Spudil Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Gus Poyet That is all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 The 8 year contract is even more ludicrous considering he already had 4 years left on his contract to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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? No doubt he doesn't want to sack Pardew but if the value of his assets keeps diminishing because the manager makes good players look ordinary then do you really think Ashley will want to keep flogging a dead horse? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. If you think Happy Face is wasting his time by pointing out fallacies in overly harsh or (factually) unfounded criticism directed at Pardew, then what the hell are you doing debating whether you'd like to see Pardew sacked or not, knowing full well it won't happen? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 The 8 year contract is even more ludicrous considering he already had 4 years left on his contract to begin with. It is really weird TBF, only Mike Ashley knows for sure why it happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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? No doubt he doesn't want to sack Pardew but if the value of his assets keeps diminishing because the manager makes good players look ordinary then do you really think Ashley will want to keep flogging a dead horse? Not infinitely of course, but I'm convinced he'll be here for the start of next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. NUSC brigade I went along to one of their meetings to see the craic. Paid my dues once. I was supportive of them for a bit...until they said they were gonna buy the club. Nob cheeses. I think the investment in players has been minimal at best. He's still over £16m up on that score... http://i44.tinypic.com/20ku0oy.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Again Unbelievable missing the point by a fucking furlong and ending another post with "Mike won't do it anyway so it doesn't matter ner ner ner ner ner" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polpolpol Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I think the investment in players has been minimal at best. He's still over £16m up on that score... http://i44.tinypic.com/20ku0oy.jpg He's only 'up' because you included agent's fees from outgoing transfers? Edit: To be a bit clearer, those headline numbers don't include the fees lost to agents or to loyalty bonuses: we pay them on incoming transfers, so they're same, but on outgoing transfers, it's money that doesn't come to NUFC so figures should be lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Again Unbelievable missing the point by a f***ing furlong and ending another post with "Mike won't do it anyway so it doesn't matter ner ner ner ner ner" It's easy to miss the point when Interpolic decides what the point is, even though "the point" is completely theoretical. Sorry for busting your bubble if you naively believed we were in for a manager change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I'm not really too worried about our actual spend number. We could easily have paid double for Ben Arfa and five times as much for Sissoko... they're still class signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Again Unbelievable missing the point by a fucking furlong and ending another post with "Mike won't do it anyway so it doesn't matter ner ner ner ner ner" His reason for believing Mike will appoint a better/more expensive manager was that we have made big investments on the field. The fact that we have not actually spent that much on the playing staff, points to this faith in further investment off the field being baseless. Further, investment in playing staff is not particularly relevant because playing staff offer a return on investment. They can be sold at profit, or at least allow the club to recoup some of what was paid. Managerial appointments offer no such return, so for Mike Ashley it's pissing money away. He's a cheap and nasty man. Go into Sports Direct if you don't believe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 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. If you think Happy Face is wasting his time by pointing out fallacies in overly harsh or (factually) unfounded criticism directed at Pardew, then what the hell are you doing debating whether you'd like to see Pardew sacked or not, knowing full well it won't happen? Christ almighty, it's such a simple point I have no idea how you can't grasp it. We were talking about why HF isn't that fussed on seeing Pardew sacked despite the fact he doesn't rate him, not how likely it is he'll be sacked. You're arguing with people for the sake of arguing with people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts