|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:41:09 GMT
well in the long term we seem to have become an established Premier league outfit who now look they can realisitically get their second top ten finish in a row. he didn't bankrupt us and even if you think the purse strings have been tied because of Pulis' spending it doesn't seem to have harmed us much does it? or were you thinking that if thepurse strings hadn't been tightened we could have broken into the top 6 by now? The first time we finished in the top ten was last season under Mark Hughes, there is not much doubt looking as the accounts if he had been allowed to carry on as our manager with the way he was spending the clubs money he would have bankrupted us, that is the main reason he was sacked hence the tightening of the purse strings after he was disposed of, the fact that his spending has not affected us is that his predecessor has thus far spent what small amount he has very carefully, Pulis top 6 try re-reading that post and find where i said Pulis would have got us into the top 6 and you'll also notice how i pointed out that it was Hughes that got us into the top ten as well..... if you calm down on your agenda driven garbage and try to take the time to read posts instead of frantically trying to defend your crap as quickly as you can then you won't make such beginner's mistakes! there's a good boy! the point is that you've said that Pulis' overspending has created the tightening of the purse strings....now, whilst the purse strings have been tightened we've had our first top ten spot and we could realistically get our second this year so it hasn't really affected us in the long term has it? unless you think that Hughes could have broken the top 6 with more money (that was the question i asked...i never said or implied that Pulis could have got us there but that wasn't his job) the post mentioned about how managers spending lots effects teams in the long term..i was simply pointing out the FACTS that there is nothing tangible to back up your idea that we have been effected detrimentally at all by Pulis' overspending as even if Hughes had been allowed to spend shitloads, 8-10th place is about all we can realistically hope for anyway
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 20, 2015 12:44:01 GMT
Pulis will keep WBA up blindfold with one hand behind his back. In the Summer he will fall out with Peace over transfers and they will 'mutually agree' to go their separate ways.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Jan 20, 2015 12:45:01 GMT
Horrible man...who's rowing from London to Paris to raise money for a charity that he has no real obligation to do anything for any more since he's no longer in the club or area. What a monster! I don't care. But good luck to him
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 12:47:58 GMT
The first time we finished in the top ten was last season under Mark Hughes, there is not much doubt looking as the accounts if he had been allowed to carry on as our manager with the way he was spending the clubs money he would have bankrupted us, that is the main reason he was sacked hence the tightening of the purse strings after he was disposed of, the fact that his spending has not affected us is that his predecessor has thus far spent what small amount he has very carefully, Pulis top 6 try re-reading that post and find where i said Pulis would have got us into the top 6 and you'll also notice how i pointed out that it was Hughes that got us into the top ten as well..... if you calm down on your agenda driven garbage and try to take the time to read posts instead of frantically trying to defend your crap as quickly as you can then you won't make such beginner's mistakes! there's a good boy! the point is that you've said that Pulis' overspending has created the tightening of the purse strings....now, whilst the purse strings have been tightened we've had our first top ten spot and we could realistically get our second this year so it hasn't really affected us in the long term has it? unless you think that Hughes could have broken the top 6 with more money (that was the question i asked...i never said or implied that Pulis could have got us there but that wasn't his job) the post mentioned about how managers spending lots effects teams in the long term..i was simply pointing out the FACTS that there is nothing tangible to back up your idea that we have been effected detrimentally at all by Pulis' overspending as even if Hughes had been allowed to spend shitloads, 8-10th place is about all we can realistically hope for anyway He left the club with a £35 million deficit that is a fact that all excuses can not alter.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 20, 2015 12:48:35 GMT
Indeed, I'll hazard a guess that West Brom are generally sick of being a bit of a soft souch over the years and are willing to give it a go under Pulis...don't blame them really. They certainly didn't look like a team that will go down last night in what I saw of the last 20 minutes and they were fucking awful when they played us. They didn't look like a team that would go down when they played us over Christmas either and they had Alan Irvine as manager then. That's the thing. They won't go down...... but they wouldn't have gone down anyway.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 12:49:59 GMT
