'd never even contemplate "fucking off" no matter what division we're in. Oh, and at north shields lad: Trust me, the glory hunter element who "signed up in 92" will have fucked off by now. You haven't got a clue what 92 means to thousands of people if you think some will find it that easy to just quit on the club if we go down. Relegation is disastrous, but it ain't the end of the world, and the club will still be standing.

but surely even the media can see that we're in complete disarray without a manager who knows what he;s doing!? we just cant afford to play another game under hughton

yes it is time. it was time weeks ago, but we really cant go on like this and expect a miracle

phil brown is a prize cunt and a knob jockey of the highest order

Harper Beye Taylor Bassong Enrique Jonas Guthrie Barton Duff Martins Carroll is who I'd play against chelsea if all are available

I would actually consider protesting against keeping Kinnear at the club

We KNOW he has the attacking instincts from his Leeds days. I just dont understand how a player's entire footballing mould just changes like that. He needs to apply himself better and he must be played up front, otherwise he's absolutely of no fucking use to us.

Harper - Nowt to do. meh Taylor - Comes out with some credit. Class finish. Coloccini - Started out very badly but got better as the game wore on, mainly due to Fagan and Cousin being utter shit Bassong - Steady and assured Enrique - The only man who stood up to be counted among a bunch of boys tbh. Excellent again Butt - He's slow, he's old, but at least he has an idea about football. Not his best, but certainly not his worst ever performance Geremi - Fuck me! Smith - Fuck me! Jonas - Sauntered around too much, made no off the ball runs into space. Done fuck all apart from towards the end. Atrocious finishing Owen - Headless chicken Martins - Our only real spark. Looks like he's lacking confidence Ameobi - Awful sub, was promising the first couple of minutes, then got into his usual fouling routine R Taylor - Tried to make something happen. Technically far superior to some of our players. Must start ahead of Geremi and Smith ffs! Frustrating game to watch. Could've should've won the damn thing

Smith was an absolute disgrace to the shirt today. There was ONE moment when he stripped a Hull player of the ball, and made a positive run finding Martins who set up Jonas for a shot. Other than the scum bastard walked around the pitch, got in the way of teammates, and insisted on passing the ball every fucking time, even if it meant putting one of our own under pressure. Useless cunt! At least put some effort into anything other than your shitty tackling you fuckneck!

i'd have Collison. Class act imo

I fucking hate the Hull cunts. Howay then lads!! Bring home the 3 points!

Arsenal fan was stabbed before the game. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7940557.stm fucking twats way out of line

Shades of Duncan Ferguson? I was afraid to say it to avoid getting a permanent IP ban, but aye. The way he puts himself about reminds me of the big unit. His internal issues are a concern actually, but as long as he pulls his finger out and puts a lid on that kind of behavior, he'll be alright.

You make it sound like Hull will be kicking lumps out of your players, because they fear the expansive flowing football that would occur otherwise. You arejoking/exaggerating, right? We are the new Arsenal so we have to put up with this sort of sh1t when we play sides like Hull. It goes with the territory.

I like the look of him tbh. Needs to get it together in some facets of his game, but he's big and physical, and bothers the hell out of defenders. His control is descent for a big man, and can put them away by the looks of it. I'd be happy to give him the 3.5 years to show what he can do. Shola on the other hand is at the same level as Carroll, with bags of experience on him, having played with some of the best strikers in the game. Time's up for him, and he must go despite of his new contract.

I came into this thread concerned to see what had happened in Rome Reading through what this thread seems to have descended into, I presume no one was really hurt out there?

I stand by what I said. Fantastic career, a great player, but I still feel on an individual level he could have acheived even more. I understand where you are coming from... sort of. As a player he was won an incredible amount of trophies, and himself plenty of accolades. But as good as he always has been, he is and was only occasionally mentioned as a player in the absolute top bracket, even during his peak years. He never seemed to reach the elite as it were, but this might be down to his down to earth attitude and his lack of arrogance, as well as a lack of international recognition given the lacking quality of his national side. Agreed 100% which is what I was trying to say in this thread tbh. They don't make a Ryan Giggs or a Paul Scholes anymore