NE5 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everything's been GREAT since they took over. No it hasn't, it's probably better than it would have been if they hadn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everything's been GREAT since they took over. No it hasn't, it's probably better than it would have been if they hadn't. sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilerating times since.......err......... the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everything's been GREAT since they took over. No it hasn't, it's probably better than it would have been if they hadn't. sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilarating times since Shepherd sacked Robson or the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everything's been GREAT since they took over. No it hasn't, it's probably better than it would have been if they hadn't. sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilarating times since Shepherd sacked Robson or the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. sort your quotes or something Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. Well, you inferred no good players moved to other top premiership clubs. I showed you were wrong didn't I. Not really surprised you didn't comment on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everything's been GREAT since they took over. No it hasn't, it's probably better than it would have been if they hadn't. sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilerating times since.......err......... the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. and many would say we are in this position due the appointment of allardyce who was backed to about the same tune as the previous regime would do on average ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilerating times since.......err......... the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. Worse than last season when we were 13th or lower for 10 or 11 games and bottomed out at 19th? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. Well, you inferred no good players moved to other top premiership clubs. I showed you were wrong didn't I. Not really surprised you didn't comment on it. You continue to state the obvious. Of course players were transferred. So, is Ashley a turkey? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Reading this thread, it seems there is a fine balance regarding where people stand on Ashley and Mort and maybe that's a good thing and from where I sit, that balance probably best sums up their very early tenure here. Good but could be better. That's a pretty damn good start in footballing terms, no? Anyway, I'm fairly happy and quite excited about the future. I think we'll go places. Reading between the lines, the appointment of KK says a lot about Ashley. He's a romantic, he values NUFC more than a business acquisition and wants what we want, good football and success wrapped up in traditional NUFC fare. Furthermore, we all know KK wouldn't even have entertained the idea if there wasn't a few bob to spend, so we have that to look forward to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Cracking straw man, Chez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Given that we tried to sign Woodgate, who went for £8m, it would seem he just couldn't find anyone to spend on. Maybe the Wise appointment will be helpful for the next transfer window. lets hope we stay up first Maybe Kev just looked at what players we had, and what the teams below us had about them, and decided we had good enough players to stay up quite easily. So he decided to do a clear out in summer, and buy players then when they aren't at an extra premium. Not very exciting, and very frustrating for us as we chug along to 14th or 15th, but sensible. Honestly the relegation hysteria compared to the results we have had is ridiculous. If he had good players available in jan but decided to wait for really good players in summer all power to him. If he had of signed a couple, climbed up to tenth and then stayed tenth next year he'd probably get the sack. If he comes 15th this year and comes 6th or 7th next year it'll be far better for all concerned. Dear God...that's just far too boring and sensible. What the hell are you thinking man? Let's work ourselves into a lather about hypothetical stuff we can't substantiate instead. Like Keegan possibly being denied funds. Or Ashley selling up to Tesco's perhaps. With Wise being appointed surely Keegan's days are numbered!! I hope we don't hear you moaning on about the clubs plight if we lose a few more games and are staring straight at the bottom places in time to come ........ As you are clearly happy with the decision to go with what we have. I am happy to leave these decisions to our Board and Manager yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Reading this thread, it seems there is a fine balance regarding where people stand on Ashley and Mort and maybe that's a good thing and from where I sit, that balance probably best sums up their very early tenure here. Good but could be better. That's a pretty damn good start in footballing terms, no? Anyway, I'm fairly happy and quite excited about the future. I think we'll go places. Reading between the lines, the appointment of KK says a lot about Ashley. He's a romantic, he values NUFC more than a business acquisition and wants what we want, good football and success wrapped up in traditional NUFC fare. Furthermore, we all know KK wouldn't even have entertained the idea if there wasn't a few bob to spend, so we have that to look forward to. I think that he is a revenue maximiser, far from a romantic. I think he saw the potential and real threat of falling demand for season tickets in 08/09 as a real issue and wanted to galvanise the support by playing to their emotions rather than seriously addressing the needs of the football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. This. Well, I can show you the league positions for the last 50 years, to show conclusively that the era of the Halls and Shepherd is the best period by a million miles, and the 3 consecutive top 5 league positions is the best sequence of league finishes, if thats what you mean by "show your workings". If you don't accept this then obviously you aren't one who deals in logic and factual information when basing your "opinions" I can also tell you, from experience, that the period of the Halls and Shepherd is the only time since the 1960's that as a supporter of the club, the club attempted to capitalise on the fanbase and got anywhere near the standing that Newcastle United should have. If you care to dispute this, go ahead. But you won't prove it to be wrong, or me, no matter how much you try, because you can't. So my point stands. Ashley can't possibly be deemed to be better, until he does better. I don't see the problem with this statement. Its factual and truthful, if it doesn't fit your agenda, whatever that is, its just too bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As far as I can see this thread started with the question (and I paraphrase), "Did Ashley get the timing of Allardyce's sacking wrong?" It has developed into a debate, again