So why were you bothering trying to defend last nights game with your earlier post? Mark Hughes also gets results. At a fraction of the price but with ten times the entertainment value. true....but when he came in he had Begovic, Shawcross,Cameron, Wilson, whelan, N'Zonzi, Adam,Crouch, Walters (i.e. much of the squad that is utilised week in, week out) alreay didn't he? or are we going to pretend that Hughes is to take all the credit for 8 of those being first team regulars? i don't think geoff actually slagged of Hughes in his post anyway did he? he simply acknowledges that our success does have something to do with the players that Pulis signed that were there at Hughes' disposal when he came in. even Hughes has accepted and acknoledged this but it would seem that some on here obviously know better than our current manager....it IS possible to back our current manager AND accept the fact that the previous one did do us a lot of good as well (whether you like him as a person is irrelevant..plenty of people didn't like Waddo but i don't see people slagging him off) to para-phrase Kirsty Allsopp......Agenda, agenda, agenda! petty and uneccessary quite simply He didn't slag Hughes off in his first post, he used him as an example of why Pulis should be given more time. I queried what it was he needed more time to do since he'd already achieved what was happening at Stoke after 10 years as far as away games went, unsurprisingly Geoff didn't have an answer and twisted the discussion around. I should know better than to get involved as I know he's nothing but a WUM. You're right in that whether I like him as a person or not is irrelevant, if the football had been anywhere near to what we are currently watching on a regular basis it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:55:33 GMT
try re-reading that post and find where i said Pulis would have got us into the top 6 and you'll also notice how i pointed out that it was Hughes that got us into the top ten as well..... if you calm down on your agenda driven garbage and try to take the time to read posts instead of frantically trying to defend your crap as quickly as you can then you won't make such beginner's mistakes! there's a good boy! the point is that you've said that Pulis' overspending has created the tightening of the purse strings....now, whilst the purse strings have been tightened we've had our first top ten spot and we could realistically get our second this year so it hasn't really affected us in the long term has it? unless you think that Hughes could have broken the top 6 with more money (that was the question i asked...i never said or implied that Pulis could have got us there but that wasn't his job) the post mentioned about how managers spending lots effects teams in the long term..i was simply pointing out the FACTS that there is nothing tangible to back up your idea that we have been effected detrimentally at all by Pulis' overspending as even if Hughes had been allowed to spend shitloads, 8-10th place is about all we can realistically hope for anyway He left the club with a £35 million deficit that is a fact that all excuses can not alter. and what damage has that done to us in the "Long term"? Coates knew that and sanctioned the money spent by Pulis...it's his and his family business' money and they ok'd it at the time. was it your money? NO, so what's your problem exactly? the business men (who you may know are extremely successful and kinda know what they're doing) seemed ok with it at the time and then decided to change things but if it had really been a problem and could have "Bankrupted" us as you seem to think, then do you think they would have continued to allow him to spend that money when he was? we've lessened the amount we spend now because of that but has that harmed us in any way? we've got Arnautovic, Muniesa, Diouf and Bojan by spending fuck all in the scale of things, so what exactly is YOUR issue with Pulis spending someone else's money which they, the Directors anf financial experts at the time said we could afford? if you can come up with a real detrimental long term effect that shows how we've really suffered for Pulis' overspending then please enlighten me as i don't see how subsequently finishing in the top 10 for the first time when the new manager comes in is actually "Harming us" in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:57:15 GMT
true....but when he came in he had Begovic, Shawcross,Cameron, Wilson, whelan, N'Zonzi, Adam,Crouch, Walters (i.e. much of the squad that is utilised week in, week out) alreay didn't he? or are we going to pretend that Hughes is to take all the credit for 8 of those being first team regulars? i don't think geoff actually slagged of Hughes in his post anyway did he? he simply acknowledges that our success does have something to do with the players that Pulis signed that were there at Hughes' disposal when he came in. even Hughes has accepted and acknoledged this but it would seem that some on here obviously know better than our current manager....it IS possible to back our current manager AND accept the fact that the previous one did do us a lot of good as well (whether you like him as a person is irrelevant..plenty of people didn't like Waddo but i don't see people slagging him off) to para-phrase Kirsty Allsopp......Agenda, agenda, agenda! petty and uneccessary quite simply He didn't slag Hughes off in his first post, he used him as an example of why Pulis should be given more time. I queried what it was he needed more time to do since he'd already achieved what was happening at Stoke after 10 years as far as away games went, unsurprisingly Geoff didn't have an answer and twisted the discussion around. I should know better than to get involved as I know he's nothing but a WUM. You're right in that whether I like him as a person or not is irrelevant, if the football had been anywhere near to what we are currently watching on a regular basis it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. and to think the amount of shit we used to give West Brom fans for saying "We'd rather go down playing good football than stay up playing bad football" amazing how getting into the Prem has turned some Stoke fans into complete footballing snobs
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 13:02:33 GMT
Pulis will keep WBA up blindfold with one hand behind his back. In the Summer he will fall out with Peace over transfers and they will 'mutually agree' to go their separate ways. Yep, I agree with this. These two will definitely clash at some stage.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Jan 20, 2015 13:07:29 GMT
The problem with Tony Pulis is he's served up so much humble pie for the wankstains that they simply can't take it.
