Dan LCFC Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 To think, a few short weeks ago there was some concern that Newcastle might sack Pardew and be interested in Nige. The most amazing thing is I speak to a Newcastle fan regularly and it's almost like us and them have completely swapped. We're guilty of a lot of the things he slags Pardew off for tactically. I think many are blaming the diamond (or whatever it is) too much. As restrictive though it clearly is, I think Pearson may well have not signed well in the summer. Our formation certainly doesn't help, but I suggest Pearson knows we could struggle playing any particular formation at present. I think the opposition has been underestimated and we are looking a weakish squad. I think the personnel in the diamond is what makes it even worse though I've never been completely sold on it as a formation. 16/1 next to go, you should lump on then boo all the next game, get all your mates to boo too, could make a few quid. I seriously don't think they're bad odds. It isn't inconceivable we lose our next two and it isn't inconceivable that the trigger will be pulled should he do so. Maybe I'm just cynical but there's more pressure now than there was in May 2013 in my opinion. I hope to be proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 He is 8-1 in a place now to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SARICE22 Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 David Moyes dithering this morning, has somebody talked to him? International break coming up. Do the planets align or am I talking crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suffolk fox Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 David Moyes dithering this morning, has somebody talked to him? International break coming up. Do the planets align or am I talking crap. Not suggesting at all that he would come to us in fact I don't believe he would but a reliable source on twitter the other night was suggesting he had changed his mind re them? I thought it was a done deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Moyes deal done , tony Pulis will probably get the job should pearson go , I hope he doesn't go yet deserves time till Christmas to turn things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beliall Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 IF we go down, then and only then should we consider sacking pearson if we're not in the top 2 by NEXT christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanner73 Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Quite interesting , I've been checking the website Thesackrace Odds on Pearson to leave was 28/1 on Saturday after the game Pearson 16/1 early week Now dropped to 10,s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Hope it's not Pulis. Let's be ambitious and go for AVB to resurrect his English managerial career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Tony Pulis would be a complete and utter short-termist appointment. I do think Pulis would keep us up but I don't think he's a long-term man. I think these owners genuinely want us to get into Europe one day, could you see Pulis doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Tony Pulis would be a complete and utter short-termist appointment. I do think Pulis would keep us up but I don't think he's a long-term man. I think these owners genuinely want us to get into Europe one day, could you see Pulis doing that? He did with Stoke through the FA Cup mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmilner Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 there was talk of investment to take us into European cups and now this . I just cant get my head round it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Tony Pulis would be a complete and utter short-termist appointment. I do think Pulis would keep us up but I don't think he's a long-term man. I think these owners genuinely want us to get into Europe one day, could you see Pulis doing that? To be fair to Pulis, he was incredibly successful with limited resources at Stoke and then pulled Palace out of a nailed-on relegation. Who knows what he would do with a bit of money and a decent side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 To be fair to Pulis, he was incredibly successful with limited resources at Stoke and then pulled Palace out of a nailed-on relegation. Who knows what he would do with a bit of money and a decent side? Hang on a minute, Pulis had plenty of money at Stoke. http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/topics/stoke-city-have-spent-120m-more-than-arsenal-since-tony-pulis-too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Hang on a minute, Pulis had plenty of money at Stoke. http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/topics/stoke-city-have-spent-120m-more-than-arsenal-since-tony-pulis-too Did well in his first 2 seasons on a negative in sales to be fair. I've said this blindly without checking what league they were in! What an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC Rennie Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Pulis has got europe to before in fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 He did with Stoke through the FA Cup mind. True. Would warm to him big time if he took that seriously. To be fair to Pulis, he was incredibly successful with limited resources at Stoke and then pulled Palace out of a nailed-on relegation. Who knows what he would do with a bit of money and a decent side? I won't argue what he did at either but I don't know about you, I want us to be better than Stoke. I respect what they've done but I'd rather aim for what Southampton have done. Admittedly we don't have their backing or money coming through the academy (well you never know..) but I couldn't have imagined Pulis pulling that off at Southampton. Limited resources at Stoke is a myth. I used to think it myself but he didn't at all. He spent a lot more than I realised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Hang on a minute, Pulis had plenty of money at Stoke. http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/topics/stoke-city-have-spent-120m-more-than-arsenal-since-tony-pulis-too Int-er-es-ting. Those figures are net spend though, and Arsenal isn’t a fair comparison because Arsenal end up selling all their players to Man City and Chelsea etc for billions. A lot of clubs probably have a bigger net spend than Arsenal. Unfair to judge Pulis' transfer dealings against Arsene Wenger and the lure of Arsenal. That article is an example of manipulated and cherry-picked data. Not saying you’re wrong though, just not convinced by the stats you’re using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Int-er-es-ting. Those figures are net spend though, and Arsenal isn’t a fair comparison because Arsenal end up selling all their players to Man City and Chelsea etc for billions. A lot of clubs probably have a bigger net spend than Arsenal. Unfair to judge Pulis' transfer dealings against Arsene Wenger and the lure of Arsenal. That article is an example of manipulated and cherry-picked data. Not saying you’re wrong though, just not convinced by the stats you’re using. The net spend for Stoke is nearly £80 million under Pulis. £80 million more going out than brought in. That is not limited resources for a club like Stoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 The net spend for Stoke is nearly £80 million under Pulis. £80 million more going out than brought in. That is not limited resources for a club like Stoke. Yeah but unless we know what the net spend is for all other Premiership clubs, we can't tell if he's over-achieved or under-achieved. All that article does is compare him against Arsenal during a period when Arsenal made huge gains in the transfer market by selling players like Ashley Cole, Samir Nasri etc. How does he compare against Newcastle or Villa for example? Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Yeah but unless we know what the net spend is for all other Premiership clubs, we can't tell if he's over-achieved or under-achieved. All that article does is compare him against Arsenal during a period when Arsenal made huge gains in the transfer market by selling players like Ashley Cole, Samir Nasri etc. How does he compare against Newcastle or Villa for example? Just sayin' I'm not really bothered about the comparison with Arsenal, that's not really relevant, the article was the first I could find. Stoke were finishing around sides like Norwich, Swansea, Wigan, Birmingham during Pulis' time. I'd suggest he did well against the regimes of those clubs. He did a very good job at Stoke, I've never denied that. But he had good resources to work with and was allowed to spend a good amount of money for the size of the club and those around them in the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 here you go: This isn't net spent, but gives another slant and maybe shows Stoke and Pullis is a better light? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223 Doesn't prove anything but an example of how stats can be manipulated to show different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Why have the not added Burnley's £28.50p to that list here you go: This isn't net spent, but gives another slant and maybe shows Stoke and Pullis is a better light? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223 Doesn't prove anything but an example of how stats can be manipulated to show different things. Must be a right cowboy firm of accountants that come up with that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanner73 Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 Whether he stays or goes remains to be seen but it looks like the bookies think its way more likely now than it was even post match on Saturday , looks like a few quid has been placed on his outcome ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 here you go: This isn't net spent, but gives another slant and maybe shows Stoke and Pullis is a better light? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223 Doesn't prove anything but an example of how stats can be manipulated to show different things. If that is based on money spent during the Premier League seasons then Pulis, at the time, averaged a £21 million spend each year. If Pearson had the same amount, would you say that was limited resources for Leicester? Also, Pulis was spending good amounts when the TV revenue wasn't at this current level and FFP wasn't involved. Again, he did a good job at Stoke. He had financial support to do it. He wanted it at Palace and he'll probably want it here. With the current regulations, he might not be given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renart Posted 12 November 2014 Share Posted 12 November 2014 IF we go down, then and only then should we consider sacking pearson if we're not in the top 2 by NEXT christmas This! I don't want to become that club again or ever. I want to be respected as having given our manager the chance. Let us as a club be the one that breaks this ridiculous and non-effective trend of sacking a manager as soon as the team has a few bad games! I want the stability. He got us here. I do not understand all of this at all. We had a bad run a couple of seasons ago when we nearly didn't make the playoffs and then it all came back around and we stormed the league. This is football and this happens to newly promoted teams fighting for survival - let the manager manage and don't throw the book at him as soon as people get scared. Hold your nerve. It was the same manager who turned it around then and built that team - how quickly people forget. Let him build a team again. I do not think that a change will help. It would be an awful decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.