madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 may not be so funny if it was judged that he couldn't control his players. I was laughing that Andy was repeating what somebody else had posted earlier. ah right, didn't see that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 What would he have done at the start of the season with Carroll and Shola out then? Erm... signed a striker. With what? His own money? Did Pardew get Ireland with his own money? Didn't realise that, fair play to him. Xisco and Routledge wages will cover that deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 may not be so funny if it was judged that he couldn't control his players. I was laughing that Andy was repeating what somebody else had posted earlier. I thought the "done thing" in here was to beat the same arguments to a pulp. beat "newbies" to pulp isn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 may not be so funny if it was judged that he couldn't control his players. I was laughing that Andy was repeating what somebody else had posted earlier. I thought the "done thing" in here was to beat the same arguments to a pulp. You're thinking of the Jonas thread man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 may not be so funny if it was judged that he couldn't control his players. I was laughing that Andy was repeating what somebody else had posted earlier. I thought the "done thing" in here was to beat the same arguments to a pulp. You're thinking of the Jonas thread man. Tbf he can't cross but at least he takes the pressure off the defence and draws in challenges to win free kicks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Why didn't he buy a striker? Because he wasn't given any money? Well he claims it was because he was so impressed with the ones we've got. Well after weeks of claiming that he was going to "bang on the door of the chairman", he was hardly going to turn around and say "Oh well, I'm a gullible b******. He didn't give me any money which is a shame, because all the strikers we've got are s***" Well after weeks of telling us Andy Carroll wasn't for sale, he sold him so that's an absolutely ridiculous point. Mick has made the point for me - why bring in an injured midfielder instead of, for example, Sturridge? Because the money was probably already earmarked for HBA and I doubt Pardew even had much of a say in it either. My point is, the blame for me lies squarely at the door of the boardroom. I don't blame Pardew for not signing anyone in the window. Like Hughton before him, he's just making the best of a bad situation. He's just an irrelevant puppet in this whole charade. Why bring in Ireland instead of a loan striker? Because when we started the Ireland deal, we were desperately short in midfield, Carroll was still a NUFC player and Shola didn't have a fractured jaw. That's utter drivel. Our first choice midfield four were all available other than one who was suspended and would be back before Ireland was fit, Carroll we knew was injured for weeks or months and Shola is Shola, consistently either injured or shit. We've been desperate for another striker all season, not to mention the fact that we were actively attempting to sell Carroll. and again an anti Ashley protester using the Carroll sale to big up their argument. What on Earth are you talking about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Why didn't he buy a striker? Because he wasn't given any money? Well he claims it was because he was so impressed with the ones we've got. Well after weeks of claiming that he was going to "bang on the door of the chairman", he was hardly going to turn around and say "Oh well, I'm a gullible b******. He didn't give me any money which is a shame, because all the strikers we've got are s***" Well after weeks of telling us Andy Carroll wasn't for sale, he sold him so that's an absolutely ridiculous point. Mick has made the point for me - why bring in an injured midfielder instead of, for example, Sturridge? Because the money was probably already earmarked for HBA and I doubt Pardew even had much of a say in it either. My point is, the blame for me lies squarely at the door of the boardroom. I don't blame Pardew for not signing anyone in the window. Like Hughton before him, he's just making the best of a bad situation. He's just an irrelevant puppet in this whole charade. Why bring in Ireland instead of a loan striker? Because when we started the Ireland deal, we were desperately short in midfield, Carroll was still a NUFC player and Shola didn't have a fractured jaw. That's utter drivel. Our first choice midfield four were all available other than one who was suspended and would be back before Ireland was fit, Carroll we knew was injured for weeks or months and Shola is Shola, consistently either injured or shit. We've been desperate for another striker all season, not to mention the fact that we were actively attempting to sell Carroll. and again an anti Ashley protester using the Carroll sale to big up their argument. What on Earth are you talking about? You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Why didn't he buy a striker? Because he wasn't given any money? Well he claims it was because he was so impressed with the ones we've got. Well after weeks of claiming that he was going to "bang on the door of the chairman", he was hardly going to turn around and say "Oh well, I'm a gullible b******. He didn't give me any money which is a shame, because all the strikers we've got are s***" Well after weeks of telling us Andy Carroll wasn't for sale, he sold him so that's an absolutely ridiculous point. Mick has