|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 24, 2009 18:28:15 GMT
stoke or hull staying up
|
|
|
|
Post by imallstokedup on Mar 24, 2009 18:31:31 GMT
Salop, pains me to say, but the team that goes up via the play offs has less time to prepare and the two other promoted teams have already made the move on players who are prepared to join the promoted teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Mar 24, 2009 18:32:26 GMT
Hull definitely.
Why should it be an achievement for stoke?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2009 18:35:39 GMT
Hull definitely. Why should it be an achievement for stoke? Because we were tipped to go down by many with a number of points that wouldn't stop you from driving and yet have been able to compete very well despite being "unfashionable" and facing teams with resources which dwarf ours. That said, Hull haven't spent what we've spent, came up through the play offs seemingly out of nowhere. I detest Hull and their irritating fuckskunk of a manager, but if he's done an amazing job there. |
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Mar 24, 2009 20:49:17 GMT
rvd, you'll find that Hull City have spent more than you believe. Quite a few at the start and think Bullard.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2009 21:11:25 GMT
rvd, you'll find that Hull City have spent more than you believe. Quite a few at the start and think Bullard..... Have they spent £30m though Monica? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2009 21:14:14 GMT
Hull, simply because of their league position about 6 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 24, 2009 21:14:39 GMT
I'd guess Hull have spent about half what we have?
So you'd have to say it'd be a bigger achievement for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by MUZZPERTH on Mar 24, 2009 21:30:14 GMT
prob Hull, but then again, they will look shite if they are relegated after their good start to the season  |
|
|
|
Post by headsgoup on Mar 24, 2009 21:49:12 GMT
Both the same I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 24, 2009 22:19:03 GMT
Hypothetical question as we are the only team out of the two mentioned who will actually stay up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Mar 24, 2009 23:24:19 GMT
West Brom  |
|
|
|
Post by trebor63 on Mar 24, 2009 23:34:12 GMT
rvd, you'll find that Hull City have spent more than you believe. Quite a few at the start and think Bullard..... Have they spent £30m though Monica? Have Stoke? |
|
|
|
Post by trebor63 on Mar 24, 2009 23:38:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 25, 2009 0:05:22 GMT
Kitson 4?
Olofinjana 3
Beattie 3?
Etherington 2.5?
Higgy 2.5
Sonko 2
Faye 2.25
Tonge 2
Soares 1.25
Davies 1.5
Kelly £750k if we don't sign him, £1.5m if we do
Yeah. Hard to judge with a few 'undiscloseds' knocking about, but I'd say mid 20s, all told, if we assume the Kitson fee will never go above about £3.5-4m (fingers firmly crossed they go up and we near as damn it get it back)
Maybe Hull have spent approaching 3/4 of that including loan fees etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by PickSCFC on Mar 25, 2009 0:06:43 GMT
both
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 25, 2009 1:48:39 GMT
It'd be a great achievement for both of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Mar 25, 2009 8:21:40 GMT
It would be a huge achievement for both clubs but I would say the bigger achievement would be Stoke's simply because (despite the money spent) we are more limited in our footballing approach. Everyone knows exactly what we are and how we will play and YET we have still managed to compete. Hull have attracted a fair deal of praise this season and yet we have received nothing but scorn and contempt from the footballing fraternity. We have looked them all squarely in the eye, screamed 'F..k You' and got on with kicking their collective arses. For those reasons, it would be majorly satisfying to smile at the lot of them at the end of the season having proved the whole scummy bunch of them wrong.
I hope we both survive to stick two fingers up to the footballing 'experts' but the bigger achievement would, for me, definately be Stoke surviving.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 25, 2009 8:25:29 GMT
i only asked the question because i read if stoke stay up tony is 3rd favourite for manager of the year
regardless of hulls final position i could not see any manager voting for phil brown
stoke and hull's progress this season has definatly been one of the hare against the tortoise
if it wernt for their fluke start hull would be right in the shit now
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 25, 2009 8:31:48 GMT
For any team to stay up with the "clockwork orange" in charge is a really impressive achievement! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Danstoke82 on Mar 25, 2009 8:31:51 GMT
Hull had more time than us as we didnt start re-inforcing until a few weeks before kick off, by that time Tango had rebuilt his whole squad with rejects.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Mar 25, 2009 8:47:58 GMT
I think the main difference between the two is that the press have, by and large, be WITH Hull. On the other hand, the whole footballing world has delighted in lining up to belittle our achievements. That has, in fact helped us to devolope the seige mentality which has in turn made our home games so intimidating for opponents.
Hull have the football world lining up to support them.
We have had to FIGHT the whole damn lot of them
No contest, the biggest achievement would be US staying up.
That's not to say that it wouldn't also be a great achievemnt for Hull but we have simply had far more to contend with this season in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 11:38:06 GMT
Have they spent £30m though Monica? Have Stoke? Pretty much, yeah. Mid twenties, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Mar 25, 2009 11:43:14 GMT
Hull definitely. Why should it be an achievement for stoke? Because we were tipped to go down by many with a number of points that wouldn't stop you from driving and yet have been able to compete very well despite being "unfashionable" and facing teams with resources which dwarf ours. That said, Hull haven't spent what we've spent, came up through the play offs seemingly out of nowhere. I detest Hull and their irritating fuckskunk of a manager, but if he's done an amazing job there. I forgot to turn the irony button on before I started typing - I hadn't expected anybody to take it seriously |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 11:46:31 GMT
Because we were tipped to go down by many with a number of points that wouldn't stop you from driving and yet have been able to compete very well despite being "unfashionable" and facing teams with resources which dwarf ours. That said, Hull haven't spent what we've spent, came up through the play offs seemingly out of nowhere. I detest Hull and their irritating fuckskunk of a manager, but if he's done an amazing job there. I forgot to turn the irony button on before I started typing - I hadn't expected anybody to take it seriously Sorry mate, I missed that - with all the complacency on here that take it as a given that we'll stay up, I thought you were serious  |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Mar 25, 2009 11:53:16 GMT
No problem rob. We need an irony smiley |
|
|
|
Post by spartanstokie on Mar 25, 2009 12:00:04 GMT
us because phil brown is a tit
|
|