You keep hating the bloke who took us from 20th in the Championship to Europe and an FA Cup final. The majority will give him will give him the respect he deserves for (along with Coates) giving us a football team to be proud of once again.
When he does another fine job at WBA some on here will still try to belittle him
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 20, 2015 13:07:51 GMT
Pulis should have spent no money at all in the first two years after promotion. I mean we were a ready to go Premier League outfit and the fact that most of the league had their noses in the money trough for 15 years before we got our turn was a minor point. What were you thinking Tone?
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Jan 20, 2015 13:09:31 GMT
He didn't slag Hughes off in his first post, he used him as an example of why Pulis should be given more time. I queried what it was he needed more time to do since he'd already achieved what was happening at Stoke after 10 years as far as away games went, unsurprisingly Geoff didn't have an answer and twisted the discussion around. I should know better than to get involved as I know he's nothing but a WUM. You're right in that whether I like him as a person or not is irrelevant, if the football had been anywhere near to what we are currently watching on a regular basis it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. and to think the amount of shit we used to give West Brom fans for saying "We'd rather go down playing good football than stay up playing bad football" amazing how getting into the Prem has turned some Stoke fans into complete footballing snobs Who has said that?
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Jan 20, 2015 13:12:41 GMT
try re-reading that post and find where i said Pulis would have got us into the top 6 and you'll also notice how i pointed out that it was Hughes that got us into the top ten as well..... if you calm down on your agenda driven garbage and try to take the time to read posts instead of frantically trying to defend your crap as quickly as you can then you won't make such beginner's mistakes! there's a good boy! the point is that you've said that Pulis' overspending has created the tightening of the purse strings....now, whilst the purse strings have been tightened we've had our first top ten spot and we could realistically get our second this year so it hasn't really affected us in the long term has it? unless you think that Hughes could have broken the top 6 with more money (that was the question i asked...i never said or implied that Pulis could have got us there but that wasn't his job) the post mentioned about how managers spending lots effects teams in the long term..i was simply pointing out the FACTS that there is nothing tangible to back up your idea that we have been effected detrimentally at all by Pulis' overspending as even if Hughes had been allowed to spend shitloads, 8-10th place is about all we can realistically hope for anyway He left the club with a £35 million deficit that is a fact that all excuses can not alter. He gave us: Increased revenue Increased attendances World wide exposure Top flight football Survival European football The strongest core squad in our history All he left was anAndy Carrol sized deficient. Which you can offset with our marketability or Begovic/Shawcross if you prefer Not really that bad is it?
|
|
|
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Jan 20, 2015 13:21:59 GMT
Fuckin' hell.. 15 pages..
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 20, 2015 13:52:15 GMT
Well I'm probably going to get shit for this, but I think it's time this thread was anchored.
