Manager Watch

  • 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!
John Cardew said:
The telegraph have been twisting about the Vieira news ever since sky broke it because it contradicted their article about an hour previously that NUFC were "set to offer McClaren a 3rd chance to accept them". They won't admit SS were right until they have to, even if they know they are.

Don't agree with that at all, 14 players were added that summer, surely it would have been no different to allow PDC 6 or 7 of his own signings. Also think of the severance fees you've paid in managers, long term I just don't see any major financial debate one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Talking about getting rid of how many players? 6-7? Pay them off or keep paying their wages? That would bankrupt us.

Catts, Bardo, JoS, Graham, Fletcher, Wickham, AJ... All of whom have been speculated to be bad lads. That's over 250 grand a week on wages. We couldn't have got rid of them if we'd wanted to. No club outside the top four could afford to just pay them off or send them out on loan while paying that kind of money while bringing in new players.

Madness mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Relic and Brian Storm
di5co said:
Talking about getting rid of how many players? 6-7? Pay them off or keep paying their wages? That would bankrupt us.

Catts, Bardo, JoS, Graham, Fletcher, Wickham, AJ... All of whom have been speculated to be bad lads. That's over 250 grand a week on wages. We couldn't have got rid of them if we'd wanted to. No club outside the top four could afford to just pay them off or send them out on loan while paying that kind of money while bringing in new players.

Madness mate.
Click to expand...

That's my point you made it much better.
 
dansafcman said:
There is absolutely no evidence that keeping Di Canio and sacking the players would have left us better off. PDC had some good ideas but couldnt pull it off due to the fact he is a complete and utter nutter. He froze Catts out of the 1st team completely, no chance for redemption, even though Catts is one the best DM this side of the premier league table (and one of the best in the entire league imo).
Click to expand...
Of course there's no proof Di Canio would have succeeded, just my opinion. He had "Catts" pegged as trouble from the start, regardless of ability. And this is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps some of your players are simply bad eggs, every manager seems to have an issue getting the best out of them for a prolonged period.
Smug in Boots said:
So Viera is going to SJP <ok>
Click to expand...
No idea.
di5co said:
Talking about getting rid of how many players? 6-7? Pay them off or keep paying their wages? That would bankrupt us.

Catts, Bardo, JoS, Graham, Fletcher, Wickham, AJ... All of whom have been speculated to be bad lads. That's over 250 grand a week on wages. We couldn't have got rid of them if we'd wanted to. No club outside the top four could afford to just pay them off or send them out on loan while paying that kind of money while bringing in new players.

Madness mate.
Click to expand...
As I've said, you brought 14 in that summer. If you could have condensed that to 5 or 6 it would have been easily affordable, even if you only got rid of 20% of the wages of the players you've named.
 
John Cardew said:
Of course there's no proof Di Canio would have succeeded, just my opinion. He had "Catts" pegged as trouble from the start, regardless of ability. And this is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps some of your players are simply bad eggs, every manager seems to have an issue getting the best out of them for a prolonged period.

No idea.

As I've said, you brought 14 in that summer. If you could have condensed that to 5 or 6 it would have been easily affordable, even if you only got rid of 20% of the wages of the players you've named.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have had enough players to get through the season mate. Bizarrely 14 players in and we still had a relatively small squad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Storm
John Cardew said:
No idea.
Click to expand...

But ........... "The telegraph have been twisting about the Vieira news ever since sky broke it because it contradicted their article about an hour previously that NUFC were "set to offer McClaren a 3rd chance to accept them". They won't admit SS were right until they have to, even if they know they are."
 
Smug in Boots said:
But ........... "The telegraph have been twisting about the Vieira news ever since sky broke it because it contradicted their article about an hour previously that NUFC were "set to offer McClaren a 3rd chance to accept them". They won't admit SS were right until they have to, even if they know they are."
Click to expand...
Are you going senile or something? Notice the operational word "IF". Honestly, so cringeworthy when people with an exceptionally average grip of the English language try to pick people apart on it just to look smart. Give up.
 
John Cardew said:
Are you going senile or something? Notice the operational word "IF". Honestly, so cringeworthy when people with an exceptionally average grip of the English language try to pick people apart on it just to look smart. Give up.
Click to expand...

It's even more cringeworthy when some idiot tries to correct someone and completely messes up <laugh>

You're saying 'SS were right', which is past tense and a 'fact'....... the 'if' comes in the part where you're talking about something else which may, or may not, happen in the future and is therefore speculation on your part.
If you're not mixing us your tenses then you're using the word 'were' right when you should've actually said,
"They won't admit SS may be right."

Or perhaps you're not saying SS were right, are contradicting yourself, and claiming the paper already believes it and are lying.

Either way I can't help it if you're grasp of grammar is so poor as to be unintelligible.

Dear oh dear <doh>

Oh, btw, you seem to be a very angry man who can't take a bit of banter <ok>
 
Smug in Boots said:
It's even more cringeworthy when some idiot tries to correct someone and completely messes up <laugh>

You're saying 'SS were right', which is past tense and a 'fact'....... the 'if' comes in the part where you're talking about something else which may, or may not, happen in the future and is therefore speculation on your part.
If you're not mixing us your tenses then you're using the word 'were' right when you should've actually said,
"They won't admit SS may be right."

Or perhaps you're not saying SS were right, are contradicting yourself, and claiming the paper already believes it and are lying.

Either way I can't help it if you're grasp of grammar is so poor as to be unintelligible.

Dear oh dear <doh>

Oh, btw, you seem to be a very angry man who can't take a bit of banter <ok>
Click to expand...
Wow. A total embarrassment. Allow me to give you just a teensy bit of help, then have a re-think. "They won't admit SS were right" is not past tense, as you claimed. That leaves two tenses, try and figure out which one it is, there's a good lad <ok>
 
John Cardew said:
Wow. A total embarrassment. Allow me to give you just a teensy bit of help, then have a re-think. "They won't admit SS were right" is not past tense, as you claimed. That leaves two tenses, try and figure out which one it is, there's a good lad <ok>
Click to expand...

It is past tense though as 'were' refers to something having already occurred. Surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back