Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Babs me old mate.. what you are trying to make out is that the squad O'Neill took over was far superior to the one that Pearson took over, based upon league position. I think there was a whole lot more to it than that. I believe McGhee WAS losing the plot and that Pearson did not do anywhere near as well that season as expected. I concur.. he has now turned it around and has done so exceptionally well. But the 'facts' you refer were all but a part of the picture. Try not to see things in such black and white terms. QPR currently lie third. . Do you consider them a good side?
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Jamie Lawrence and Steve Corica! Yes the same Lawrence who played 23 times in the team that kept us in the premier league under O'Neill. And yes the Steve Corica that we sold to Wolves for £1m+
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Yes the same Lawrence who played 23 times in the team that kept us in the premier league under O'Neill. And yes the Steve Corica that we sold to Wolves for £1m+ Stats and money eh... We sold Mills to Bolton for.... And you're right.. forget about Lennon, Guppy, Elliott and Claridge. It was Lawrence who kept us up..
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Babs me old mate.. what you are trying to make out is that the squad O'Neill took over was far superior to the one that Pearson took over, based upon league position. No I am not, I am saying that in the league they were in at the time the team O'Neil took over was the third best. The one Pearson took over was the 13th best and 14 points away from the top team. Thus making it factually and mathematically harder to get the team promoted in is first season, which was the whole point raised originally, until you decided to waddle along and as per usual completely miss the point. Do you consider them a good side? I consider them to be a better side than the team sitting in 13th place. Don't talk to me about black and white when the only colour you see is a shade of Col City.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Stats and money eh... We sold Mills to Bolton for.... Yes, we sold Matt Mills at a giant ****ing loss after utter shit performaces. We sold Corica for a massive profit after good performances. If you don't think Corica looked an excellent player in a team sitting third in the league, then I don't know what to say.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 No I am not, I am saying that in the league they were in at the time the team O'Neil took over was the third best. The one Pearson took over was the 13th best and 14 points away from the top team. Thus making it factually and mathematically harder to get the team promoted in is first season, which was the whole point raised originally, until you decided to waddle along and as per usual completely miss the point. I consider them to be a better side than the team sitting in 13th place. Don't talk to me about black and white when the only colour you see is a shade of Col City. Don't start getting all arsy again.. you can't be right EVERY time!
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Babs me old mate.. what you are trying to make out is that the squad O'Neill took over was far superior to the one that Pearson took over, based upon league position. I think there was a whole lot more to it than that. I believe McGhee WAS losing the plot and that Pearson did not do anywhere near as well that season as expected. I concur.. he has now turned it around and has done so exceptionally well. But the 'facts' you refer were all but a part of the picture. Try not to see things in such black and white terms. QPR currently lie third. . Do you consider them a good side? The third-placed team that O'Neill inherited was a group that had been together (in large part) for several years, supplemented with some intelligent additions (and some crap ones) by McGhee. They were nothing like the bunch of chancers and big-time charlies playing for QPR - who are, in fact, reminiscent of the ones that Pearson inherited.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Yes, we sold Matt Mills at a giant ****ing loss after utter shit performaces. We sold Corica for a massive profit after good performances. If you don't think Corica looked an excellent player in a team sitting third in the league, then I don't know what to say. He was very often injured as I recollect and went on to do the arse-end of nothing at Wolves didn't he?
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 The third-placed team that O'Neill inherited was a group that had been together (in large part) for several years, supplemented with some intelligent additions (and some crap ones) by McGhee. They were nothing like the bunch of chancers and big-time charlies playing for QPR - who are, in fact, reminiscent of the ones that Pearson inherited. But both were/are third.. thats my point. The position in a table means nothing until the end of a season. Had we gone on a sticky run before McGhee fooked off? Just interested?
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Yes, we sold Matt Mills at a giant ****ing loss after utter shit performaces. We sold Corica for a massive profit after good performances. If you don't think Corica looked an excellent player in a team sitting third in the league, then I don't know what to say. Apropos nothing in particular, Corica was sold (to McGhee at Wolves) in a joint deal with Kalac for £1.5m. Kalac was valued at £400K: however, he couldn't get a work permit, having played so few games for City, and had to go back to Oz. Now that is what I call a deal!
Bluetintedspecs Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Babs me old mate.. what you are trying to make out is that the squad O'Neill took over was far superior to the one that Pearson took over, based upon league position. I think there was a whole lot more to it than that. I believe McGhee WAS losing the plot and that Pearson did not do anywhere near as well that season as expected. I concur.. he has now turned it around and has done so exceptionally well. But the 'facts' you refer were all but a part of the picture. Try not to see things in such black and white terms. QPR currently lie third. . Do you consider them a good side? I think a draw's the best result!.......Oh we not banging on about that any more? Listen to the voice of reason bud, you and Babs both have valid points, however I do agree with Babs that the crap NP inherited from Svend was a far more testing job to deal with particularly with FFP implications!
