|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jul 19, 2013 12:00:35 GMT
They are bigger than us yes but he won't get that job.
Pulis did a good job but he was punching above his weight when he took us on and eventually the fit bid realised that he was ugly bastard and that she could do better.
Fingers crossed, the better option proves to be more than just a great body!
Good luck to him wherever he ends up but it won't be at a club bigger than us, even when were at our worst.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 19, 2013 12:04:52 GMT
Whatever TP does in the future, it looks pretty obvious that some posters are scared stiff that he might be successful with another PL club. How would they explain that? Explain what to whom? I would expect the majority are not so shallow as the few who actually believes a fuck would be given. It is "pretty obvious" that the majority of posters are simply pointing out that it is very unlikely that Tony Pulis would be welcome at any other Premier League club as a manager of choice given he has a universal reputation of producing safety first, second and third football that not many people are going to volunteer to inflict on their supporters. The general consensus is that it would take a very peculiar set of circumstance of a bail out last resort nature to offer up a Premier League opportunity to Pulis. There is no explaining to be done by Pulis to us for his years at Stoke and no explaining by us whatever he does next. He has his history at Stoke which he can describe in generally positive terms and we as supporters are broadly appreciative whilst happy to wave him goodbye. Over and out.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jul 19, 2013 13:04:04 GMT
Mark,
" How would they explain that? "
You are 100% correct, no poster has to explain anything. Nevertheless this is a message board and it occurred to me that if TP was to be a success in future, some people would like to give their views on the subject.
If Pulis doesn't get a good job, or gets one and fails, I will certainly come on here and admit I was wrong. The issue over Tony Pulis is not black and white and no one including you or me has a monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
|
|
c00kie
Academy Starlet
Posts: 178
|
Post by c00kie on Jul 19, 2013 16:46:48 GMT
What if he got a job at Sheffield Wednesday? They're bigger than us aren't they? Ah, the old "Sheffield Wednesday link", as revealed to us many years ago by the prophet ianrb. Strangely no-one in Sheffield knew of such a thing, at that time or ever since. In my opinion Pulis won't manage in this country again, though a lucrative future awaits him in the US.
|
|
|
Post by thesandbankskid on Jul 19, 2013 16:55:38 GMT
Pulis has got to be offered a Premier League Job ( Which he won't be) to do well with one geoff1234567890. I've said Pompey will be his next 'project' however I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes manager of a struggling Championship team in January.
Regardless of wether Pulis would do well (on paper) at another Premier League Club or not, good luck to them because the football was shit, at least we'll see a bit now & MH will do no worse than mid-table to boot.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 19, 2013 17:20:58 GMT
What if he got a job at Sheffield Wednesday? They're bigger than us aren't they? Ah, the old "Sheffield Wednesday link", as revealed to us many years ago by the prophet ianrb. Strangely no-one in Sheffield knew of such a thing, at that time or ever since. In my opinion Pulis won't manage in this country again, though a lucrative future awaits him in the US. I just can't see him getting a management role in the States. Soccer is an entertainment business out there. The antithesis of Pulis football.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 17:21:58 GMT
Barcelona have called a press conference.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 19, 2013 17:25:54 GMT
Ah, the old "Sheffield Wednesday link", as revealed to us many years ago by the prophet ianrb. Strangely no-one in Sheffield knew of such a thing, at that time or ever since. In my opinion Pulis won't manage in this country again, though a lucrative future awaits him in the US. I just can't see him getting a management role in the States. Soccer is an entertainment business out there. The antithesis of Pulis football. Their most revered coach of all time seemed to disagree "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?"
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jul 19, 2013 17:29:19 GMT
sandbanks,
The thread is titled Puliswatch and therefore I am giving a view, as others are, on what may or may not happen to Tone.
Your last paragraph is not the issue, what happens to TP in the future is nothing to do with how well Mark Hughes does at Stoke.
