|
Post by march4 on Aug 13, 2013 20:37:12 GMT
The biggest mistake has been not spending some of those millions finding a Fuller replacement. We have spent over £20M trying to replace Mama! How much would it cost to replace RIC?
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Aug 13, 2013 20:39:21 GMT
For christ's sake, the team we were promoted with was pretty toss, let's be honest, it was a bit of a miracle. An absolute fortune needed spending just to bring the squad to any kind of respectable level to compete. We were basically on minus. Now we have a squad that just needs tweeking here and there, to say a hundred million quid has been wasted is just bollocks. Certainly is bollocks
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Aug 13, 2013 20:42:22 GMT
Coates has removed the clubs greatest manager, he will surely back the man he has brought in to replace him.
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Aug 13, 2013 20:53:17 GMT
The biggest mistake has been not spending some of those millions finding a Fuller replacement. We have spent over £20M trying to replace Mama! How much would it cost to replace RIC? Well perhaps that £20m would have been better spent on a Fuller mark two.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Aug 13, 2013 20:53:42 GMT
Spending doesn't always guarantee success, or at least the amount doesn't.
In 2008/9 Tony Pulis spent £18.7 million on signing players and finished with 45 points.
In the same season Mark Hughes spent £127.7 million on signings and finished with 50 points.
|
|
|
Post by westpoint on Aug 13, 2013 20:55:38 GMT
Spending doesn't always guarantee success, or at least the amount doesn't. In 2008/9 Tony Pulis spent £18.7 million on signing players and finished with 45 points. In the same season Mark Hughes spent £127.7 million on signings and finished with 50 points. Your stats are spot on but your being negative!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 13, 2013 20:57:15 GMT
Mark Hughes doesn't agree with you, he has praised the skill level of his players. Do you expect him to publicly say they are a bag of shit? There was no need for him to say anything at all. He has made it clear that we have a squad whose standards are higher than his expectations. And his key public utterance is; "It's not a case of wiping away all the hard work that's been put in place in previous seasons. That would be crazy"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 20:58:16 GMT
Spending doesn't always guarantee success, or at least the amount doesn't. In 2008/9 Tony Pulis spent £18.7 million on signing players and finished with 45 points. In the same season Mark Hughes spent £127.7 million on signings and finished with 50 points. Mark Hughes didn't spend all that money. They weren't all his signings.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 20:59:04 GMT
Do you expect him to publicly say they are a bag of shit? There was no need for him to say anything at all. He has made it clear that we have a squad whose standards are higher than his expectations. And his key public utterance is; "It's not a case of wiping away all the hard work that's been put in place in previous seasons. That would be crazy" The key word there is ALL. He doesn't say "I'm going to change literally nothing" which is what you seem to be implying.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 13, 2013 21:02:08 GMT
There was no need for him to say anything at all. He has made it clear that we have a squad whose standards are higher than his expectations. And his key public utterance is; "It's not a case of wiping away all the hard work that's been put in place in previous seasons. That would be crazy" The key word there is ALL. He doesn't say "I'm going to change literally nothing" which is what you seem to be implying. Slight changes to the team shape, as we saw on Saturday - a sensible move from LMH. One big money signing up front (hopefully) - another sensible move. I don't expect more change than that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:06:59 GMT
Isn't actually working at keeping the ball a pretty significant change? Isn't signing an actual left back and having both full backs look to attack more a pretty significant change?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Aug 13, 2013 21:10:14 GMT
rob,
I think you will find the figures are correct.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 13, 2013 21:14:07 GMT
Isn't actually working at keeping the ball a pretty significant change? Isn't signing an actual left back and having both full backs look to attack more a pretty significant change? Pieters would have arrived in January had he been fit - so no change there. And as for all that tip tap rubbish in defence on Saturday, surely that was for the benefit of any watching Liverpool scouts. Play like that at Anfield and we will be 3-0 down at half-time with TP ready to give his half-time analysis on BT. I think LMH is a much smarter cookie than that. We will mix up long ball with passing through midfield, but none of LMH's clubs have gone in for passing for the sake of it as we did against Genoa. LMH will make simple, appropriate changes that suit the players at his disposal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:14:11 GMT
rob, I think you will find the figures are correct. So? The likes of Jo and Robinho weren't his signings. He underachieved at Man City but being an instant success there - especially with transfers brought in that he didn't sanction - was always going to make things tricky at first, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by westpoint on Aug 13, 2013 21:16:42 GMT
rob, I think you will find the figures are correct. So? The likes of Jo and Robinho weren't his signings. He underachieved at Man City but being an instant success there - especially with transfers brought in that he didn't sanction - was always going to make things tricky at first, wasn't it? What was also tricky was not winning a game in his first dozen at QPR
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Aug 13, 2013 21:16:47 GMT
Spending doesn't always guarantee success, or at least the amount doesn't. In 2008/9 Tony Pulis spent £18.7 million on signing players and finished with 45 points. In the same season Mark Hughes spent £127.7 million on signings and finished with 50 points. Mark Hughes didn't spend all that money. They weren't all his signings. Funny isn't it 2nd season at QPR he had 12 games and admittedly was at the wrong end of the table and was replaced by the messiah who then had a further 26 games in which he flatlined his way to the Championship and yet Hughes gets all this shit while Harry gets off almost scot free. Priceless!!
