|
Post by alster on Mar 12, 2013 16:43:01 GMT
There's an old saying ... "It's going to have to get worse before it can get better."Whether that applies to us right now I'm unsure but I guess it's that sentiment which the OP was alluding to. Theres another old saying "this is going to hurt". Doesn't mean you want it to though does it.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:43:24 GMT
It doesn't make you less of a fan if, in your opinion, the best thing for Stoke in the long-run is to lose a couple games in the short-run so the manager gets replaced (although in my opinion losing to West Brom could have dire long-term consequences). Obviously, if you're hoping Stoke lose so you can come on here and say I told you so, you're a Grade A tosser. However, that's not what Rick Oshea is suggesting at all. Totally agree onionman.
|
|
|
Post by mightymike on Mar 12, 2013 16:43:32 GMT
So the club should back him by not backing him? 8-10 players will leave in the summer, so if don't strengthen and everybody else does then surely we would be even weaker than we are now? When has Pulis done well when spending big? Huth aside. We all know hes a disaster when given a lot financially. Of course you would have to give him a few million to replace the out of contraact players or keep them on...but ultimately hes proven time and time again that his best buys are those who he DOES NOT spend big money on. Well let's just say 5 players for £3-4million each. That's still a lot of money to give him. There is a lot of room on the wage bill and the tv money is going up. So why not give him chance to carry on?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_Shawjosh on Mar 12, 2013 16:44:04 GMT
You can criticise other peoples opinions all you want, but I was happy when we went on the unbeaten run earlier this season, beating the likes of Liverpool in the way that we did. I'd prefer to experience that in the premier league with the potential of either changing the manager or the manager adapting to a better style than being relegated, losing all the good players we currently have and not being guaranteed to play "good" football anyway. Who's to say we won't get relegated and get an equally "unenjoyable" manager? But thats a gamble you have to take isnt it??!!! Swansea had to take that gamble...West Brom had to take that gamble...Norwich had to take a gamble....Christ mate thats football. We might be relegated...OR...we might have a cracking manager who plays cracking football whilst keeping us in this league. You're twisting the point here. My point is about being relegated just so we change the manager, since you asked that question originally. Now you're saying it as if we stay up and change manager.
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on Mar 12, 2013 16:45:50 GMT
I can understand where you're coming from Rick, even if I don't agree, WBA is a very very important game.
However, if we were mathematically safe and someone said would you take losing all your remaining games if Pulis got sacked I would have to say yes (and it pains me).
It really shows what TP has done to some of our support, I wouldn't of dreamt of anything like this before.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 16:47:23 GMT
Yes - Totally wrong
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:47:21 GMT
But thats a gamble you have to take isnt it??!!! Swansea had to take that gamble...West Brom had to take that gamble...Norwich had to take a gamble....Christ mate thats football. We might be relegated...OR...we might have a cracking manager who plays cracking football whilst keeping us in this league. You're twisting the point here. My point is about being relegated just so we change the manager, since you asked that question originally. Now you're saying it as if we stay up and change manager. Ok I'll rephrase it slightly..I thought YOU were then putting a different slant on the question. So yeah...Suppose...We have a shit season in the championship under a shit manager...OR...we might have a cracking manager who plays cracking football whilst getting us promotion. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 12, 2013 16:47:42 GMT
There's an old saying ... "It's going to have to get worse before it can get better."Whether that applies to us right now I'm unsure but I guess it's that sentiment which the OP was alluding to. Theres another old saying "this is going to hurt". Doesn't mean you want it to though does it. Doesn't it? If the long term result is worse if you don't?
|
|
Junglist
Youth Player
When it's time.....I will shut you down
Posts: 456
|
Post by Junglist on Mar 12, 2013 16:48:10 GMT
Of course its wrong. Why do you need to post something like that on a SCFC fans forum? Most of us are pissed with things and you'll hear some pretty harsh comments on here, but you'll also find on a match day the same posters are 100% behind the team. The Oatcake is mostly a place for fans to vent off.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:49:46 GMT
When has Pulis done well when spending big? Huth aside. We all know hes a disaster when given a lot financially. Of course you would have to give him a few million to replace the out of contraact players or keep them on...but ultimately hes proven time and time again that his best buys are those who he DOES NOT spend big money on. Well let's just say 5 players for £3-4million each. That's still a lot of money to give him. There is a lot of room on the wage bill and the tv money is going up. So why not give him chance to carry on? I'd give him enough. I certainly wouldnt give him anything close to what your suggesting. Its all irrelevant because we both know the football IS NOT going to improve drastically from now until the end of the season...is it?
|
|
|
Post by shep207 on Mar 12, 2013 16:49:54 GMT
scfcbiancorossi, if you had the choice between relegation with a different manager for next season, or survival with Pulis staying in charge; which would you pick?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:50:29 GMT
A lot of fans seem somewhat afraid to express their true opinion on the subject presented by Rick. I totally understand why.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 12, 2013 16:51:40 GMT
I can understand where you're coming from Rick, even if I don't agree, WBA is a very very important game. However, if we were mathematically safe and someone said would you take losing all your remaining games if Pulis got sacked I would have to say yes (and it pains me). It really shows what TP has done to some of our support, I wouldn't of dreamt of anything like this before. See this is an interesting post too. I suspect far more people would privately agree with this, although they wouldn't admit to it on here.
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on Mar 12, 2013 16:52:24 GMT
scfcbiancorossi, if you had the choice between relegation with a different manager for next season, or survival with Pulis staying in charge; which would you pick? Relegation for me. Only because I might actually have some excitement for games again and start enjoying watching us play. At the moment I have no enthusiasm or passion. BTW notice the 'for me'. In terms of Stoke City and the health of the club, I want us to stay in the Premier League, but for my own personal greedy self, yes I would prefer relegation.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_Shawjosh on Mar 12, 2013 16:52:46 GMT
You're twisting the point here. My point is about being relegated just so we change the manager, since you asked that question originally. Now you're saying it as if we stay up and change manager. Ok I'll rephrase it slightly..I thought YOU were then putting a different slant on the question. So yeah...Suppose...We have a shit season in the championship under a shit manager...OR...we might have a cracking manager who plays cracking football whilst getting us promotion. How does that sound? So the question is completely assuming that we get relegated and what happens after? I'd obviously take the better football. If it was a choice between winning the games, staying in the premier league and hoping either Pulis attacks more or we get a new manager in the prem and losing the games just so Pulis gets sacked and hoping we get a manger who plays attractive football, I would choose staying up.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:53:42 GMT
scfcbiancorossi, if you had the choice between relegation with a different manager for next season, or survival with Pulis staying in charge; which would you pick? You know what...I've lost all pleasure in watching Stoke over the past 18 months..along with many. I'd backed him until January of this year. I'd unquestionably (although reluctantly on one level) go for the former. I really would and I think many others would as well. What is the point in existing for the sake of existing? In other words..what is the point in existing in this league just to say in 60 years "we were in the premier league in that season and finished 14th"? What is the point in even going to games anymore? My last away game was Arsenal away for a reason I think they are all fair questions.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 12, 2013 16:54:06 GMT
We have simply got to win. Losing isn't an option to me. Point taken Jamo mate but let me put a slightly different slant on things. If the difference between TP keeping his job and TP losing his job pended on results at home Albion, Norwich and Villa..would you prefer to see TP lose his job? Another question i'd pose to some is and I accept a lot of people will be highly critical of this question but...would you prefer relegation if it meant a fresh start with a new manager who had a different philosophy? Or would you rather persist with finishing 14th in the league and Pulis as manager next season? This game is vital, Rossi. I only have us getting 8 points for the rest of this season and that was working on us beating the Albion. Losing doesn't bear thinking about as if we only accrued an additional 5 points we'll be right in the shit. I'm all for change in the summer but not at the expense of us being relegated. If we're going to change manager this isn't the time to think about it, we either scrape survival and change in the summer or stay up and look to change at Christmas if we're struggling again. That might not be a satisfactory view for some but to me they are the only sensible times to change a manager.
