|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 15:25:18 GMT
And it's straight back to Mother-in-Law mode... (bye) 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. You'll have to point out where I got 'showed up' as I'm struggling to see it and to be fair you are pretty much the expert on here regarding that particular subject, what with having your arse handed to you on a plate on a daily basis. I didn't understand your answer, probably because there wasn't one.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Jan 20, 2015 15:25:48 GMT
an anchor gets put on when those producing the bull start losing the arguments....im learning fast on here Yes most definatly. They can't get over the fact he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Jan 20, 2015 15:34:54 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. With another million in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 15:39:18 GMT
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. Only one she was a cracker, what that has to be with it though is beyond me , does the truth hurt
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 20, 2015 16:11:36 GMT
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. You'll have to point out where I got 'showed up' as I'm struggling to see it and to be fair you are pretty much the expert on here regarding that particular subject, what with having your arse handed to you on a plate on a daily basis. I didn't understand your answer, probably because there wasn't one. Good lord you say Hughes has spent a fraction of what TP spent and I replied with I'm not surprised with the spine he was left with. So you see no bloody wonder he's only had to spend a fraction of what TP did because he was left with the likes of Bego, Shawcross, Whelan, N'zonzi, Walters and crouch. Got it yet?.....jeeeeeee it's hard work.
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jan 20, 2015 16:27:25 GMT
Why is there pantomime booing when he takes off a midfielder and bring on another striker with 9 minutes left? He can't win whatever he does now. He's toast I think it's a couple of things. A, Mr Barry isn't the most popular at goodison at the minute but is a shoe in every week. B, Besic was actually offering a threat going forward. I assume the booing was because they wanted Barry hooked instead of Besic
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 20, 2015 16:34:39 GMT
Why is there pantomime booing when he takes off a midfielder and bring on another striker with 9 minutes left? He can't win whatever he does now. He's toast I think it's a couple of things. A, Mr Barry isn't the most popular at goodison at the minute but is a shoe in every week. B, Besic was actually offering a threat going forward. I assume the booing was because they wanted Barry hooked instead of Besic Yeah - fair enough. But it did seem a fair chunk of them were spoiling for a fight with Martinez. The atmosphere was pretty poisonous as the game wore on. And once you reach that point with a manager, where you've kind of tied your colours to the anti mast, it's hard to see some of them coming back into the fold.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 16:39:12 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. but Hughes attracted players BEFORE he'd even had chance to change that reputation. i think you'll find that reputation was only held by pundits and fans in the UK...the players themselves (both UK based players and foreigners) don't seem to have refused to come because of it so that isn't ANY long term damage whatsoever. and, as i mentioned, neither is the financial implications of what Pulis has left as it hasn't held us back in terms of the players we've brought in or our subsequent success and the Chairman, directors, board, accountants didn't seem to see it as a major issue or they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. so, in view of all that (showing that none of your worries are detrimental long term effects at all), i ask again; Just what long term damage has Pulis done to the club???? i think you'll find the answer is none whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Jan 20, 2015 17:37:05 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. People didn't even know who we were before Pulis, and we were attracting the likes of Chris Greenacre. You simply don't deserve a top football team
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 20, 2015 17:49:16 GMT
You'll have to point out where I got 'showed up' as I'm struggling to see it and to be fair you are pretty much the expert on here regarding that particular subject, what with having your arse handed to you on a plate on a daily basis. I didn't understand your answer, probably because there wasn't one. Good lord you say Hughes has spent a fraction of what TP spent and I replied with I'm not surprised with the spine he was left with. So you see no bloody wonder he's only had to spend a fraction of what TP did because he was left with the likes of Bego, Shawcross, Whelan, N'zonzi, Walters and crouch. Got it yet?.....jeeeeeee it's hard work. Oh I understood (and answered) that bit alright, it was the answer to this bit I was struggling with - "I notice you're no longer disputing the other two points, just as well really..." As I said, it's because there wasn't one.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 18:47:40 GMT
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. People didn't even know who we were before Pulis, and we were attracting the likes of Chris Greenacre. You simply don't deserve a top football team People did not know who we were before Pulis WTF (rofl)and I think you are serious about that give your head a wobble pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 18:55:49 GMT
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. but Hughes attracted players BEFORE he'd even had chance to change that reputation. i think you'll find that reputation was only held by pundits and fans in the UK...the players themselves (both UK based players and foreigners) don't seem to have refused to come because of it so that isn't ANY long term damage whatsoever. and, as i mentioned, neither is the financial implications of what Pulis has left as it hasn't held us back in terms of the players we've brought in or our subsequent success and the Chairman, directors, board, accountants didn't seem to see it as a major issue or they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. so, in view of all that (showing that none of your worries are detrimental long term effects at all), i ask again; Just what long term damage has Pulis done to the club???? i think you'll find the answer is none whatsoever. The only reason he did not do irreparable damage to the club is because Denise saw what was going on and pulled the plug, Pulis was never able to attract top quality players from abroad I wonder why that was , why would the Coates family sack a manager who was as you are implying leading the club and it's finances in the right direction , fortunately they have appointed a manager who is able to work with a limited budget, change the style we play and attract top players to our club without putting the clubs future at risk. I seem to recall Pulis saying that he would never waste the chairman's money 8-|frankly that was bullshit and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Jan 20, 2015 20:38:43 GMT
People didn't even know who we were before Pulis, and we were attracting the likes of Chris Greenacre. You simply don't deserve a top football team People did not know who we were before Pulis WTF (rofl)and I think you are serious about that give your head a wobble pathetic. Yeah I really do mean that. Go abroad anywhere and say you support Stoke City and you'd have to explain what league we were in. Tony Pulis gave us an identity. You're mentally unstable if you think otherwise