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 I think a draw's the best result!.......Oh we not banging on about that any more? Listen to the voice of reason bud, you and Babs both have valid points, however I do agree with Babs that the crap NP inherited from Svend was a far more testing job to deal with particularly with FFP implications! I do love a good debate with Babs! Although he always gets soooo frustrated in the end! When you bring FFP into it, I absolutely agree. God knows why Bolton wanted Mills and Beckford. Oh, and Danns..
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 But both were/are third.. thats my point. The position in a table means nothing until the end of a season. Had we gone on a sticky run before McGhee fooked off? Just interested? A bit: we won two, then lost two, then drew two in his final six matches in charge, but it was thought that the uncertainty over his future was causing some of the problems. Graham Taylor had quit Wolves, and they made it obvious that McGhee was their target - and it was clear that he wanted to go. But the team he left behind was still a solid group, and I guess that is my point. If McGhee had stuck around, I think we'd have got promoted that season.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 A bit: we won two, then lost two, then drew two in his final six matches in charge, but it was thought that the uncertainty over his future was causing some of the problems. Graham Taylor had quit Wolves, and they made it obvious that McGhee was their target - and it was clear that he wanted to go. But the team he left behind was still a solid group, and I guess that is my point. If McGhee had stuck around, I think we'd have got promoted that season. That's interesting and cheers for that cos it shows I'm not going senile. I still think however, that the feeling at the time was that McGhee wouldn't take us up. But I could be wrong on that.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Don't start getting all arsy again.. you can't be right EVERY time! But I am right... I don't know how to explain this any differently if you are too moronic to understand. I'm sorry to insult you, but this is a ridiculous non argument. Manager inherits team 3rd two points off top. Manager inherits team 13th 14 points off top. It is harder to get the team promoted who sit much further away from the promotion places than the one that doesn't. It is 100% cast iron fact, mathematically correct, correct in any shape or form you wish to look at it. All your points are nothing but opinion... "oh but people thought he'd do better", "people thought we were slipping", all utterly meaningless in the face of the question.
Bluetintedspecs Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 That's interesting and cheers for that cos it shows I'm not going senile. I still think however, that the feeling at the time was that McGhee wouldn't take us up. But I could be wrong on that. Hmmmmmmmmm,can we have a poll?
Bluetintedspecs Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 But I am right... I don't know how to explain this any differently if you are too moronic to understand. I'm sorry to insult you, but this is a ridiculous non argument. Manager inherits team 3rd two points off top. Manager inherits team 13th 14 points off top. It is harder to get the team promoted who sit much further away from the promotion places than the one that doesn't. It is 100% cast iron fact, mathematically correct, correct in any shape or form you wish to look at it. All your points are nothing but opinion... "oh but people thought he'd do better", "people thought we were slipping", all utterly meaningless in the face of the question. Watch your blood pressure Babs!
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 But I am right... I don't know how to explain this any differently if you are too moronic to understand. I'm sorry to insult you, but this is a ridiculous non argument. Manager inherits team 3rd two points off top. Manager inherits team 13th 14 points off top. It is harder to get the team promoted who sit much further away from the promotion places than the one that doesn't. It is 100% cast iron fact, mathematically correct, correct in any shape or form you wish to look at it. All your points are nothing but opinion... "oh but people thought he'd do better", "people thought we were slipping", all utterly meaningless in the face of the question. And you accuse me of thinking I'm always right..!!Bit rich! Hmmmmmmmmm,can we have a poll? Oh be quiet happy clapper!
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 ? Have I got this wrong or didn't Martin recruit Lennon, Izzett and Claridge. Cottee, Elliott? Many would argue that Pearson inherited a strong squad too. Nuge, Konch, Kasper, Beckford, Mills... NOW yes, the latter are seen as duffers. At the time, they were seen, by the bulk on here for instance, as strong signings. Yes, they were, and the majority of those who craved for them to come, are the were the ones later screaming the abuse. Ten faced sods.
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 This thread should probably be locked - preferably locked away in a dark room. Looking at the first few pages - like the first few pages of all the "Pearson Out" threads - is mildly amusing now (providing you find people making pr!cks of themselves amusing, that is) but dragging these threads back out of the swamp is pointless. Let's enjoy ourselves for a change... it's been too long.
FreddieFox Posted 22 February 2014 Posted 22 February 2014 Is Pearson the long term answer? Well yes he's proved that hasn't he?
jmono84 Posted 22 February 2014 Posted 22 February 2014 One key thing I think pearson would do if we get promotion is NOT sign any mercenary type money grabbing players... The old has been big name players... He has signed experienced players before but I'm sure he knew they had the right mentality and drive but I don't think or hope he would want to spunk money on the Portsmouth type drivel they signed a few years back! I'd looking forward to see who and where we would sign players from and if it's similar to what he has signed before then they will be young hungry players with a few years on their contract to give us that stability should we go down. If it was up to me I'd give pearson a full season in the prem, look how they've performed and what pearson and bought in, and if it's been a decent season but have been relegated if give him another season in the champ to try and get back up!! So I'd give him at least a 2 year contract... Make it 3 years
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.