i agree, was thinking the same when reading the papaer today..praising ollies heroes..they got relegated because they werent good enough, we stayed up and didnt get half the praise..... praise for playing attacking football, in situations they shouldnt have, thats not good, its **** management..
Establish ourselves like Stoke? Who went up unbder the same circumstances? Stoke own their own ground and have an extremely rich chairman who was a likfe-long fahn of the club and wrote off ã54million he had put into the club. Where were the similarities betwenn us and Stoke when we were promoted?
what's a "likfe-long fahn"? some sort of German air-conditioning.. seriously.. ok the finances of us & Stoke were different but Pulis didn't gain the negative media curiosity that PB did - he kept his mug firmly under his lovely cap.. I think PB did wonders for us up until that moment at Eastlands, then after he'd made an ass of himself, it didn't matter how much cash you threw around (and we did blow ã5m on Jimmy) you're disadvantaged by reputation.. Then there's Duffen, did Stoke City offer ridiculous contracts to average players which omitted relegation clauses? Did their Chairman mis-manage the kitty big time? No, cos as you say he is a fan. Duffen wasn't. Allam is more of a local and will serve us better.. I hope.
According to a Stoke fan I know, Stoke spent a stack of money on players they shouldn't have and had a wage/bonus bill that dwarfed ours and some deals that make the Bullard gamble seem like an odds on cert and produced a style of play that was only just football. Hull City's time in the Prem was a success. Few clubs have been there and survived with so little money.
