Mike Ashley

[Raconteur]

I stuck up for him because I didn't think he was trolling, I still don't. I thought trolling meant posting things deliberately to win people up or belittle them, which he wasn't doing at all.

Very well, but I disagree.

 

His first response was gratuitously condescending and was certainly intended to wind up AND belittle. As I said in the megapost above, I felt his following argument was unsound and the use of pie graphs a fig leaf to cover his trolling.

 

But that's okay, because I can disagree civilly with you

 

[Hanshithispantz]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

[Interpolic]

I still don't understand why Marveaux was on the pitch for so few minutes over the course of the season despite nearly always being available for selection and setting up and scoring goals a lot of the time he featured. Well I do understand it but I can't accept it.

 

Agree with you on this one, there are a few similar examples of weird selections and substitutions, obviously.

 

Anita was also unfortunate, albeit to a lesser degree. One of our best players in that horrible winter run then never got a look in.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

[TRon]

I still don't understand why Marveaux was on the pitch for so few minutes over the course of the season despite nearly always being available for selection and setting up and scoring goals a lot of the time he featured. Well I do understand it but I can't accept it.

 

Yes. like Anita Marveaux has been largely ignored even when fit, certainly we could have made far more and better use of him than we have. When he's forced his way into the side it's been due to injuries and he's then gone on to embarrass our gormless manager by usually being the best player on the pitch.

 

p.s. I don't think HF is trolling, or if he is it's in a very mild sense of the word. Anyone who resorts to pie charts to make a point takes this stuff far too seriously to be trolling.

[Interpolic]

I don't think it's trolling either, a few points have been extremely tenuous though.

[Hanshithispantz]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

 

It just seems like an unnecessary diversion from his major argument, that Mike Ashley won't get anyone better, that ultimately seems to be his major concern with sacking Pardew, not that he thinks we would be losing out on his departure directly.

 

If it is genuinely interesting to people though then fair enough, some of his points I've agreed with as I would never claim that Pardew is completely inept, he's just a one trick pony, I really believe that a lot of those points are pretty much common opinion though, and are only being debated because people get set in full on argument mode and end up debating against points that they actually agree with. It doesn't help when there's a dozen people all debating at the same time either, it takes one silly comment from 1 daft cunt to be scrutinised and send the next 4 pages down an alleyway

[basjen]

http://img4.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-graph-thing-375754.jpeg

 

[loki679]

Only 860 pages til we get Christmas Tree off the front page.

[Happy Face]

Therefore, sir, I suggest that your arguments are specious, your logic flawed and your manner of debate fallacious. And given your well-established preference of piling blame on Ashley while absolving Pardew, I stand by my labelling of you a troll.

 

And given my lengthy response to a troll, you probably got that thrilling tingle just from seeing a wall of text. That's okay, I only replied because I was sad that decent posters like Ian W and Inochi felt the need to stick up for you. Those two are principled debaters who defend their positions well. You, sir, do not.

 

"Sir"?

 

OK, I'll respond line by line to your original post and then to the behemoth above.

 

How did a team that finished fifth and had five first-team players added in January finish in fifth place? (And if you mention Europa League or injuries I will stab you in the face)

 

This is the question I was looking at with my pie charts.  I didn't mention Europa or injuries, like you asked....I based it solely on Premier league appearances and the inconsistency in the line ups Pardew was able to put out.

 

You chose to bring injuries and Europa into it (have you stabbed your own face yet?)

 

That ignores the fact that our players played significantly fewer ganes than many at more successful clubs. It ignores the woeful domestic cup runs, and the fact that in the EL group matches, we sent out virtual reserve teams on occasion.

 

The first sentence being due to injury.  The latter being less true as we advanced, to the point where teams we put out against benfica were almost entirely first teamers.

 

Nor does it acknowledge that some injuries were the direct result of managerial mismanagement (such as Ben Arfa being played when clearly unfit) or through institutional mismanagement (the failure of the club to investigate the occurance of muscle injuries borders on negligence, while the lack of fitness which potentially leads to injuries is, again, directly under the control of the manager.)

 

I'd been told not to mention injuries, but if you're asking me to now,I broadly agree.  By the same token I have seen complaints at how little Ben Arfa got starts when returning from fitness recently.  Only coming on from the bench for 3 weeks.  Another example of Pardew being damned either way.

 

the addition of five first team players in January. The impact of this, for instance, sees Debuchy starting 14 games and Simpson 12 (accoring to your figures), which theoretically adds weight to your position of "wider spread of core players." In fact, it has nothing at all to do with injuries yet seemingly adds credence to your argument.