made the point for me - why bring in an injured midfielder instead of, for example, Sturridge? Because the money was probably already earmarked for HBA and I doubt Pardew even had much of a say in it either. My point is, the blame for me lies squarely at the door of the boardroom. I don't blame Pardew for not signing anyone in the window. Like Hughton before him, he's just making the best of a bad situation. He's just an irrelevant puppet in this whole charade. Why bring in Ireland instead of a loan striker? Because when we started the Ireland deal, we were desperately short in midfield, Carroll was still a NUFC player and Shola didn't have a fractured jaw. That's utter drivel. Our first choice midfield four were all available other than one who was suspended and would be back before Ireland was fit, Carroll we knew was injured for weeks or months and Shola is Shola, consistently either injured or shit. We've been desperate for another striker all season, not to mention the fact that we were actively attempting to sell Carroll. and again an anti Ashley protester using the Carroll sale to big up their argument. What on Earth are you talking about? You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Gullible doesn't begin to describe it. I'm not speculating. I'm stating what anyone with a brain cell can see was absolutely fucking obvious. If you don't want to see what's right in front of your nose then don't, but don't claim that anyone who does is speculating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Why didn't he buy a striker? Because he wasn't given any money? Well he claims it was because he was so impressed with the ones we've got. Well after weeks of claiming that he was going to "bang on the door of the chairman", he was hardly going to turn around and say "Oh well, I'm a gullible b******. He didn't give me any money which is a shame, because all the strikers we've got are s***" Well after weeks of telling us Andy Carroll wasn't for sale, he sold him so that's an absolutely ridiculous point. Mick has made the point for me - why bring in an injured midfielder instead of, for example, Sturridge? Because the money was probably already earmarked for HBA and I doubt Pardew even had much of a say in it either. My point is, the blame for me lies squarely at the door of the boardroom. I don't blame Pardew for not signing anyone in the window. Like Hughton before him, he's just making the best of a bad situation. He's just an irrelevant puppet in this whole charade. Why bring in Ireland instead of a loan striker? Because when we started the Ireland deal, we were desperately short in midfield, Carroll was still a NUFC player and Shola didn't have a fractured jaw. That's utter drivel. Our first choice midfield four were all available other than one who was suspended and would be back before Ireland was fit, Carroll we knew was injured for weeks or months and Shola is Shola, consistently either injured or shit. We've been desperate for another striker all season, not to mention the fact that we were actively attempting to sell Carroll. and again an anti Ashley protester using the Carroll sale to big up their argument. What on Earth are you talking about? You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. I'm not speculating. I'm stating what anyone with a brain cell can see was absolutely fucking obvious. If you don't want to see what's right in front of your nose then don't, but don't claim that anyone who does is speculating. It is speculating, your just using your fucking bias against Ashley to twist your own view of what happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fine. Continue to beat up the monkey whilst the organ grinder stands there smugly watching. But you don't approve of beating up the organ grinder either, you say it's a waste of effort and won't make any difference Dave, hit the off button, this place is finished I never said I didn't approve of going after Ashley. My concern is everything that's been proposed will be like giving him a dead leg as opposed to 'beating him up'. It hasn't read that way, but ok fair enough. Seriously, have you got any thoughts at all about what can be done to beat him up/change him for the better? It's just that what I've read from you has been ultra-passive, almost to the point of masochism given that you agree they've been poisonous to the club and are likely to continue to be, and it's depressing stuff. Didn't originally intend to spring this on you in here, so apologies for that, but it's just you say you'd flout/weaken any boycott, won't abuse him in in the stadium for fear of the consequences etc. So what do you think can/should be done by supporters to improve the club's future? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Pardew told him to put it in writing, not forced but suggested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Pardew told him to put it in writing, not forced but suggested. carroll said if he wasn't given a new contract he wanted to talk to liverpool, thats what pardew told him to put in writing. ie a transfer request. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Pardew told him to put it in writing, not forced but suggested. carroll said if he wasn't given a new contract he wanted to talk to liverpool, thats what pardew told him to put in writing. ie a transfer request. Why was he told about the bid from Liverpool? