TRon

If he really didn't want to be booed he could always have scored an own goal then ran to the Gallowgate arms aloft to get a great reception. The question has to be asked, why he didn't do that unless he was trying to practically goad the fans into booing him?

The Mackems were strangely quiet, and none of the players seem fired up for it, much to our advantage. I thought they were fired up for it, unfortunately they are just shit.

It's his own fault really. If he'd signed for Derby or Wigan he wouldn't have got booed in most likelihood. By signing for Sunderland he was practically inviting this turn of events.

They probably stuffed them down the back of their pants once they realised they were going to get spanked.

We didn't play very well today, the lack of movement in midfield was exposed a bit for the first time in a while. The best eprformances Michael Owen apart were from the back four, all of whom hardly put a foot wrong all afternoon. Can't argue with a 2-0 derby win against the cunts so fair play to the lads, job done.

Good spot coach. Now that would have been tasty!

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not. I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ? Do you see the point ? I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them. You are talking about one player, and making a case for one player moving to a differnet club because of an agenda with a personality. Your initial comments prove this completely. Man City found the money to buy this one player at the time, of course they did, but which of the 2 clubs ie us and Man City, backed the managers the most, acheived the most qualifications for europe. You can't say that Man City were better and bigger than us on the basis of siging ONE player, without looking at the overall performance of both clubs Basically, if any Man City fan would swap their last decade for ours, then they are a bloody idiot.. And this is the bigger picture. I am talking about a player who I really rated during his spell here, who Robson wanted to sign who then was allowed to sign for Man City instead due to in your own words a bean counter in the board room. If we didn't have enough beans, how come we splurged £5m worth on Bramble? There were other players Robson wanted but was denied, like Miguel - we got Carr instead. Fair enough we went for the cheaper option which I don't object to if the funds aren't there. I hope that last sentence registered. I am not the one who first used the term 'bean counter' with regard to a Chairman. Personally I reckon if someone is putting the beans in, they are entitled to count them in any case. It seems fantastically hypocritical to accuse one person of being a bean counter and then defending someone else for doing the exact same thing. it has indeed, so now, what exactly are you whinging about ? When Ashley and whoever he employs to run the club ie Mort show genuine ambition ie real amibition to put together a team to match the other top teams, for the club then I basically won't question them if they say the money for the moment is more or less been spent . I think this is fairly straightforward. You just can't say they should back the manager for every player he wants, then slate them for overspending. Sounds like a case of counting beans. I know you were big advocates of spending money on shite like Benjani during the January window in panic mode, probably how we ended up spening £8m on Boumong during Souness's time most likely.I'll bet someone ended up counting a few beans after that one eh?

Apologies for posting the Sunderland badge twice BTW. I just couldn't resist showcasing how the sad bastards had copied elements of our original Crest which will never need changing IMO. It's so good even the mackems have admitted it by trying to ape it.

Notice any similarities? Talk about a fucking inferiority complex.

This is what the scum changed their design to after studying ours for years http://www.safc.com/uploads/images/jan_05/safc_1105709448_crest-2.jpg

This is our badge http://www.swingingonastar.co.uk/images/toon%20badge.jpg

This is the old Sunderland badge http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d0/200px-Bigcrestold.gif

I don't think he was a 4-4-2 player due to his lack of pace, especially in the middle. If he had a couple of players around him doing the donkey work, that would have suited him better. Hell of a left-foot on him though. Yeah, I agree there and he wasn't a big strong type either so playing in the middle of a 4-4-2 was even more of a problem when he wasn't pacey or box-to-box type either. I think you could have played him as a deep lying playmaker or in a more advance role in a midfield 3/5. Either way though you'd have to question 1) Why Robson bought him 2) why he wouldn't give him a chance when Jenas was out of form (for several months) & 3) why he wouldn't let him move on sooner. Funnily enough, I think he could have done quite well in Owen's current role. I'm not sure Viana would be making late runs into the box to try and sniff out a goal though. Granted, but as a link man he'd be pretty good at putting through the strikers. Maybe you'd need someonemore mobile than Viduka in that case though.

I don't think he was a 4-4-2 player due to his lack of pace, especially in the middle. If he had a couple of players around him doing the donkey work, that would have suited him better. Hell of a left-foot on him though. Yeah, I agree there and he wasn't a big strong type either so playing in the middle of a 4-4-2 was even more of a problem when he wasn't pacey or box-to-box type either. I think you could have played him as a deep lying playmaker or in a more advance role in a midfield 3/5. Either way though you'd have to question 1) Why Robson bought him 2) why he wouldn't give him a chance when Jenas was out of form (for several months) & 3) why he wouldn't let him move on sooner. Funnily enough, I think he could have done quite well in Owen's current role.

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not. I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ? Do you see the point ? I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them. If we offered to pay him in beans and he wanted paying in peanuts it's no wonder he signed for Man City. City are by no means an inferior club, they are a similar sized club to us with similar support base and similar potential. Yet they have spent nowhere near what we have in the Premiership until last year when we both got new owners/chairmen. They were in a far bigger financial hole before their takeover than we were before ours. The fact that you are commending their previous financial dealings says a lot about the worth of your opinions on such matters. Seeing as you seem to parrot everything NE5 says you can just read my reply to him.

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not. I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ? Do you see the point ? I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them. You are talking about one player, and making a case for one player moving to a differnet club because of an agenda with a personality. Your initial comments prove this completely. Man City found the money to buy this one player at the time, of course they did, but which of the 2 clubs ie us and Man City, backed the managers the most, acheived the most qualifications for europe. You can't say that Man City were better and bigger than us on the basis of siging ONE player, without looking at the overall performance of both clubs Basically, if any Man City fan would swap their last decade for ours, then they are a bloody idiot.. And this is the bigger picture. I am talking about a player who I really rated during his spell here, who Robson wanted to sign who then was allowed to sign for Man City instead due to in your own words a bean counter in the board room. If we didn't have enough beans, how come we splurged £5m worth on Bramble? There were other players Robson wanted but was denied, like Miguel - we got Carr instead. Fair enough we went for the cheaper option which I don't object to if the funds aren't there. I hope that last sentence registered. I am not the one who first used the term 'bean counter' with regard to a Chairman. Personally I reckon if someone is putting the beans in, they are entitled to count them in any case. It seems fantastically hypocritical to accuse one person of being a bean counter and then defending someone else for doing the exact same thing.

He understood he needed our money better than Gullitt. What a great bloke.

Where's the Lord Westwood or McKeag option for NE5's sake?

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not. I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ? Do you see the point ? I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

The difference being a good manager came in after Allardyce who got the best out of those players, Souness was followed by Glenn Roeder who didn't get the best out of anyone. Who's to say how the likes of Parker, Solano, Luque etc would have done for us under Keegan's management? That team finished 7th under Roeder. He was an improvement over Souness. You could have put Homer Simpson in charge after Souness and we'd still have finished 7th. That was just the players starting to perform out of relief.

Is Boussaffa left-footed then?

Spot on. Can't believe he's had 10 times as many votes as Roeder. If Allardyce had stayed we would have ended up with a fairly functional team hovering around the top 6-10 given time. We'd become what Bolton did after 8 years. I voted Souness FWIW.

Dear God, commit suicide and do the world a favour you sad mackem twat.

He plays like one as well these days so I hear.

I don't object to a coach imparting some discipline and formation to his team, that's what he was good at. Unfortunately it looks like this stuff is more suited to lower league sides attempting to nullify better teams. Or in Allardyce's case nullifying worse teams as well in case they miraculously tear us apart on the break if we cross the halfway line.