Dave Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Is Crumpy actually Alan Oliver?! Alan Other tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Mutal? Everyone is ignoring this & saying he has been sacked so why do clubs say it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. If that really happened I would have preferred them letting Sam resign and then explaining that he wasn't their choice/their man so they didn't want to invest money into someone that they didn't believe in. At least that would have been acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I hope it is wrong though. Another nightmare is the last thing I want. I hope it is because AO's article is true and someone has given the go-ahead. Even then though, while people are saying Mourinho, Kenny Dalglish was just as well qualifed having won the title with 2 different clubs. I'd rather have Wenger personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. If that really happened I would have preferred them letting Sam resign and then explaining that he wasn't their choice/their man so they didn't want to invest money into someone that they didn't believe in. At least that would have been acceptable. yes, if this is the reason it would be preferable, although Allaryce didn't deserve to be treated in this way. He was getting things wrong but he wasn't a Souness by any stretch. Remember him complaining about a lack of support last August ? This comment has been at the back of my mind for some time. The reservations I've had have all stemmed from these comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Wenger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Wenger. Name your price AW ? I would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Wenger. Name your price AW ? I would. He'd be priceless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam asks why and Mort pulls off his mask to reveal he's actually Gordon McKeag, the evil dictator from when we had a really shit board before 1992. Sam threatens to tell the World unless he gets a £100 million pay off that he said we'd need to spend before the end of the Summer 2008 to get back into the top 6. Gordon agrees because he doesn't want everyone to know we have a shit board. Sam walks out and says it's mutual consent. Possible or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. At all, as in for any manager. I thought NE5 was carrying on with his 'lack of ambition' thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. I've got no problem with this. In fact if this IS the reason, and we will soon find out if it is, then it will put to rest the reservations I've had about them. I only hope they get a replacement who turns out to be a success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. At all, as in for any manager. I thought NE5 was carrying on with his 'lack of ambition' thing. Thing is we finally find out the new boards ambition, we find out where they want to take us with this next appointment. The only British thing is scarily familiar, and too narrow minded to be true. Wires crossed, unreliable source, god knows, i'm living in hope thats the case, if not that were really going nowhere, and we might as well of kept a hold of Sam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. I've got no problem with this. In fact if this IS the reason, and we will soon find out if it is, then it will put to rest the reservations I've had about them. I only hope they get a replacement who turns out to be a success. Its got to be, if not we've been lied too, Ashley like Sam will be another false dawn if this departure is for a sidestep British manager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. At all, as in for any manager. I thought NE5 was carrying on with his 'lack of ambition' thing. Thing is we finally find out the new boards ambition, we find out where they want to take us with this next appointment. The only British thing is scarily familiar, and too narrow minded to be true. Wires crossed, unreliable source, god knows, i'm living in hope thats the case, if not that were really going nowhere, and we might as well of kept a hold of Sam. add - how they back him, and that is quite correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sam asks for backing. Board say no. Sam threatens to resign and tell people why. Board say you won't get your pay off if you resign, but you will if you sign a clause to keep your gob shut, and call it mutual agreement. Possible or not. That would be horrific. Probably about right and why its mutual. I've no problem with that either. Back him or sack him, been saying it for a few weeks now, he needed help, and with previous spending and a broken connection with the fans it was always going to be hard to back him. I read that completely wrong, as though they weren't willing to spend at all. Thats the way i'm reading it as well, only i don't see a problem with it. The man has failed, he's brought in 9 players who as a collective have played under par and failed. His tactics have failed, and he's failed to win over the crowd, its all bad for business. If they chuck money at the situation then they are just as bad as FS, doing the same shit, instead they've brought in some future potential, and told SA he's not get anything because of his position, he needs to prove himself first. How is that a bad thing? If he didn't like it and threatened to walk then he's been found out, they've said fine, lets negotiate a settlement. Sam only has himself to blame, he's been poor this season, made some disgraceful decisions while the majority of the fan are left totally frustrated because they know if he'd of just done the basics right we'd be on target and looking forward to the future. They weren't ready to back failure, again, i've got no problem with that. Sam Allardyce failed, failed to do the simplest of tasks right, and how on earth does he expect to get the bigger picture sorted out when he cant even see past his nose? Something was wrong, its gone, if the board forced his hand fair enough i say. At all, as in for any manager. I thought NE5 was carrying on with his 'lack of ambition' thing. No Dave. In all honesty, when I've commented in the past about "lack of ambition", and "backing managers", I couldn't have been more serious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 And if the price is right he'll go. Given Crumpy's record of being on the money with stuff like this, I can't help but feel a few of the hystericals could take note of this post of his - made 11 days ago, and then combining it with the "mutual agreement" part of the OFFICIAL STATEMENT, which is the only thing we have outside of speculation at this point in time. Link to post 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