 

I'm not sure how this counters my point?  I agree with it,  Simpson has been in and out of the side due to the arrival/suspension of Debuchy.  so either Debuchy has been playing alongs ide a CB and behind a RW that he's never played with before...or Simpson (the lesser player) has been filling in.  Who played RB for the other 12 games?  I think Anita played some there....further inconsistencty within the team...and that's just one position.

 

Your argument also ignores the ridiculous team selections of the manager, which has seen starts given to players such as Perch and Bigirimana that a better manager might have given to Anita. (And while that may be wildly hypothetical, is there a single Toon fan who would have chosen Perch or Bigirimana over Anita, ever? Anita could easily have as many starts as Jonas, which would have narrowed the spread of core players, to use your parlance.) Again, while seemingly adding to your theory, it in fact has nothing to do with injuries.

 

I've seen very little from Anita that suggests he deserves a place over Perch if we're talking about the holding role he fills in the absence of Tiote. 

 

Anita wasn't fit for 1 game Bigirimana started (Arsenal), he played with him in another (Man U), so that criticism relates to one game (Reading).

 

I didn't realise    was a cunts smiley.  Sorry.  how about

[Interpolic]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

 

It just seems like an unnecessary diversion from his major argument, that Mike Ashley won't get anyone better, that ultimately seems to be his major concern with sacking Pardew, not that he thinks we would be losing out on his departure directly.

 

If it is genuinely interesting to people though then fair enough, some of his points I've agreed with as I would never claim that Pardew is completely inept, he's just a one trick pony, I really believe that a lot of those points are pretty much common opinion though, and are only being debated because people get set in full on argument mode and end up debating against points that they actually agree with. It doesn't help when there's a dozen people all debating at the same time either, it takes one silly comment from 1 daft cunt to be scrutinised and send the next 4 pages down an alleyway

 

I do agree that it's a strange business that he wants the manager out but makes these arguments that defend Pardew's justifications for us being so poor. I don't think there's a big enough sample size of managerial appointments to say we'd get Dave Bassett in next either.

 

[Spudil]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

 

It just seems like an unnecessary diversion from his major argument, that Mike Ashley won't get anyone better, that ultimately seems to be his major concern with sacking Pardew, not that he thinks we would be losing out on his departure directly.

 

If it is genuinely interesting to people though then fair enough, some of his points I've agreed with as I would never claim that Pardew is completely inept, he's just a one trick pony, I really believe that a lot of those points are pretty much common opinion though, and are only being debated because people get set in full on argument mode and end up debating against points that they actually agree with. It doesn't help when there's a dozen people all debating at the same time either, it takes one silly comment from 1 daft c*** to be scrutinised and send the next 4 pages down an alleyway

 

Bingo

[Guest icemanblue]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

 

It just seems like an unnecessary diversion from his major argument, that Mike Ashley won't get anyone better, that ultimately seems to be his major concern with sacking Pardew, not that he thinks we would be losing out on his departure directly.

 

If it is genuinely interesting to people though then fair enough, some of his points I've agreed with as I would never claim that Pardew is completely inept, he's just a one trick pony, I really believe that a lot of those points are pretty much common opinion though, and are only being debated because people get set in full on argument mode and end up debating against points that they actually agree with. It doesn't help when there's a dozen people all debating at the same time either, it takes one silly comment from 1 daft cunt to be scrutinised and send the next 4 pages down an alleyway

 

I do agree that it's a strange business that he wants the manager out but makes these arguments that defend Pardew's justifications for us being so poor. I don't think there's a big enough sample size of managerial appointments to say we'd get Dave Bassett in next either.

 

 

Why is that such a strange business, like? Nothing wrong with providing a bit of balance and realism to the reams of sensationalism, is there?

[Interpolic]

I don't think he's "trolling", I just think he's using purposely irrelevant or distorted graphs and charts with little to no context in an effort to give ground to a non-existent argument and fuel his own ego.

 

He doesn't think Pardew is good enough for this club and he has had this opinion ever since he signed. It pretty much starts and ends there, regardless of whether or not we have been in Europe or whether or not we have had injuries etc. He isn't good enough for the club. He'll continue to debate against his own point though because he doesn't believe Mike will get anyone better and he gets to play around on excel a bit more.

 

I guess so, it's done in the interests of creating a debate though. I do the same thing sometimes, without the graphs. I explore various arguments for and against Pardew and how valid they are, it's possible to do that while still thinking that ultimately he's pretty poor. Just makes it more interesting chat IMO.