I have no dislike of Mark Hughes or Tony Pulis which I happen to think is a healthy position to take.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 19, 2013 17:34:01 GMT
I just can't see him getting a management role in the States. Soccer is an entertainment business out there. The antithesis of Pulis football. Their most revered coach of all time seemed to disagree "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?" That's going to be the case for their traditional sports, but their soccer fans just aren't going to take grinding out results without any entertainment and come back like what we will. It just isn't ingrained there yet.
|
|
|
Post by thesandbankskid on Jul 19, 2013 17:55:23 GMT
sandbanks, The thread is titled Puliswatch and therefore I am giving a view, as others are, on what may or may not happen to Tone. Your last paragraph is not the issue, what happens to TP in the future is nothing to do with how well Mark Hughes does at Stoke. I have no dislike of Mark Hughes or Tony Pulis which I happen to think is a healthy position to take. So why are you suggesting people that didn't like Pulis' ways, football & methods are a bit worried that he could do well at another Prem club? Personally I couldn't give 2 shits if he did do well his football,mentality & methods ( in loads of different areas of management) is shit, I think we have the better manager, it's like a different club aswell allready as though a big cloud has been lifted. I couldn't give two hoots about Pulis' career now anyway he's gone and not a moment too soon, the future here looks very promising.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jul 19, 2013 18:08:04 GMT
sandbanks, The thread is titled Puliswatch and therefore I am giving a view, as others are, on what may or may not happen to Tone. Your last paragraph is not the issue, what happens to TP in the future is nothing to do with how well Mark Hughes does at Stoke. I have no dislike of Mark Hughes or Tony Pulis which I happen to think is a healthy position to take. So why are you suggesting people that didn't like Pulis' ways, football & methods are a bit worried that he could do well at another Prem club? Personally I couldn't give 2 shits if he did do well his football and mentality is shit, I think we have the better manager, it's like a different club aswell allready as though a big cloud has been lifted. I couldn't give two hoots about Pulis' career now anyway he's gone, and not a moment too soon, the future here looks very promising. I hope you're right that we have a good manager, but on any objective measure, I don't know where the evidence is. We may have optimism, but that's all it is. Good luck to Tone, he was the right man at the right time, but he's gone now. We just hope that Les can live up to Tony's legacy, and maybe surpass it.
|
|
|
Post by thesandbankskid on Jul 19, 2013 18:14:09 GMT
So why are you suggesting people that didn't like Pulis' ways, football & methods are a bit worried that he could do well at another Prem club? Personally I couldn't give 2 shits if he did do well his football and mentality is shit, I think we have the better manager, it's like a different club aswell allready as though a big cloud has been lifted. I couldn't give two hoots about Pulis' career now anyway he's gone, and not a moment too soon, the future here looks very promising. I hope you're right that we have a good manager, but on any objective measure, I don't know where the evidence is. We may have optimism, but that's all it is. Good luck to Tone, he was the right man at the right time, but he's gone now. We just hope that Les can live up to Tony's legacy, and maybe surpass it. Im sure of it, Our squad even before this transfer window was capable of more than Pulis allowed. How many times were we playing opposition where you just knew they were shit and we should be having a go at them? Hughes will have a go at them. Pulis would have you believe The Premiership now is the pinnacle in footballing terms, I believe this league has a lot of average teams and is over-hyped very well by Sky, media & BBC etc
|
|
|
Post by thesandbankskid on Jul 19, 2013 18:20:03 GMT
It will be amazing how we can suddenly pass 3 or 4 consecutive balls now the training has changed to actually playing football and practicing footwork and movement. We allready have some good "footballers".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 18:23:01 GMT
So why are you suggesting people that didn't like Pulis' ways, football & methods are a bit worried that he could do well at another Prem club? Personally I couldn't give 2 shits if he did do well his football and mentality is shit, I think we have the better manager, it's like a different club aswell allready as though a big cloud has been lifted. I couldn't give two hoots about Pulis' career now anyway he's gone, and not a moment too soon, the future here looks very promising. I hope you're right that we have a good manager, but on any objective measure, I don't know where the evidence is. We may have optimism, but that's all it is. Good luck to Tone, he was the right man at the right time, but he's gone now. We just hope that Les can live up to Tony's legacy, and maybe surpass it. On the 'objective measure' the evidence is Blackburn and Fulham, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 20, 2013 19:50:32 GMT
