|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 15, 2014 17:41:25 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed the fanzine overall as always but I wasn't too impressed by this article either. I haven't read anywhere that Pulis left Palace because he " wasn't allowed to spend as much money as he wanted to " and Palace weren't " forced " to turn to Warnock either as the article suggested. The fact they did turn to Warnock though may back up the suggestions that Palace haven't got a wealth of riches available to spend at the moment. There was another suggestion that Pulis left Palace because he didn't want Zaha and the owner did, this isn't mentioned in the Oatcake article though and it just as plausible as any other theory that has been suggested. The article ends by saying Pulls let the Palace supporters down by leaving three days before the season started, perhaps Parish is the one who let the supporters down by giving TP false promises and trying to go above his head with the signature of Zaha. Spot on. It is a biased pieced where blanks have been filled in to support the authors agenda. So if Mark Hughes walked out 3 days before the Villa game, even if it was amicable (horseshit), you wouldn't slate the bloke? Agendas? We've all got them.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 15, 2014 18:05:07 GMT
Spot on. It is a biased pieced where blanks have been filled in to support the authors agenda. So if Mark Hughes walked out 3 days before the Villa game, even if it was amicable (horseshit), you wouldn't slate the bloke? Agendas? We've all got them. I'd conclude it was Tony Scholes fault and slate him
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 15, 2014 18:06:17 GMT
So if Mark Hughes walked out 3 days before the Villa game, even if it was amicable (horseshit), you wouldn't slate the bloke? Agendas? We've all got them. I'd conclude it was Tony Scholes fault and slate him And you'd have my full support.
|
|
|
Post by kidcrewbob on Sept 15, 2014 18:54:34 GMT
Yes I am - something has been lost since last season & this guy below underlines the evidence of both complacency and some eould say arrogance - maybe he sort of agrees with me !! "Stoke’s grip on the game lessened but Mark Hughes bizarrely didn’t react, and we continued to huff and puff." "Yet still the manager did nothing but watch, calmly and impassively, from his technical area, until well after we’d fallen behind, suckered on the counter for the second successive home game." "Hughes’ reluctance to make subs is all the more puzzling given that the decisive changes he’s made in the past have often yielded results" "Because we were predictable. Because we gave another soft goal away. And because the visitors twisted while we stuck. The manager has to point his finger at the man in the mirror for this one." "Hughes’ selection of Walters didn’t help – the number 19 is simply not the right option out wide when you need to break teams down" From our perspective though, it was a total shambles. To a man, our defence was ball watching, failing to track the advancing danger men." "Thus winnable games have slipped through our fingers. That’s worrying at any stage of the season." I still don't see how that's complacency or Hughes not giving a shit. His weird attitude to subs could be seen throughout last season as well. ok CD & UKCS - as you're putting a two line whip on me I think we'll have to agree to differ on the complacency thing - but I never said he didn't give a shit.....!! Excellent write up by the way CD....as ever... TTFN
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Sept 15, 2014 21:37:10 GMT
So if Mark Hughes walked out 3 days before the Villa game, even if it was amicable (horseshit), you wouldn't slate the bloke? Agendas? We've all got them. I'd conclude it was Tony Scholes fault and slate him Well we have only just recovered from your assertion that Pulis was removed from his job at Stoke by backstabbing by Scholes and Cartwright who forced St Peter to act against his will A theory repeated to the point by you that you believed you and it somehow became a proven fact. The only problem with that was that there was no evidence of anything of the sort but there was the ownership structure of the club to suggest that it was a load of old cobblers of the highest order. You then have the brass neck to criticise Smudge for reaching a very much more believable scenario and demand he provides his evidence for daring to suggest Pulis threw his toys out of the pram because it suited him and he wasn't getting his own way. Mind you in fairness you are ahead of some people who still wont accept Pulis was relieved of his duties!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 15, 2014 22:14:18 GMT
I'd conclude it was Tony Scholes fault and slate him Well we have only just recovered from your assertion that Pulis was removed from his job at Stoke by backstabbing by Scholes and Cartwright who forced St Peter to act against his will A theory repeated to the point by you that you believed you and it somehow became a proven fact. The only problem with that was that there was no evidence of anything of the sort but there was the ownership structure of the club to suggest that it was a load of old cobblers of the highest order. You then have the brass neck to criticise Smudge for reaching a very much more believable scenario and demand he provides his evidence for daring to suggest Pulis threw his toys out of the pram because it suited him and he wasn't getting his own way. Mind you in fairness you are ahead of some people who still wont accept Pulis was relieved of his duties! Ahhh that's your fantastic imagination running away with you again Mark. I said on the day Cartwright was appointed that this was the beginning of the end for Pulis and was probably proved right. That was the sign of the suits taking over and the suits I referred to were the boy and Madam Whiplash. I never once said that Cartwright and Scholes got rid of Pulis, I said it was the Etruria bean counters. Either way I'm glad you're now agreeing with the fact that Saturday's article was written with bias and designed to smear the previous manager based on nothing more than pure speculation and agenda.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Sept 15, 2014 22:25:34 GMT
Its quite hard to understand why a Stoke City fanzine is saying anything derogatory about Tone to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Sept 15, 2014 23:21:13 GMT
When I first glanced at it, I thought why even comment on TP he is not manager of Stoke, he is not associated with Stoke, or the opposition. On second glance I thought well its topical, an ex-stoke manager leaving his next club. 1st thought after second glance, which ex-stoke managers have gone on to any other club in recent history that merits any comment let alone discussion?2nd thought....maybe Steve Cotterill, but surely he wouldnt walk out of a club......oops he did and we still comment, criticise, stigmatise, quite bloody rightly. But maybe its down to Crystal palace to slag of TP for walking out on their club in the same way its our right to slate the Quitter. Apparently brizzle city fans think he is quite good. Crystal Palaces' misfortunes like every other team in our league, are our bonus. Do I feel sorry for them, or feel bad for them...no...as they would not for us. If tP had done that to us..he would be the devil incarnate.I am more bothered by "Colin" he manages a team that has the opportunity to beat us, tP doesnt at the mo, so Colin is more of a w**ker
|
|