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Aug 13, 2013 21:17:26 GMT
Coates has removed the clubs greatest manager, he will surely back the man he has brought in to replace him. Wasn't aware Peter Coates was chairman during the 1970s...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:17:34 GMT
Isn't actually working at keeping the ball a pretty significant change? Isn't signing an actual left back and having both full backs look to attack more a pretty significant change? Pieters would have arrived in January had he been fit - so no change there. And as for all that tip tap rubbish in defence on Saturday, surely that was for the benefit of any watching Liverpool scouts. Play like that at Anfield and we will be 3-0 down at half-time with TP ready to give his half-time analysis on BT. I think LMH is a much smarter cookie than that. We will mix up long ball with passing through midfield, but none of LMH's clubs have gone in for passing for the sake of it as we did against Genoa. LMH will make simple, appropriate changes that suit the players at his disposal. Are we really in a position to play silly buggers and try and and fool Liverpool's scouts by playing a completely different way to how we intend to just to throw them off the scent? At a ground we haven't won at for decades? When we're still trying to adapt to a new manager? Let's file that one under 'outlandish'. I think we will mix up direct play with more passing. That's still a pretty big change from the last two seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:18:46 GMT
So? The likes of Jo and Robinho weren't his signings. He underachieved at Man City but being an instant success there - especially with transfers brought in that he didn't sanction - was always going to make things tricky at first, wasn't it? What was also tricky was not winning a game in his first dozen at QPR Yeah, he was a disaster at QPR.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Aug 13, 2013 21:20:14 GMT
What was also tricky was not winning a game in his first dozen at QPR Yeah, he was a disaster at QPR. That must have affected his approach to the game.
|
|
|
Post by westpoint on Aug 13, 2013 21:22:03 GMT
What was also tricky was not winning a game in his first dozen at QPR Yeah, he was a disaster at QPR. Immaterial though, we have signed a left back.......................
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:24:32 GMT
Yeah, he was a disaster at QPR. Immaterial though, we have signed a left back....................... I don't see your point.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Aug 13, 2013 21:35:58 GMT
rob,
Think you will find that Robinho and Jo were Hughes signings. Why is this important, because it shows many managers have good and bad signings. Anyone suggesting TP is a flop in the transfer market needs to check out a few more details about the record of MH. It's about trying to be balanced rob.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Aug 13, 2013 21:37:57 GMT
Coates has removed the clubs greatest manager, he will surely back the man he has brought in to replace him. Wasn't aware Peter Coates was chairman during the 1970s... well he wasn't was he
|
|
|
Post by westpoint on Aug 13, 2013 21:40:29 GMT
rob, Think you will find that Robinho and Jo were Hughes signings. Why is this important, because it shows many managers have good and bad signings. Anyone suggesting TP is a flop in the transfer market needs to check out a few more details about the record of MH. It's about trying to be balanced rob. Balanced??, good luck mate.
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Aug 13, 2013 21:40:33 GMT
I find it difficult to believe that a man with Hughes's striking pedigree can't get a little extra from our current crop of strikers, that coupled with better passing and ball retention should make us a bit more potent going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:42:41 GMT
rob, Think you will find that Robinho and Jo were Hughes signings. Why is this important, because it shows many managers have good and bad signings. Anyone suggesting TP is a flop in the transfer market needs to check out a few more details about the record of MH. It's about trying to be balanced rob. You aren't remotely balanced though are you? Anything good that happened was down to TP, anything bad that happened was nothing to do with him. Hughes was manager when Jo and Robinho were signed but they weren't his signings. Jo was a Sven signing set up before he left. Robinho was the new owners amking a statement of intent. Hughes did make some shit signings at Citeh as well as some good ones, but he can hardly take the rap for the signings that weren't his call.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:44:02 GMT
rob, Think you will find that Robinho and Jo were Hughes signings. Why is this important, because it shows many managers have good and bad signings. Anyone suggesting TP is a flop in the transfer market needs to check out a few more details about the record of MH. It's about trying to be balanced rob. Balanced??, good luck mate. What's your definition of 'balance' then Westy?
|
|
|
Post by westpoint on Aug 13, 2013 21:44:56 GMT
and his time at QPR Rob?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 21:50:52 GMT
Haven't I covered that? Hughes was a disaster there. Doesn't automatically make him a bad manager does it? He's got plenty of success on his CV too. 'Balance' would be looking at both, wouldn't it?
|
|