Mark, " How would they explain that? " You are 100% correct, no poster has to explain anything. Nevertheless this is a message board and it occurred to me that if TP was to be a success in future, some people would like to give their views on the subject. If Pulis doesn't get a good job, or gets one and fails, I will certainly come on here and admit I was wrong. The issue over Tony Pulis is not black and white and no one including you or me has a monopoly of wisdom on the subject. Geoff There is no issue regarding Tony Pulis as far as Stoke City is concerned. It is as black and white as it can get and there is nothing about Tony Pulis now or in the future that requires an ounce of wisdom. He is no longer the manager of the club because the owners who had spent millions upon millions to support his way of doing things were not prepared to invest more on the same. That is their right to do so. The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go. The owners of the football club have appointed a manager they feel is equipped to carry out their strategy. They may or may have not chosen the right man; we shall see but whatever happens next and whatever happens to Pulis in the future it will not make the decision to show him the door wrong. Once the owners decided they were not prepared to bankroll a policy of exclusively throwing dead cash at experienced old British based pros to edge past forty points every season then Pulis' time was up. Pulis being successful (however that is measured)and Mark Hughes failing will not individually or mutually mean that the decision to part company with Tony Pulis was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jul 20, 2013 20:18:26 GMT
I hope you're right that we have a good manager, but on any objective measure, I don't know where the evidence is. We may have optimism, but that's all it is. Good luck to Tone, he was the right man at the right time, but he's gone now. We just hope that Les can live up to Tony's legacy, and maybe surpass it. On the 'objective measure' the evidence is Blackburn and Fulham, isn't it? Absolutely. But it's pretty much counter balanced by Citeh and QPR. A bit like Pulis. Promotion and consolidation = good. Stagnation and regression = bad. Unlike Hughes, Pulis hasn't had to club hop to cover all bases, he did the lot with us. I'm totally behind Hughes and hope he goes on to be our longest serving, most successful manager ever. But at the moment he's just Pulis with more hair, less caps and more balls. Of the inflatable variety so far.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 20, 2013 20:58:21 GMT
Mark, " How would they explain that? " You are 100% correct, no poster has to explain anything. Nevertheless this is a message board and it occurred to me that if TP was to be a success in future, some people would like to give their views on the subject. If Pulis doesn't get a good job, or gets one and fails, I will certainly come on here and admit I was wrong. The issue over Tony Pulis is not black and white and no one including you or me has a monopoly of wisdom on the subject. Geoff There is no issue regarding Tony Pulis as far as Stoke City is concerned. It is as black and white as it can get and there is nothing about Tony Pulis now or in the future that requires an ounce of wisdom. He is no longer the manager of the club because the owners who had spent millions upon millions to support his way of doing things were not prepared to invest more on the same. That is their right to do so. The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go. The owners of the football club have appointed a manager they feel is equipped to carry out their strategy. They may or may have not chosen the right man; we shall see but whatever happens next and whatever happens to Pulis in the future it will not make the decision to show him the door wrong. Once the owners decided they were not prepared to bankroll a policy of exclusively throwing dead cash at experienced old British based pros to edge past forty points every season then Pulis' time was up. Pulis being successful (however that is measured)and Mark Hughes failing will not individually or mutually mean that the decision to part company with Tony Pulis was wrong. There is an awful lot of supposition in this post!
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jul 20, 2013 21:11:21 GMT
Mark,
I have never disputed the right of the Stoke City owners to dismiss Tony Pulis. I have never disputed their right to take the club in a new direction. I have never questioned the appointment of Mark Hughes.
My aim has been to defend his record and to show respect to the man in my posts.
You are yet again right that he is no longer the manager of Stoke City. In my view he should now be allowed to take his place in history has one of the club's true legends.
