cp40 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. as ever CP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. Tigana took Fulham up to the prem. KK left after getting them promoted once to the championship iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games,,,,fucked off,,,,,came back,,,fucked off,,,, City- promoted , 1 good year then almost relegated,,,,fucked off,,. England - couldnt hack it,,, fucked off,,, Fulham- 1 good year in division 2,,,,fucked off for england,,, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games,,,,fucked off,,,,,came back,,,fucked off,,,, City- promoted , 1 good year then almost relegated,,,,fucked off,,. England - couldnt hack it,,, fucked off,,, Fulham- 1 good year in division 2,,,,fucked off for england,,, Mike Ashley.... Newcastle United. Completely fucking ruined them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 But he didn't walk from Man City did he. Himself and the board decided it best for him to go because he wasn't going to sign his new deal as he felt he'd taken them as far as he could. That's as good an example of walking out as I can think of. Similar to here though, he expected to be paid for doing it. Keegan: "I'm fucking off in the summer" City: "No, you can fuck off now" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 But he didn't walk from Man City did he. Himself and the board decided it best for him to go because he wasn't going to sign his new deal as he felt he'd taken them as far as he could. That's as good an example of walking out as I can think of. Similar to here though, he expected to be paid for doing it. Keegan: "I'm f***ing off in the summer" City: "No, you can f*** off now" In your opinion why did Keegan leave this time? Was he allowed to sign whoever he wanted, sold and keep whoever he wanted? Is that the right way to manage a Premier League club aiming to go up the table rather than down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. All of the recent England managers did better than Keegan, though, with the possible exception of McLaren. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. All of the recent England managers did better than Keegan, though, with the possible exception of McLaren. wonder if he will take stephen smith with him eh oz? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. All of the recent England managers did better than Keegan, though, with the possible exception of McLaren. Keegan was statistically(,,,,,) the worst england manager. Keegan - P-18 W-7 L-7 D-4 W%-38.89% McClaren - P-18 W-9 L-4 D-5 W%-50% (THIS IS A TONGUE IN CHEEK COMMENT) McClaren also won something with a club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Erm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Keegan want Milner to stay? If my memory serves me right he wanted to keep him then we got the massive offer which tempted the board to sell milner handed in a transfer request 9 days before he was sold. Milner handed in a transfer request when he was denied a contract that reflected the club's valuation of him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Keegan was statistically(,,,,,) the worst england manager. Keegan - P-18 W-7 L-7 D-4 W%-38.89% McClaren - P-18 W-9 L-4 D-5 W%-50% (THIS IS A TONGUE IN CHEEK COMMENT) McClaren also won something with a club. And he had the honesty and integrity to realise that so he walked away Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Erm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Keegan want Milner to stay? If my memory serves me right he wanted to keep him then we got the massive offer which tempted the board to sell milner handed in a transfer request 9 days before he was sold. Milner handed in a transfer request when he was denied a contract that reflected the club's valuation of him. he had signed 2 4 year contracts the year before though. i know that is the official line from milners "agent" but im a bit sceptical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. All of the recent England managers did better than Keegan, though, with the possible exception of McLaren. wonder if he will take stephen smith with him eh oz? Stephen SPENCE! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I have to say I find this thread a bit depressing. Sometimes we remind me of one of those little central European countries that's been kicked around by history, nursing a festering sense of injustice and infected with fatalism and self-pity, where the "natural borders" are always seen as those at the time when it was biggest and most powerful. Little to cheer the embittered soul but endlessly replaying those long-vanished days of glory as if doing so would somehow turn back the clock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Erm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Keegan want Milner to stay? If my memory serves me right he wanted to keep him then we got the massive offer which tempted the board to sell milner handed in a transfer request 9 days before he was sold. Milner handed in a transfer request because he's a greedy cunt. FYP. Also, handing in a transfer request doesn't entitle someone to a transfer. It can be refused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. he actually was allowed to buy and sell players then, instead of denis wise,.. it took us to second, unlike this arrangement, that got us relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. he actually was allowed to buy and sell players then, instead of denis wise,.. it took us to second, unlike this arrangement, that got us relegated. Isn't that what I just said, but in more words? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. he actually was allowed to buy and sell players then, instead of denis wise,.. it took us to second, unlike this arrangement, that got us relegated. Isn't that what I just said, but in more words? yep, iwas siding with you against the lib. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. he actually was allowed to buy and sell players then, instead of denis wise,.. it took us to second, unlike this arrangement, that got us relegated. Isn't that what I just said, but in more words? yep, iwas siding with you against the lib. Ah, I see. No bother. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 i prefer, Newcastle - promoted , and finished 1, 3 , 6, 2, 2,...won 55% of games City- promoted , and established in the prem. England - name a manager that has won anything in 40 years Fulham- promoted, established in prem, left for england. he didnt take us to second twice, he didnt take fulham to the prem, let alone establish them there. He was here at the start of the 2nd place in question, what division are Fulham in? he was here at the start of this season too :frantic: He had his team in 97 ....and he was here longer then. he actually was allowed to buy and sell players then, instead of denis wise,.. it took us to second, unlike this arrangement, that got us relegated. Isn't that what I just said, but in more words? yep, iwas siding with you against the lib. point scoring again? 3 emotes usually conveys sarcasm btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts