Mouser Watch #2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Unbelievable!

I've just heard some Mouser on Talk ****e venting his spleen about Spurs fans, and bleating on about how we never give our managers time to settling in; and the muppet of a presenter let this twat get away with it! He could, so very easily, have put the cheeky Mouser back in his box with two words...


Roy Hodgson.


Why is the world full of hypocrites?
 
Page_Moss_Kopite said:
chelsea - over 100 years of history said:
The deal was already done by then, regardless of ink to paper. He'd had his medical 2 days before deadline day. Liverpool only accepted our offer on deadline day. Fact is, the Torres sale contributed nothing to Suarez coming in. That money was spent primarily on Carroll. Surely you're not disputing that?
Click to expand...

Ink on paper makes it a legal and binding deal, as stated earlier the two players were never at the same club at the same time end of.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the point being made was it?! Suarez was not bought with the Torres money, fact.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
Unbelievable!

I've just heard some Mouser on Talk ****e venting his spleen about Spurs fans, and bleating on about how we never give our managers time to settling in; and the muppet of a presenter let this twat get away with it! He could, so very easily, have put the cheeky Mouser back in his box with two words...


Roy Hodgson.


Why is the world full of hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Does Hodgson count? ;)

He's more of a barn owl than a football manager.
 
chelsea - over 100 years of history said:
Wasn't the point being made was it?! Suarez was not bought with the Torres money, fact.
Click to expand...

Money is money, whether it was the direct money or not we ended up with Suarez for less than half the money we received from Torres.

If you deposit money into a bank account, do you receive the exact same notes you deposited out the cash machine on a cold Monday morning?


It's all swings and roundabouts mate.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
Unbelievable!

I've just heard some Mouser on Talk ****e venting his spleen about Spurs fans, and bleating on about how we never give our managers time to settling in; and the muppet of a presenter let this twat get away with it! He could, so very easily, have put the cheeky Mouser back in his box with two words...


Roy Hodgson.


Why is the world full of hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Aww Hiag, you'll be able to give Woy all the time you like when England sack him and he comes to manage you. Then you can show that mouser how patient you are <ok>
 
the artist known as Billy El Pistolero said:
Yes you are <ok> and they aren't very good ones. Your lot took one hell of a beating <laugh>
Click to expand...

We shipped five goals against Man City at home a couple of seasons ago for similar reasons - a midfield that couldn't tackle. On Sunday it was because of AVB's idiotic decision to play Paulinho further forward whilst playing a clearly injured Sandro, against City it was because Sandro was out, we were too busy haggling to get a couple of million off Parker's fee, so we started with Kranjcar in defensive midfield.

Don't you get it? We pretty much gave you the midfield with AVB's idiotic team selection, so it was never going to work out at all well with Coutinho on the pitch - and your form nosedived when he was out injured, so don't try the "we won without X, Y or Z" line when you had him and Suarez playing, because without them you would've probably only got a couple of goals based on our haplessness. As I said, we'd have lost to Sunderland or Palace with that line-up.

The fact is the 6-0 loss to City was the worse result, not based on the score but because we picked a strong line-up who didn't turn up for the first half then gave up in the second. Against Liverpool it was like we sent eleven random players out there to die, so it was never going to be pretty.
 
Skylarker* said:
Money is money, whether it was the direct money or not we ended up with Suarez for less than half the money we received from Torres.

If you deposit money into a bank account, do you receive the exact same notes you deposited out the cash machine on a cold Monday morning?


It's all swings and roundabouts mate.
Click to expand...

The point was that Dalglish wasted the Torres money not about your profit and loss. Had we not bought Torres you would not have bought Carroll for starters; ergo he wasted the Torres money. Suarez would have signed regardless of the Torres deal and therefore completely irrelevant to the point made. Suarez was a brilliant signing of course and if we'd have bought him instead of Torres we would probably be top of the league and you'd be fighting for 8th with United!!
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
Unbelievable!

I've just heard some Mouser on Talk ****e venting his spleen about Spurs fans, and bleating on about how we never give our managers time to settling in; and the muppet of a presenter let this twat get away with it! He could, so very easily, have put the cheeky Mouser back in his box with two words...


Roy Hodgson.


Why is the world full of hypocrites?
Click to expand...

When you appoint your next manager that will be a total of 40 managers in your history compared to our 20. Roy Hodgson getting the boot is not our usual style.
 
luvgonzo said:
When you appoint your next manager that will be a total of 40 managers in your history compared to our 20. Roy Hodgson getting the boot is not our usual style.
Click to expand...

You appear to be counting caretakers and repeat appointments for Spurs, but not for Liverpool, for some reason.
 
Utd had one manager from 1945 to 1969 and one from 1986 to 2013, during which periods the club was the most successful in England. Utd had six managers in the intervening 17 years when success was elusive. Good reason to stick by a manager.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Utd had one manager from 1945 to 1969 and one from 1986 to 2013, during which periods the club was the most successful in England. Utd had six managers in the intervening 17 years when success was elusive. Good reason to stick by a manager.
Click to expand...

Fergie ended his time at Utd the most successful domestic manager in England but he was playing catch up for a lot of years before he achieved that status.<whistle>

Sir Matt.<ok>
 
I would say Spurs tried to buy trophies like United but bought some right dodo's,including managers!
I would say that since the mid 80's United got their players (and many were very good!) because they were well paid.
I believe Spurs went back in time to between the wars by trying to keep their money and scrape the barrel.....and you can see the result in their post mid 80's record!

Funny thing,I do have this feeling that Spurs 2013/14 season may have a happy ending............
 
bigsmithy9 said:
I would say Spurs tried to buy trophies like United but bought some right dodo's,including managers!
I would say that since the mid 80's United got their players (and many were very good!) because they were well paid.
I believe Spurs went back in time to between the wars by trying to keep their money and scrape the barrel.....and you can see the result in their post mid 80's record!

Funny thing,I do have this feeling that Spurs 2013/14 season may have a happy ending............
Click to expand...

Watching Arsenal lose the CL final or Spurs winning a domestic cup?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back