|
|
|
Post by stoke247 on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:04 GMT
lets get the points first to avoid relegation then we can heep the pressure on him
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:10 GMT
Ok I'll rephrase it slightly..I thought YOU were then putting a different slant on the question. So yeah...Suppose...We have a shit season in the championship under a shit manager...OR...we might have a cracking manager who plays cracking football whilst getting us promotion. How does that sound? So the question is completely assuming that we get relegated and what happens after? I'd obviously take the better football. If it was a choice between winning the games, staying in the premier league and hoping either Pulis attacks more or we get a new manager in the prem and losing the games just so Pulis gets sacked and hoping we get a manger who plays attractive football, I would choose staying up. Fair enough. You are aware in 20 years of management Tony Pulis has never changed his approach to the game?
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:12 GMT
I can understand where you're coming from Rick, even if I don't agree, WBA is a very very important game. However, if we were mathematically safe and someone said would you take losing all your remaining games if Pulis got sacked I would have to say yes (and it pains me). It really shows what TP has done to some of our support, I wouldn't of dreamt of anything like this before. See this is an interesting post too. I suspect far more people would privately agree with this, although they wouldn't admit to it on here. Nowt wrong with being honest
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:17 GMT
Theres another old saying "this is going to hurt". Doesn't mean you want it to though does it. Doesn't it? If the long term result is worse if you don't? If you told me it was going to get worse before it got better I'd just hope you were wrong on this occasion. If you told me this is going to hurt I'd brace myself ready for the pain and hope it wasn't too bad. I can't think of any circumstance where I'd hope for it to hurt or any that I'd hope for an unfavorable outcome. People who hope for shit like that pay for some tart to whip them or nail their bollocks to the floorboards. Masochism is not for me.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:48 GMT
I remember a lot of fans hoping we'd lose in the latter days of Mick Mills.
Mick had a habit of getting a scrappy win just when he was on the verge of getting sacked, thus buying himself another ten games of dire football. It got to the point where you thought, maybe it would be better in the long-run if those misleading "ray of hope" wins didn't come along, meaning Coates would finally pull the trigger.
In the end we got our wish and Mills was replaced by Alan Ball. So I don't know what that tells us!
As it happened, I always found myself cheering for Stoke when the match was on, anyway. It was impossible not to, even if deep down I thought it might work out better if we lost. The only time I genuinely rooted for opponents was the second half of the Birmingham 0-7 match, where I cheered the final couple of Blues goals, hoping that the heavier the scoreline got, the more drastic the reaction had to be from Coates.
Again, we got our wish, and Chic Bates was fired. So in came Chris Kamara...
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Mar 12, 2013 16:55:53 GMT
Part of me is thinking, obviously I want Stoke to win. the other part is thinking I hope we lose in order to put another nail in TP's coffin. Is that wrong? How has this man let us lose so much hope in our fixtures? Yes, what ever you think of Pulis its pathetic to want your club, Stoke City (apparently), to lose any game.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_Shawjosh on Mar 12, 2013 16:56:06 GMT
So the question is completely assuming that we get relegated and what happens after? I'd obviously take the better football. If it was a choice between winning the games, staying in the premier league and hoping either Pulis attacks more or we get a new manager in the prem and losing the games just so Pulis gets sacked and hoping we get a manger who plays attractive football, I would choose staying up. Fair enough. You are aware in 20 years of management Tony Pulis has never changed his approach to the game? That's why I'd hope for a new manager after this season.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:57:55 GMT
Point taken Jamo mate but let me put a slightly different slant on things. If the difference between TP keeping his job and TP losing his job pended on results at home Albion, Norwich and Villa..would you prefer to see TP lose his job? Another question i'd pose to some is and I accept a lot of people will be highly critical of this question but...would you prefer relegation if it meant a fresh start with a new manager who had a different philosophy? Or would you rather persist with finishing 14th in the league and Pulis as manager next season? This game is vital, Rossi. I only have us getting 8 points for the rest of this season and that was working on us beating the Albion. Losing doesn't bear thinking about as if we only accrued an additional 5 points we'll be right in the shit. I'm all for change in the summer but not at the expense of us being relegated. If we're going to change manager this isn't the time to think about it, we either scrape survival and change in the summer or stay up and look to change at Christmas if we're struggling again. That might not be a satisfactory view for some but to me they are the only sensible times to change a manager. I certainly take your point. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer to this question (one which I posed above to another poster) but would you prefer 14th in the premier league for another season whilst playing dour football or relegation with the prospect of a new manager with a different philosophy and a different approach tactically to games? The manager might be shit..or he might be really good. What would you prefer mate? (Like I say its all down to personal preference this one).