It was originally about the game last night, but I think we can all agree that it's gone a bit off subject now.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 13:54:26 GMT
He didn't slag Hughes off in his first post, he used him as an example of why Pulis should be given more time. I queried what it was he needed more time to do since he'd already achieved what was happening at Stoke after 10 years as far as away games went, unsurprisingly Geoff didn't have an answer and twisted the discussion around. I should know better than to get involved as I know he's nothing but a WUM. You're right in that whether I like him as a person or not is irrelevant, if the football had been anywhere near to what we are currently watching on a regular basis it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. and to think the amount of shit we used to give West Brom fans for saying "We'd rather go down playing good football than stay up playing bad football" amazing how getting into the Prem has turned some Stoke fans into complete footballing snobs :'( What's all this 'we' business Tonto? :D Nothing to do with the Prem or being a 'footballing snob' (following Stoke? As if!) Mick, I just like to enjoy the spectacle I'm paying for. I've said it before but I used to travel up regularly from Portsmouth for games with my two boys, it's a 7 hour round trip, the game is supposed to be the 'highlight' in an otherwise pretty dull day. If I was spending the day on the piss with mates, going the game and then back to the pub afterwards, the importance of the game as a spectacle reduces dramatically because the rest of the day is largely enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by ihaveadream on Jan 20, 2015 13:56:56 GMT
West Brhoof is a brilliant name
|
|
|
Post by coates on Jan 20, 2015 14:24:19 GMT
Well I'm probably going to get shit for this, but I think it's time this thread was anchored. It was originally about the game last night, but I think we can all agree that it's gone a bit off subject now. Was does anchoring do??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 14:31:39 GMT
Well I'm probably going to get shit for this, but I think it's time this thread was anchored. It was originally about the game last night, but I think we can all agree that it's gone a bit off subject now. Was does anchoring do?? It means that when someone posts a new comment in a thread, instead of the thread going to the top of the page, it stays where it is, therefore it drops down, down, deeper and down.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 20, 2015 14:34:49 GMT
Football managers are not in their job to be popular or necessarily to produce sparkling football, they are there to get results and that's what Tony Pulis does. So why were you bothering trying to defend last nights game with your earlier post? Mark Hughes also gets results. At a fraction of the price but with ten times the entertainment value. Ahhhhh, that old chestnut 'at the fraction of the price'. Due to a great spine of the team -,the likes of Bego, Shawcross, Whelan, N'Zonzi, Walters and Crouch who he still continues to pick then no wonder he's only had to need spend a fraction of the price. Thanks anyway for that old bollocks of chestnuts.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 20, 2015 14:36:30 GMT
They didn't look like a team that would go down when they played us over Christmas either and they had Alan Irvine as manager then. they fucking did I disagree. They weren't great admittedly but they were nowhere near as poor a side as Sunderland, Leicester, Burnley and QPR. I appreciate that all of those sides beat us (QPR didn't but it felt like they did) but that is besides the point. There are 3 worse teams in this league than WBA and that was before TP arrived. Whilst I'm sure it will be painted as some kind of miracle if he keeps them up, the truth is actually nothing like that. It shouldn't be a difficult job at all to keep WBA in this league this season.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 20, 2015 14:40:23 GMT
Well I'm probably going to get shit for this, but I think it's time this thread was anchored. It was originally about the game last night, but I think we can all agree that it's gone a bit off subject now. Should have been anchored, shitbinned or deleted a long long time ago but where a good slagging off of where TPs concerned along with those mods including yourself and woolywool who I had the misfortune to sit with on many occasions listening to your continued bile against him then I'm not surprised in the slightest that you lot let it run and run. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 20, 2015 14:45:09 GMT
Pulis should have spent no money at all in the first two years after promotion. I mean we were a ready to go Premier League outfit and the fact that most of the league had their noses in the money trough for 15 years before we got our turn was a minor point. What were you thinking Tone? I don't think you will find too many people who would criticise the job Tony Pulis was doing at that point MoMo. It rankles with me, and still does, that we didn't get the plaudits that we deserved for our first 3 years in the Premier League. Our achievements were ones to be respected yet they were openly decried and mocked by those outside the club. It rankles with me, that those same people, are now praising the very same style of play for which we were lambasted and it is hilarious that those same West Bromwich "I'd rather be relegated than watch that shit" Albion supporters are now lauding Pulis as some kind of genius. The job Tony Pulis did with Stoke City in getting us promoted, keeping us up and taking us to a cup final and in the process, Europe, was a far better job than he did at Palace and one which is far better than he will ultimately do at West Brom. Tony Pulis lost his way AFTER the Cup Final, spending fortunes on transfers and salaries to take us backwards at a rapid rate of knots. No-one in their right mind would criticise the job he did up to the FA Cup Final.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 14:48:50 GMT
an anchor gets put on when those producing the bull start losing the arguments....im learning fast on here
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 14:51:47 GMT
So why were you bothering trying to defend last nights game with your earlier post? Mark Hughes also gets results. At a fraction of the price but with ten times the entertainment value. Ahhhhh, that old chestnut 'at the fraction of the price'. Due to a great spine of the team -,the likes of Bego, Shawcross, Whelan, N'Zonzi, Walters and Crouch who he still continues to pick then no wonder he's only had to need spend a fraction of the price. Thanks anyway for that old bollocks of chestnuts. Have you got a 'ghost writer' working for you? I could more or less make some sense of that. Amazing how he turned that 'spine of players' into footballers in such a short space of time really, just as well cos someone had made sure he didn't have the money to replace them if he couldn't :) I notice you're no longer disputing the other two points, just as well really...