as far as I understand it, about whether Ashley (and Mort) lack the necessary ambition to improve the club (or as some see it to continue to manage as effectively as the board of the plc, as was) so that it reaches its potential. IMO if the timing of the sacking was wrong, it's only because it should have happened much, much earlier. As for the secondary debate concerning the continuing development of the club it seems to me that the following are relevant: Ashley has bought the club with his own money. Ashley has settled debt with his own money. The club is either now financially secure or more secure than it was before the debt was settled. Ashley is a hard-nosed businessman who either wants to sell the club on at a profit, or is behaving in a more or less altruistic way. In either case there is no benefit to him of leaving the club in a worse position than he found it. He has appointed staff so that the club has its own structures in respect of scouting thereby avoiding the situation where, if a manager leaves, the scouting network goes with him. I think Spurs and Chelsea have similar structures. He has made money available to Keegan in amounts with which Keegan is satisfied will allow him to improve the team's performance in the coming seasons. The main threat to us is relegation brought about by the performance of the manager appointed by the previous chairman. It's difficult to see who Keegan could have bought in the time that he had. We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window, but you can believe otherwise if you have some sort of agenda. You have a talent for stating the obvious, 'We will see if the new owners match the Champions League qualification of the old owners, including the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years.' Indeed we will should we live long enough. There are plenty of players who moved in the transfer window. Some, I believe, from Brentford to Gillingham. Do you think, given his not inconsiderable financial outlay, that, irrespective of the performance of any board over the last fifty years or so, Ashley is a metaphorical turkey voting for an early Christmas? This is what essentially underpins your argument, isn't it, given my remarks above? speaking of turkeys BTW, you missed Swindon to Newcastle, and spurs to Pompey, and Pompey to man city, bolton to Chelsea, and a 12m brazilian to the smoggies....... So, to cut to the quick, do you think Ashley is the metaphorical turkey? Show your workings, you may get a few extra marks. Well, you inferred no good players moved to other top premiership clubs. I showed you were wrong didn't I. Not really surprised you didn't comment on it. You continue to state the obvious. Of course players were transferred. So, is Ashley a turkey? of course I state the obvious, in the hope you will get it. You can't argue with facts, or most sensible people wouldn't anyway. As for turkey, I meant you. Maybe ostrich would be better though. You insinuated nobody transferred players apart from Brentford and Gillingham. I showed you to be wrong, so whats the problem, can't you admit you were making stuff up to suit an agenda you have ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Given that we tried to sign Woodgate, who went for £8m, it would seem he just couldn't find anyone to spend on. Maybe the Wise appointment will be helpful for the next transfer window. lets hope we stay up first Maybe Kev just looked at what players we had, and what the teams below us had about them, and decided we had good enough players to stay up quite easily. So he decided to do a clear out in summer, and buy players then when they aren't at an extra premium. Not very exciting, and very frustrating for us as we chug along to 14th or 15th, but sensible. Honestly the relegation hysteria compared to the results we have had is ridiculous. If he had good players available in jan but decided to wait for really good players in summer all power to him. If he had of signed a couple, climbed up to tenth and then stayed tenth next year he'd probably get the sack. If he comes 15th this year and comes 6th or 7th next year it'll be far better for all concerned. Dear God...that's just far too boring and sensible. What the hell are you thinking man? Let's work ourselves into a lather about hypothetical stuff we can't substantiate instead. Like Keegan possibly being denied funds. Or Ashley selling up to Tesco's perhaps. With Wise being appointed surely Keegan's days are numbered!! I hope we don't hear you moaning on about the clubs plight if we lose a few more games and are staring straight at the bottom places in time to come ........ As you are clearly happy with the decision to go with what we have. I am happy to leave these decisions to our Board and Manager yes. It obviously escapes you that we are talking about their judgement here [and maybe lack of football savvy in the case of the owners] As I said, I don't expect to see you complaining if we continue to slide down towards a relegation scrap, as you are happy with the decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilerating times since.......err......... the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. Worse than last season when we were 13th or lower for 10 or 11 games and bottomed out at 19th? Bump Bump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 sure it is, we're having our best and most exhilerating times since.......err......... the relegation struggle of 1992 perhaps ? Nowt too embarrassing though. Worse than last season when we were 13th or lower for 10 or 11 games and bottomed out at 19th? Bump Bump The last time and only time in the premiership we looked like getting relegated, the board acted, stabilised the club and we finished 7th. Too late for that now. Its about timing, as has been said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 The last time and only time in the premiership we looked like getting relegated, the board acted, stabilised the club and we finished 7th. Too late for that now. Its about timing, as has been said. I thought that we were in trouble last season but we managed to get enough points and were safe by 5 points, after 17 (not 17th played) games we were 13th or lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 The last time and only time in the premiership we looked like getting relegated, the board acted, stabilised the club and we finished 7th. Too late for that now. Its about timing, as has been said. I thought that we were in trouble last season but we managed to get enough points and were safe by 5 points, after 17 (not 17th played) games we were 13th or lower. We'll be 5 or less points off the drop after 29 games this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 We'll be 5 or less points off the drop after 29 games this season. I think we'll beat Blackburn but lose the other 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I actually think we'll beat Blackburn as well. That's that jinxed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I actually think we'll beat Blackburn as well. That's that jinxed. I think we'll beat Blackburn and after the Liverpool game we'll still be 13th. 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