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 16:59:02 GMT
Fair enough. You are aware in 20 years of management Tony Pulis has never changed his approach to the game? That's why I'd hope for a new manager after this season. Yeah I just wanted to quash the idea of "hoping Pulis will attack more" because that wont be happening anytime soon
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 12, 2013 17:00:30 GMT
Can I just say this is a great and somewhat courageous debate started by Rick.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 12, 2013 17:03:43 GMT
This game is vital, Rossi. I only have us getting 8 points for the rest of this season and that was working on us beating the Albion. Losing doesn't bear thinking about as if we only accrued an additional 5 points we'll be right in the shit. I'm all for change in the summer but not at the expense of us being relegated. If we're going to change manager this isn't the time to think about it, we either scrape survival and change in the summer or stay up and look to change at Christmas if we're struggling again. That might not be a satisfactory view for some but to me they are the only sensible times to change a manager. I certainly take your point. Obviously there is no right or wrong question to this question (one which I posed above to another poster) but would you prefer 14th in the premier league for another season whilst playing dour football or relegation with the prospect of a new manager with a different philosophy and a different approach tactically to games? The manager might be shit..or he might be really good. What would you prefer mate? (Like I say its all down to personal preference this one). I want a change, mate but it has to be a well thought out decision. Now is pretty much suicidal in my opinion. The summer is sensible to me but I imagine PC would be loathed to get rid after Tone has kept us up. We therefore would have to suck it and see for next year if we continued to struggle. Me, I'd move him on at the end of the campaign, I'm not holding my breath on it though but for the future of the club (given the money we have spunked at staying up) we simply have to stay in this division.
|
|
|
Post by ihaveadream on Mar 12, 2013 17:04:23 GMT
Part of me is thinking, obviously I want Stoke to win. the other part is thinking I hope we lose in order to put another nail in TP's coffin. Is that wrong? How has this man let us lose so much hope in our fixtures? Yes, totally wrong I am shocked that people are even thinking that
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 12, 2013 17:05:02 GMT
Doesn't it? If the long term result is worse if you don't? If you told me it was going to get worse before it got better I'd just hope you were wrong on this occasion. If you told me this is going to hurt I'd brace myself ready for the pain and hope it wasn't too bad. I can't think of any circumstance where I'd hope for it to hurt or any that I'd hope for an unfavorable outcome. People who hope for shit like that pay for some tart to whip them or nail their bollocks to the floorboards. Masochism is not for me. ;D It's not quite the same is it, what the OP is suggesting, is that ultimately things aren't going to get better until TP is sacked but in order for that to happen then things are going to have to get worse. It certainly isn't an illogical view to take. The fact that we aren't already safe makes the suggestion highly questionable however. If we were safe, would your answer be different? Most football supporters would think that you should never want your team to lose but if you believe that your team is ultimately in greater danger (relegation next season) then I can understand it. As I said earlier, I'm not sure if I can subscribe to it personally but I'm not going to jump down somebody's neck and claim they're any less of a supporter than me because they've got the balls to suggest it.
|
|