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 20, 2015 14:53:51 GMT
Ahhhhh, that old chestnut 'at the fraction of the price'. Due to a great spine of the team -,the likes of Bego, Shawcross, Whelan, N'Zonzi, Walters and Crouch who he still continues to pick then no wonder he's only had to need spend a fraction of the price. Thanks anyway for that old bollocks of chestnuts. Have you got a 'ghost writer' working for you? I could more or less make some sense of that. Amazing how he turned that 'spine of players' into footballers in such a short space of time really, just as well cos someone had made sure he didn't have the money to replace them if he couldn't I notice you're no longer disputing the other two points, just as well really... Nothing at all hard about it to understand. Simples.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 14:55:30 GMT
Have you got a 'ghost writer' working for you? I could more or less make some sense of that. Amazing how he turned that 'spine of players' into footballers in such a short space of time really, just as well cos someone had made sure he didn't have the money to replace them if he couldn't :) I notice you're no longer disputing the other two points, just as well really... Nothing at all hard about it to understand. Simples. And it's straight back to Mother-in-Law mode... (bye)
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 20, 2015 14:59:46 GMT
Nothing at all hard about it to understand. Simples. And it's straight back to Mother-in-Law mode... I don't know what you don't understand what I posted in response to your post. Convenience I guess after getting showed up to that daft post you made.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 15:21:35 GMT
He left the club with a £35 million deficit that is a fact that all excuses can not alter. and what damage has that done to us in the "Long term"? Coates knew that and sanctioned the money spent by Pulis...it's his and his family business' money and they ok'd it at the time. was it your money? NO, so what's your problem exactly? the business men (who you may know are extremely successful and kinda know what they're doing) seemed ok with it at the time and then decided to change things but if it had really been a problem and could have "Bankrupted" us as you seem to think, then do you think they would have continued to allow him to spend that money when he was? we've lessened the amount we spend now because of that but has that harmed us in any way? we've got Arnautovic, Muniesa, Diouf and Bojan by spending fuck all in the scale of things, so what exactly is YOUR issue with Pulis spending someone else's money which they, the Directors anf financial experts at the time said we could afford? if you can come up with a real detrimental long term effect that shows how we've really suffered for Pulis' overspending then please enlighten me as i don't see how subsequently finishing in the top 10 for the first time when the new manager comes in is actually "Harming us" in the long term. Along with the monetary loss's he left the club with is the other damage footballing reputation, rugby team, anti football, physical/dirty team, boring, one dimensional etc etc, more long term damage part of the legacy, Hughes has now to change all these issues with very little funding thanks to his spending and tactics. He would never have attracted the players you mention I wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 20, 2015 15:24:36 GMT
and what damage has that done to us in the "Long term"? Coates knew that and sanctioned the money spent by Pulis...it's his and his family business' money and they ok'd it at the time. was it your money? NO, so what's your problem exactly? the business men (who you may know are extremely successful and kinda know what they're doing) seemed ok with it at the time and then decided to change things but if it had really been a problem and could have "Bankrupted" us as you seem to think, then do you think they would have continued to allow him to spend that money when he was? we've lessened the amount we spend now because of that but has that harmed us in any way? we've got Arnautovic, Muniesa, Diouf and Bojan by spending fuck all in the scale of things, so what exactly is YOUR issue with Pulis spending someone else's money which they, the Directors anf financial experts at the time said we could afford? if you can come up with a real detrimental long term effect that shows how we've really suffered for Pulis' overspending then please enlighten me as i don't see how subsequently finishing in the top 10 for the first time when the new manager comes in is actually "Harming us" in the long term. Along with the monetary loss's he left the club with is the other damage footballing reputation, rugby team, anti football, physical/dirty team, boring, one dimensional etc etc, more long term damage part of the legacy, Hughes has now to change all these issues with very little funding thanks to his spending and tactics. He would never have attracted the players you mention I wonder why. Haha. I bet you were always running to the teacher at school because of people calling you names.
|
|