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 20:51:54 GMT
People did not know who we were before Pulis WTF (rofl)and I think you are serious about that give your head a wobble pathetic. Yeah I really do mean that. Go abroad anywhere and say you support Stoke City and you'd have to explain what league we were in. Tony Pulis gave us an identity. You're mentally unstable if you think otherwise
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 21:19:21 GMT
but Hughes attracted players BEFORE he'd even had chance to change that reputation. i think you'll find that reputation was only held by pundits and fans in the UK...the players themselves (both UK based players and foreigners) don't seem to have refused to come because of it so that isn't ANY long term damage whatsoever. and, as i mentioned, neither is the financial implications of what Pulis has left as it hasn't held us back in terms of the players we've brought in or our subsequent success and the Chairman, directors, board, accountants didn't seem to see it as a major issue or they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. so, in view of all that (showing that none of your worries are detrimental long term effects at all), i ask again; Just what long term damage has Pulis done to the club???? i think you'll find the answer is none whatsoever. The only reason he did not do irreparable damage to the club is because Denise saw what was going on and pulled the plug, Pulis was never able to attract top quality players from abroad I wonder why that was , why would the Coates family sack a manager who was as you are implying leading the club and it's finances in the right direction , fortunately they have appointed a manager who is able to work with a limited budget, change the style we play and attract top players to our club without putting the clubs future at risk. I seem to recall Pulis saying that he would never waste the chairman's money 8-|frankly that was bullshit and you know it. Again,tell me where i said or even implied he was taking in the right direction?? I was glad when he went and said so at the time as he couldn't take us any further...there's a MASSIVE difference though between not being able to take us further and doing "Long term damage" though...but you carry on making up things i've apparently implied if it's easy thsn admitting you can't answer the question i asked. I presume you think that him signing over half of our current regular starting 11 is long term damage yeah?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 21:34:48 GMT
The only reason he did not do irreparable damage to the club is because Denise saw what was going on and pulled the plug, Pulis was never able to attract top quality players from abroad I wonder why that was , why would the Coates family sack a manager who was as you are implying leading the club and it's finances in the right direction , fortunately they have appointed a manager who is able to work with a limited budget, change the style we play and attract top players to our club without putting the clubs future at risk. I seem to recall Pulis saying that he would never waste the chairman's money 8-|frankly that was bullshit and you know it. Again,tell me where i said or even implied he was taking in the right direction?? I was glad when he went and said so at the time as he couldn't take us any further...there's a MASSIVE difference though between not being able to take us further and doing "Long term damage" though...but you carry on making up things i've apparently implied if it's easy thsn admitting you can't answer the question i asked. I presume you think that him signing over half of our current regular starting 11 is long term damage yeah? 100 million for half a team and a £30million + deficit, restricting the funds available to Mark Hughes to very little, considering that I have to admit that no long term damage has been done by the grace of god, that plus prudent financial restructuring by Denise have stopped long term damage fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 21:47:35 GMT
Again,tell me where i said or even implied he was taking in the right direction?? I was glad when he went and said so at the time as he couldn't take us any further...there's a MASSIVE difference though between not being able to take us further and doing "Long term damage" though...but you carry on making up things i've apparently implied if it's easy thsn admitting you can't answer the question i asked. I presume you think that him signing over half of our current regular starting 11 is long term damage yeah? 100 million for half a team and a £30million + deficit, restricting the funds available to Mark Hughes to very little, considering that I have to admit that no long term damage has been done by the grace of god, that plus prudent financial restructuring by Denise have stopped long term damage fingers crossed. so what you're saying then is that TP just went and spent money without asking the chairman and the directors, and the accountants never looked into whether it was viable and whether it would cause long term damage and then lo and behold Denise came along and said "Hang on guys we can't afford this and it's lucky the manager hasn't bankrupted us.i can't believe none of you EVER once had meetings about the money being spent,lucky i came along and saved the day!"? Really? Seriously??? Meanwhile, back in the real world where the manager doesn't just sign cheques without the board's say so.......do you have any actual clue how transfers work mate? Do you seriously think the board don't look into it the financial viability and implications of signings BEFORE they're made??? All hail carpslayer who knows far more about Stoke's finances and whether they can balance the books and afford a deficit (which virtually every club in the football league has one way or another).move over Coates you old bastard,you don't know half as much about your own business as carpslayer!!! Give me fuckin strength!!!
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 20, 2015 22:34:10 GMT
100 million for half a team and a £30million + deficit, restricting the funds available to Mark Hughes to very little, considering that I have to admit that no long term damage has been done by the grace of god, that plus prudent financial restructuring by Denise have stopped long term damage fingers crossed. so what you're saying then is that TP just went and spent money without asking the chairman and the directors, and the accountants never looked into whether it was viable and whether it would cause long term damage and then lo and behold Denise came along and said "Hang on guys we can't afford this and it's lucky the manager hasn't bankrupted us.i can't believe none of you EVER once had meetings about the money being spent,lucky i came along and saved the day!"? Really? Seriously??? Meanwhile, back in the real world where the manager doesn't just sign cheques without the board's say so.......do you have any actual clue how transfers work mate? Do you seriously think the board don't look into it the financial viability and implications of signings BEFORE they're made??? All hail carpslayer who knows far more about Stoke's finances and whether they can balance the books and afford a deficit (which virtually every club in the football league has one way or another).move over Coates you old bastard,you don't know half as much about your own business as carpslayer!!! Give me fuckin strength!!! Why thank you for your glowing endorsement oh post a lot one, I am sure this will give weight in my interview with Miss Coates next week if the opportunity should arise I will ask her about her opinions on Mr Pulis and his spending whilst at the club could be interesting.
|
|