It is very much in the interests of the club and its fans that the era of Tony Pulis is remembered with pride, at least Mark Hughes has helped that process at his press conference the other day.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Jul 20, 2013 21:47:31 GMT
Mark, " How would they explain that? " You are 100% correct, no poster has to explain anything. Nevertheless this is a message board and it occurred to me that if TP was to be a success in future, some people would like to give their views on the subject. If Pulis doesn't get a good job, or gets one and fails, I will certainly come on here and admit I was wrong. The issue over Tony Pulis is not black and white and no one including you or me has a monopoly of wisdom on the subject. Geoff There is no issue regarding Tony Pulis as far as Stoke City is concerned. It is as black and white as it can get and there is nothing about Tony Pulis now or in the future that requires an ounce of wisdom. He is no longer the manager of the club because the owners who had spent millions upon millions to support his way of doing things were not prepared to invest more on the same. That is their right to do so. The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go. The owners of the football club have appointed a manager they feel is equipped to carry out their strategy. They may or may have not chosen the right man; we shall see but whatever happens next and whatever happens to Pulis in the future it will not make the decision to show him the door wrong. Once the owners decided they were not prepared to bankroll a policy of exclusively throwing dead cash at experienced old British based pros to edge past forty points every season then Pulis' time was up. Pulis being successful (however that is measured)and Mark Hughes failing will not individually or mutually mean that the decision to part company with Tony Pulis was wrong. There is no sensible arguing against all that. 100% agree.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 20, 2013 22:53:50 GMT
Mark, I have never disputed the right of the Stoke City owners to dismiss Tony Pulis. I have never disputed their right to take the club in a new direction. I have never questioned the appointment of Mark Hughes. My aim has been to defend his record and to show respect to the man in my posts. You are yet again right that he is no longer the manager of Stoke City. In my view he should now be allowed to take his place in history has one of the club's true legends. It is very much in the interests of the club and its fans that the era of Tony Pulis is remembered with pride, at least Mark Hughes has helped that process at his press conference the other day. Can I remind you that where I came in on this was where you were suggesting that any future success for Tony Pulis would be a reason for Stoke fans who supported the removal of the same as our manager to be held to question? The point of my replies has been to argue against such a notion. You seem to have forgotten the original post by yourself, which was:
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 20, 2013 22:58:26 GMT
[quote author=" sheikhmomo" source="/post/3941653/thread" timestamp="1374353901" [/quote] There is an awful lot of supposition in this post![/quote] There is a lot more reasoning based on the written and spoken word on the subject available in the area. I'm prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you have? I imagined I was simply stating accepted opinion not spouting unheard of theory?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 20, 2013 23:47:26 GMT
[quote author=" sheikhmomo" source="/post/3941653/thread" timestamp="1374353901" There is an awful lot of supposition in this post![/quote] There is a lot more reasoning based on the written and spoken word on the subject available in the area. I'm prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you have? I imagined I was simply stating accepted opinion not spouting unheard of theory?[/quote] It's this bit I have the most difficulty with, Mark; "The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go."
The family and their acolytes have contradicted themselves several times on this matter Mark, what with their 'new direction', 'there is no new direction' switcheroos. Secondly he certainly seemed at least ready to think about change with the reported 'dossier'. Now I wouldn't blame them if they said 'OK Tone, file it in that plastic cylindrical item with the empty coffee cups in by the door' but there is still some sweeping generalisations there. I also find it laughable that Pulis is painted as this figure that was one minute in a tracksuit getting players to sign and next, upstairs in a suit working on the finer details of budgets and contract terms, whilst autonomously blowing the budget, like some Gordon Gecko brace wearing maniac! Coates and Scholes share a proportion of the blame for every behind closed door extension for dear old 'Tongey', just as much as Pulis does. How you can have any confidence in the new regime whist Bus Pass Tony bathes in his current glory, remains a major mystery to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 1:54:04 GMT
It is very much in the interests of the club and its fans that the era of Tony Pulis is remembered with pride I dont agree with that Geoff. It's a bit like saying that it's in the best interest of Christmas that everyone likes the Orange Fondant number in Quality Street. It's too early to judge Pulis. I'm sure when we get into the football you will have plenty of good references to support your arguments. If you follow our supporters views through the media, it seems to me that Tony Pulis rising star became seriously dimmed with our supporters at the Valencia away game. This came after issues regarding Woodgate and Huth’s positional play in the Prem. I think Valencia was the tipping point for many. From this moment Pulis and our support became increasingly disenfranchised. Move forward to 2013 and I, like most, found the news of TP's departure both welcome, yet a little unnerving. The clubs subsequent appointment of Mark Hughes was