Who cares? That's not the point.
I think it`s a very salient point tbh, but then again it doesn`t fit in with your argument !
Who cares? That's not the point.
My argument is that Bruce has been given time and money to spend for no progression, so should go. I would say the same if we were in the same position with the next manager. That's why it doesn't matter at the moment.I think it`s a very salient point tbh, but then again it doesn`t fit in with your argument !
Not at all, I was pointing out that Brown at that time had spent the most, now it`s Bruce, and I`m fairly certain that when Bruce is replaced then the incoming manager will again spend more then Bruce, its the way football has evolved into a financial spiral upwards
My argument is that Bruce has been given time and money to spend for no progression, so should go. I would say the same if we were in the same position with the next manager. That's why it doesn't matter at the moment.
I actually dont know what this sentence means.

We were premier league three years ago. We're premier league now. With a recently promoted squad. Not sure on your definition of progression but yes, let's leave it there.Lmao, no progression ??? two promotions, a third season in the premier league, a cup final..... dear me.... i`m not continuing this pointless discussion, you have your opinion and i have mine.
We were premier league three years ago. We're premier league now. With a recently promoted squad. Not sure on your definition of progression but yes, let's leave it there.
))
This argument over the past few pages (you could say countless) is ****ing gold, though it should be expected when you look at who is involved![]()
I dont think there's an argument, someone just used countless to mean less than 50 and then spat their dummy when it was queried.
Like you say though, its to be expected. Similar has happened countless times before.
countless
adjective
- too many to be counted; very many.
There is no numerical definition of countless, it's just a phrase.

I dont think there's an argument, someone just used countless to mean less than 50 and then spat their dummy when it was queried.
Like you say though, its to be expected. Similar has happened countless times before.
countless
adjective
- too many to be counted; very many.
There is no numerical definition of countless, it's just a phrase.
Ironically it looks like the person who doesn't know the definition of countless is in fact himself.![]()
I thought this thread was meant to be about Steve Bruce, not an English lesson.. especially not a wrong English lesson..
Can we drop it please? If you hadn't been so petty as to try and correct me in the first place none of this would have happened. It's made worse by the fact that I hadn't said anything incorrect.
I never said there was a numerical definition. Steve Bruce has spent less than £50 million as Hull City manager, that's not "too many to count" or "very many". And it's not a phrase, its an adjective. As you just pointed out yourself.
How? I defined it perfectly.
He's spent £60m on the current squad. Excluding wages, agents fees and whatever other bollocks.