 

It just seems like an unnecessary diversion from his major argument, that Mike Ashley won't get anyone better, that ultimately seems to be his major concern with sacking Pardew, not that he thinks we would be losing out on his departure directly.

 

If it is genuinely interesting to people though then fair enough, some of his points I've agreed with as I would never claim that Pardew is completely inept, he's just a one trick pony, I really believe that a lot of those points are pretty much common opinion though, and are only being debated because people get set in full on argument mode and end up debating against points that they actually agree with. It doesn't help when there's a dozen people all debating at the same time either, it takes one silly comment from 1 daft cunt to be scrutinised and send the next 4 pages down an alleyway

 

I do agree that it's a strange business that he wants the manager out but makes these arguments that defend Pardew's justifications for us being so poor. I don't think there's a big enough sample size of managerial appointments to say we'd get Dave Bassett in next either.

 

 

Why is that such a strange business, like? Nothing wrong with providing a bit of balance and realism to the reams of sensationalism, is there?

 

He's saying he's against the manager at heart and has been since day one. We've heard Pardew make excuses all season and HF has been in here justifying those excuses with various stats, some highly tenuous as I say. So yeah, I think it's a strange business (apart from the occasions he has had a point). As much as you must get annoyed in the position you've decided to take I also get annoyed at being called an OMG sensationalist drama queen when all season I've tried to articulate some decent points and criticism.

 

[Guest icemanblue]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

[Interpolic]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

 

We'll continue going around in circles here, I've explained what I'm getting at.

 

I suppose the main issue at hand is surrounding the potential next appointment and I've been over why I don't think we'd get Dave Bassett in next numerous times. We haven't made a managerial appointment in 2 and a half years and so much else has changed since then, a lot of it for the better.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

 

Basically my feeling. Even if you want an upgrade on Pardew it's still possible to object to how mad people go with their criticism of him. If you think that sort of debate is a waste of time then fair enough, this thread would certainly be a lot shorter.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

 

We'll continue gong around in circles here, I've explained what I'm getting at.

 

I suppose the main issue at hand is surrounding the potential next appointment and I've been over why I don't think we'd get Dave Bassett in next numerous times. We haven't made a managerial appointment in 2 and a half years and so much else has changed since then, a lot of it for the better.

 

I agree it's not guaranteed that we would mess up the appointment. I never thought we'd make as many good player signings either, but we have. Still highly possible though obviously.

[TRon]

One point Raconteur is correct about is that HF is more keen to divert the blame to Ashley than the manager because he's one of the NUSC brigade. No doubt that Ashley appoints the manager and should carry the can, but there's nothing to say that he can't sack him and appoint someone better. We all thought Ashley would never invest in quality players but that's changed now, so no reason we can't get a quality manager as we find stability. Or at least one that can pick the best 11 and has some modicum of logic when setting teams out or making subs.

[Consortium of one]

Gus Poyet

 

That is all.

[Rocker]

[Unbelievable]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

 

We'll continue going around in circles here, I've explained what I'm getting at.

 

I suppose the main issue at hand is surrounding the potential next appointment and I've been over why I don't think we'd get Dave Bassett in next numerous times. We haven't made a managerial appointment in 2 and a half years and so much else has changed since then, a lot of it for the better.

 

 

Isn't the main issue that Ashley will simply not sack Pardew so soon after handing him an eight year contract and telling the world of this revolutionary new approach to football club ownership where stability in management brings success on the pitch?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Isn't the main issue that Ashley will simply not sack Pardew so soon after handing him an eight year contract and telling the world of this revolutionary new approach to football club ownership where stability in management brings success on the pitch?

 

Probably, yes.

[Skeletor]

The 8 year contract is even more ludicrous considering he already had 4 years left on his contract to begin with.

[Interpolic]

Well, I wasn't calling you anything there, like. I don't really like Pardew, and would prefer for him to be replaced by a better manager (I don't think it'll happen, though). I still take issue with over the top criticisms, as Happy Face has been doing, especially when a lot of them aren't grounded in reality. I just don't have his graphs. Perhaps that's why I can understand his position better, or at least don't find it strange.

 

We'll continue going around in circles here, I've explained what I'm getting at.

 

I suppose the main issue at hand is surrounding the potential next appointment and I've been over why I don't think we'd get Dave Bassett in next numerous times. We haven't made a managerial appointment in 2 and a half years and so much else has changed since then, a lot of it for the better.

 

 

Isn't the main issue that Ashley will simply not sack Pardew so soon after handing him an eight year contract and telling the world of this revolutionary new approach to football club ownership where stability in management brings success on the pitch?

 

Nope not really, not when we're debating whether we'd like to see Pardew sacked or not.