not at all popular throughout that first week. However, nothing could have prepared me for the best laid plans about to emanate from within the club itself. Although no verbal statement has been made by the club, it’s acknowledgment of the failures made under TP’s tenure have been made perfectly apparent through the robust PR offensive that has been delivered right to the heart of our fanbase. In broad PR terms the campaign appears to have been highly effective for SCFC and the new management team. Season ticket sales are back on track, even the fan forums have settled down. The PR campaign I’m referring to started with the re-signing of Jermaine Pennant. Alarm bells were going off in my head and I concluded that this was a message to the fans. Pieters and Muniesa would soon follow to address the evergreen “square peg” and “young talent” issues. It was uncanny and started to look like somebody had been reading the Oatcake... Whilst i'm all for the club building bridges with our support, and while we all admire JP, i’d much rather see Mark Hughes work with our existing squad to deliver his vision of an Stoke side with good football as the target, rather than mugging our support through the hollow forgiveness of a wayward son and the totemistic additions of both a left back and talented youngster. I really want to see what Mark Hughes can actually achieve with the squad he’s inherited once the dust settles. The club, in my opinion, have been quite divisive with these plays, and i’m not entirely sure what it all means. However, I am a little concerned with the precedents being set. I genuinely hope that i’m quite wrong in the way I have assessed this situation, but lightning that strikes 3 times in rapid succession can never feel quite right.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jul 21, 2013 2:10:26 GMT
I just can't see him getting a management role in the States. Soccer is an entertainment business out there. The antithesis of Pulis football. Their most revered coach of all time seemed to disagree "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?" Correct. But Pulisball didn't yield an awful lot of wins in the last one and a half seasons did it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 7:47:20 GMT
[quote author=" sheikhmomo" source="/post/3941653/thread" timestamp="1374353901" There is an awful lot of supposition in this post! There is a lot more reasoning based on the written and spoken word on the subject available in the area. I'm prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you have? I imagined I was simply stating accepted opinion not spouting unheard of theory?[/quote] It's this bit I have the most difficulty with, Mark; "The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go."
The family and their acolytes have contradicted themselves several times on this matter Mark, what with their 'new direction', 'there is no new direction' switcheroos. Secondly he certainly seemed at least ready to think about change with the reported 'dossier'. Now I wouldn't blame them if they said 'OK Tone, file it in that plastic cylindrical item with the empty coffee cups in by the door' but there is still some sweeping generalisations there. I also find it laughable that Pulis is painted as this figure that was one minute in a tracksuit getting players to sign and next, upstairs in a suit working on the finer details of budgets and contract terms, whilst autonomously blowing the budget, like some Gordon Gecko brace wearing maniac! Coates and Scholes share a proportion of the blame for every behind closed door extension for dear old 'Tongey', just as much as Pulis does. How you can have any confidence in the new regime whist Bus Pass Tony bathes in his current glory, remains a major mystery to me. [/quote] A you seriously suggesting the dossier was a genuine attempt to change? Come off it Sheiky.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 21, 2013 8:31:52 GMT
There is an awful lot of supposition in this post! There is a lot more reasoning based on the written and spoken word on the subject available in the area. I'm prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you have? I imagined I was simply stating accepted opinion not spouting unheard of theory? It's this bit I have the most difficulty with, Mark; "The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go."
The family and their acolytes have contradicted themselves several times on this matter Mark, what with their 'new direction', 'there is no new direction' switcheroos. Secondly he certainly seemed at least ready to think about change with the reported 'dossier'. Now I wouldn't blame them if they said 'OK Tone, file it in that plastic cylindrical item with the empty coffee cups in by the door' but there is still some sweeping generalisations there. I also find it laughable that Pulis is painted as this figure that was one minute in a tracksuit getting players to sign and next, upstairs in a suit working on the finer details of budgets and contract terms, whilst autonomously blowing the budget, like some Gordon Gecko brace wearing maniac! Coates and Scholes share a proportion of the blame for every behind closed door extension for dear old 'Tongey', just as much as Pulis does. How you can have any confidence in the new regime whist Bus Pass Tony bathes in his current glory, remains a major mystery to me. [/quote] A you seriously suggesting the dossier was a genuine attempt to change? Come off it Sheiky. [/quote] As it was based on a European model then yes there does seem to have been some willingness to change, it's certainly not cut and dry. I guess we'll find out when he finally comes out of hiding to 'drip his poison!'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 8:35:04 GMT
There is a lot more reasoning based on the written and spoken word on the subject available in the area. I'm prepared to listen to any alternative suggestions you have? I imagined I was simply stating accepted opinion not spouting unheard of theory? It's this bit I have the most difficulty with, Mark; "The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go."