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You talking about the club actively looking to sell Carroll. Obviously the club asked Carroll to ask for a new contract and forced him to put in a transfer request. You are speculating basically. Pardew told him to put it in writing, not forced but suggested. carroll said if he wasn't given a new contract he wanted to talk to liverpool, thats what pardew told him to put in writing. ie a transfer request. Why was he told about the bid from Liverpool? or who told him ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 carroll said if he wasn't given a new contract he wanted to talk to liverpool, thats what pardew told him to put in writing. ie a transfer request. What was wrong with trying to talk him out of it instead? I know that he said he would look at the contract in the summer which was probably right, I don't see anything to suggest that we did enough to keep him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 carroll said if he wasn't given a new contract he wanted to talk to liverpool, thats what pardew told him to put in writing. ie a transfer request. What was wrong with trying to talk him out of it instead? I know that he said he would look at the contract in the summer which was probably right, I don't see anything to suggest that we did enough to keep him. what more can you say when he knocks back the offer of a new one in the summer...."ah howay man, gan on!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 what more can you say when he knocks back the offer of a new one in the summer...."ah howay man, gan on!" Try to talk him into staying instead of throwing the towel in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Don't see anything negative about Pardew's reign so far, except he's not Chris Hughton. I disagree, but assuming you're taking the mick out of the last idea, I'd also say him not being Chris Hughton is important in itself, never mind the qualities he offered. He'd done special things for this club, he had a relationship with supporters that means he should be offered loyalty and seen as more than just 'manager x'. I'm not saying this is itself should be held against Pardew (not saying it shouldn't either...), but I think it's an important point to make as I've seen displays of disloyalty towards him around that I'd consider no different to gloryhunting. If you're not going to be bothered about a good person being dumped if you agree there's no good reason, let alone actually screwed in the process, then what's the point of it all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 what more can you say when he knocks back the offer of a new one in the summer...."ah howay man, gan on!" Try to talk him into staying instead of throwing the towel in. And if he doesn't, he's just signed a new deal so what difference does it make what he wants? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 what more can you say when he knocks back the offer of a new one in the summer...."ah howay man, gan on!" Try to talk him into staying instead of throwing the towel in. And if he doesn't, he's just signed a new deal so what difference does it make what he wants? why do most clubs let players go who want away, especially when the price seems ridiculous ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Don't see anything negative about Pardew's reign so far, except he's not Chris Hughton. I disagree, but assuming you're taking the mick out of the idea, I'd also and say him not being Chris Hughton is important in itself, never mind the qualities he offered. He'd done special things for this club, he had a relationship with supporters that means he should be offered loyalty and seen as more than just 'manager x'. I'm not saying this is itself should be held against Pardew (not saying it shouldn't either...), but I think it's an important point to make as I've seen displays of disloyalty towards him around that I'd consider no different to gloryhunting. If you're not going to be bothered about a good person being dumped, especially if you agree there's no good reason, let alone actually screwed in the process, then what's the point of it all? Yep, some of the hypocrisy going round re: Hughton/Carroll is nauseatingly pathetic. People demand, demand, DEMAND loyalty from players but are more than happy to see NUFC screw a good man and a good manager over for no decent reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 what more can you say when he knocks back the offer of a new one in the summer...."ah howay man, gan on!" Try to talk him into staying instead of throwing the towel in. And if he doesn't, he's just signed a new deal so what difference does it make what he wants? why do most clubs let players go who want away, especially when the price seems ridiculous ? I'm not interested in most clubs, I'm interested in Newcastle hanging onto their best players. Also, if you deliberately create an atmosphere that players will want to get away from, I don't think it should really get you off the hook when they do want to, do you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Nobody's trying to argue with the table. It speaks for itself, but it doesn't tell the whole story. I agree with that but we have to measure performance and doing so in any other way is subjective. I agree, but football is a subjective game, especially on discussion forums! Measuring Pardew just by the progress up or down the table in the tiny amount of time he's been here is mental IMO. I don't disagree, but it should be pointed out a lot of people thought our rise from our brief drop to 11th under Hughton to 8th three or four games later under Pardew was significant. Both are stupid ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down. Sorry, that was just a noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts