Alan Pardew

[madras]

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 ?

[Wullie]

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.

[Wullie]

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?

[80]

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.

[Guest neesy111]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

[Tooj]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

 

Sorry, that was just a noise.

[Mick]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

Why?

 

[Wullie]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

 

Based on what? Missing enough chances to win ten games in three of our recent matches?

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

How did NUFC screw Carroll, they give him a new contract in November and actively supported the player despite all of his off the field troubles.

[Guest neesy111]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

 

Based on what? Missing enough chances to win ten games in three of our recent matches?

 

For which Carroll is still injured and would have NO IMPACT AT ALL.

[colinmk]

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?

 

Good post and I totally agree.

[80]

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.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

[madras]

Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down.

 

Based on what? Missing enough chances to win ten games in three of our recent matches?

based on other  games where  he played and we still missed a load of chances...oh he wouldn't have played those 3 games either.

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

 

What quotes, also believing the Liverpool chairman is laughable.  They also said they didn't want to sell Torres and look what happened.

[Wullie]

Jesus Christ!

 

We've still fucking sold him you know, when he's fit and playing for Liverpool, we're not suddenly going to start taking our chances.

 

We had a £35m striker. Now we don't have a £35m striker, we have Lovenkrands and Best. But because he's injured for a couple of weeks, that was a good deal?

 

[Wullie]

I do find it very funny/pathetic that the club have tried to peddle the "he was injured" line as a good reason for getting rid.

 

The same club that recently bought a player with a broken leg and a player with severe cruciate ligament damage.

 

Funny that they've tried it and pathetic that some buy it.

[Wullie]

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.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

 

What quotes, also believing the Liverpool chairman is laughable.  They also said they didn't want to sell Torres and look what happened.

 

But you'll believe anything fed to you by our proven liars?

[Mick]

I do find it very funny/pathetic that the club have tried to peddle the "he was injured" line as a good reason for getting rid.

 

The same club that recently bought a player with a broken leg and a player with severe cruciate ligament damage.

 

Funny that they've tried it and pathetic that some buy it.

 

We brought Ireland in on the same day as we sold Carroll and he's not fit to play either.

[Guest neesy111]

Jesus Christ!

 

We've still fucking sold him you know, when he's fit and playing for Liverpool, we're not suddenly going to start taking our chances.

 

We had a £35m striker. Now we don't have a £35m striker, we have Lovenkrands and Best. But because he's injured for a couple of weeks, that was a good deal?

 

 

The same carroll that could be out of the rest of the season.  Fact is Hughton and Pardew both had chances to sign another striker in both transfer windows and didn't.

 

We made £35M on a player that's had six good months in the premiership that is a good deal.  If you don't think it isn't then you seriously need help.

[madras]

Jesus Christ!

 

We've still f***ing sold him you know, when he's fit and playing for Liverpool, we're not suddenly going to start taking our chances.

 

We had a £35m striker. Now we don't have a £35m striker, we have Lovenkrands and Best. But because he's injured for a couple of weeks, that was a good deal?

 

we had andy cole and then we had paul kitson. it happens. we had a 12million winger in milner should we have kept him or is it wullies world of faves again ?

[Wullie]

Jesus Christ!

 

We've still f***ing sold him you know, when he's fit and playing for Liverpool, we're not suddenly going to start taking our chances.

 

We had a £35m striker. Now we don't have a £35m striker, we have Lovenkrands and Best. But because he's injured for a couple of weeks, that was a good deal?

 

we had andy cole and then we had paul kitson. it happens. we had a 12million winger in milner should we have kept him or is it wullies world of faves again ?

 

Of course we should have kept Milner. Dear me.

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

 

What quotes, also believing the Liverpool chairman is laughable.  They also said they didn't want to sell Torres and look what happened.

 

But you'll believe anything fed to you by our proven liars?

 

Everyone in the deal is talking shit to boost their own case.

[madras]

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 s***.

 

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 f***ing 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 f***ing bias against Ashley to twist your own view of what happened.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

 

What quotes, also believing the Liverpool chairman is laughable.  They also said they didn't want to sell Torres and look what happened.

 

But you'll believe anything fed to you by our proven liars?

name anyone in football management (playing or board side) who isn't a proven liar ?

[Guest neesy111]

No doubt Wullie is going to talk about how Ashley has made millions from the club now 

 

[Wullie]

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 s***.

 

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 f***ing 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 f***ing bias against Ashley to twist your own view of what happened.

 

He's using quotes from Liverpool's chairman, actually.

 

What quotes, also believing the Liverpool chairman is laughable.  They also said they didn't want to sell Torres and look what happened.

 

But you'll believe anything fed to you by our proven liars?

name anyone in football management (playing or board side) who isn't a proven liar ?

 

Proven in court? Not many I imagine.