The family and their acolytes have contradicted themselves several times on this matter Mark, what with their 'new direction', 'there is no new direction' switcheroos. Secondly he certainly seemed at least ready to think about change with the reported 'dossier'. Now I wouldn't blame them if they said 'OK Tone, file it in that plastic cylindrical item with the empty coffee cups in by the door' but there is still some sweeping generalisations there. I also find it laughable that Pulis is painted as this figure that was one minute in a tracksuit getting players to sign and next, upstairs in a suit working on the finer details of budgets and contract terms, whilst autonomously blowing the budget, like some Gordon Gecko brace wearing maniac! Coates and Scholes share a proportion of the blame for every behind closed door extension for dear old 'Tongey', just as much as Pulis does. How you can have any confidence in the new regime whist Bus Pass Tony bathes in his current glory, remains a major mystery to me. A you seriously suggesting the dossier was a genuine attempt to change? Come off it Sheiky. [/quote] As it was based on a European model then yes there does seem to have been some willingness to change, it's certainly not cut and dry. I guess we'll find out when he finally comes out of hiding to 'drip his poison!' [/quote] You don't think it was just another example of the kind of shit he always talked and never delivered? "It'll be different this time Peter! I can change! Peter!" He couldn't change. He proved that once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 21, 2013 8:47:09 GMT
It's this bit I have the most difficulty with, Mark; "The owners did not wish to continue supporting a manager whom they felt had not the skill set to develop the strategy they wish to pursue to safeguard the Premier League status and long term health of the football club. Just as importantly the previous manager blatantly did not share their view on what was required to happen and therefore had to go."
The family and their acolytes have contradicted themselves several times on this matter Mark, what with their 'new direction', 'there is no new direction' switcheroos. Secondly he certainly seemed at least ready to think about change with the reported 'dossier'. Now I wouldn't blame them if they said 'OK Tone, file it in that plastic cylindrical item with the empty coffee cups in by the door' but there is still some sweeping generalisations there. I also find it laughable that Pulis is painted as this figure that was one minute in a tracksuit getting players to sign and next, upstairs in a suit working on the finer details of budgets and contract terms, whilst autonomously blowing the budget, like some Gordon Gecko brace wearing maniac! Coates and Scholes share a proportion of the blame for every behind closed door extension for dear old 'Tongey', just as much as Pulis does. How you can have any confidence in the new regime whist Bus Pass Tony bathes in his current glory, remains a major mystery to me. A you seriously suggesting the dossier was a genuine attempt to change? Come off it Sheiky. As it was based on a European model then yes there does seem to have been some willingness to change, it's certainly not cut and dry. I guess we'll find out when he finally comes out of hiding to 'drip his poison!' [/quote] You don't think it was just another example of the kind of shit he always talked and never delivered? "It'll be different this time Peter! I can change! Peter!" He couldn't change. He proved that once and for all.[/quote] I don't know. No one knows, Rob. The fact that he had his plan suggested he was willing to change to some degree to me and there is still a lot of supposition in the motives of the owners due to their reticence on this and other matters (specific Stoke City accounts being another). You could just as easily suppose that they have decided to pretty much pull the plug on investment and were looking for a patsy desperate for one last Premier League job, in Mark Hughes. I don't believe that but it has the same amount of supposition in it as other theories. The owners have no interest in telling fans (or media) what their strategies and motives are. Everything to a point is guesswork.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 8:52:11 GMT
A you seriously suggesting the dossier was a genuine attempt to change? Come off it Sheiky. As it was based on a European model then yes there does seem to have been some willingness to change, it's certainly not cut and dry. I guess we'll find out when he finally comes out of hiding to 'drip his poison!' You don't think it was just another example of the kind of shit he always talked and never delivered? "It'll be different this time Peter! I can change! Peter!" He couldn't change. He proved that once and for all.[/quote] I don't know. No one knows, Rob. The fact that he had his plan suggested he was willing to change to some degree to me and there is still a lot of supposition in the motives of the owners due to their reticence on this and other matters (specific Stoke City accounts being another). You could just as easily suppose that they have decided to pretty much pull the plug on investment and were looking for a patsy desperate for one last Premier League job, in Mark Hughes. I don't believe that but it has the same amount of supposition in it as other theories. The owners have no interest in telling fans (or media) what their strategies and motives are. Everything to a point is guesswork.[/quote] Looking at the evidence you'd have to file it as 'unlikely' wouldn't you? Whatever he did and whoever he signed, his tactics stayed largely the same over 10 years. Even when results and performances were shocking he clung on to that same formula. In his last season he continued to make unfavourable noises about the academy as well. A Damascene conversion overnight seems a bit of a stretch.
|
|