Players thought Pulis was going?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, parajack said:

In the circumstances(as they unravel) i believe he was.......

 

We were constantly losing games before half time under him. We kept conceding 3 & 5 goals. Then we got his own coaching staff and he picked up 12 points from 11 games.

He played players out of position constantly and did little for dressing room morale. 

 

The job is a difficult one but he wasn't doing as well as could be expected based on the above.

[ChinaOwl]

4 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

He probably has about a 30% average of being right. Nixon posts a lot of guff which is forgotten by the odd time he is right 

 

That atatement is probably not far from being accurate but it could also be argued that a 30% or one in three hit rate is perfectly acceptable for a journalist that reports mainly on speculation and hearsay.

 

Put it this way. Every time a club shows interest in a player, there is probably only going to be a one in three or one in four chance that the signing is completed. Clubs are interested in players all the time and will ask about availability. Nixon is fed and reports on information from his sources in the game. In other words, Nixon himself is only passing on information that has more chance of being wrong than right.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

I’m not deaf and would always advocate stability. I saw the merits in employing Pulis but his constant excuses and references to January lead me to believe he’s just a crappy person, looking for excuses instead of doing what he’s paid to do.

 

I wouldn't have employed him either burly for his footballing philosophy  but we need to get behind him now he is here and let the politics play out, nothing we can do about that. 

 

We are on a two match undefeated run, heady days.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, 83owl said:

Had we kept the form we were showing under Monk this season we would be out of the relegation zone by now. 

 

At the average points per game we were picking up under Monk we would be on 17 points, so 1 point above Rotherham and Derby but they would have 2 games and 1 game in hand on us respectively and as one of those games is against each other at least one would go above us and we would therefore still be in the relegation zone.

 

An average of 1.1 points per game, which is what we were getting under Monk this season, is hardly good enough.  

[FreshOwl]

6 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

That atatement is probably not far from being accurate but it could also be argued that a 30% or one in three hit rate is perfectly acceptable for a journalist that reports mainly on speculation and hearsay.

 

Put it this way. Every time a club shows interest in a player, there is probably only going to be a one in three or one in four chance that the signing is completed. Clubs are interested in players all the time and will ask about availability. Nixon is fed and reports on information from his sources in the game. In other words, Nixon himself is only passing on information that has more chance of being wrong than right.

I get that, it’s chalk and cheese when receiving second hand information. You can think a deal is sewn up and then it’ll fall through, and because you’re not privy to the negotiations your reputation is the thing that suffers 

 

Just felt like some people were 100% ready to believe this just because it had a negative spin, and because it had a negative spin, Nixon is suddenly the oracle of all football transfers because it suits the agenda of those who can’t have a day off 

Edited December 27, 2020 by FreshOwl

[Guest Grandad]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

At the average points per game we were picking up under Monk we would be on 17 points, so 1 point above Rotherham and Derby but they would have 2 games and 1 game in hand on us respectively and as one of those games is against each other at least one would go above us and we would therefore still be in the relegation zone.

 

An average of 1.1 points per game, which is what we were getting under Monk this season, is hardly good enough.  

But 0.4pts per game better than his replacement

[Guest]

Just now, Grandad said:

But 0.4pts per game better than his replacement

 

I never said I was happy with Pulis record and he certainly wasn't my preferred choice. 

[morganowl]

19 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

For all his faults you can't accuse him of being greedy.   

i can he thinks we are worth far more than he paid for us, some time ago he said he turned down well over 100 million for us . in the present market id say nearer 20 million if we go down . 

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, morganowl said:

i can he thinks we are worth far more than he paid for us, some time ago he said he turned down well over 100 million for us . in the present market id say nearer 20 million if we go down . 

 

If he was greedy he would have snapped their fingers off.  

[morganowl]

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

At the average points per game we were picking up under Monk we would be on 17 points, so 1 point above Rotherham and Derby but they would have 2 games and 1 game in hand on us respectively and as one of those games is against each other at least one would go above us and we would therefore still be in the relegation zone.

 

An average of 1.1 points per game, which is what we were getting under Monk this season, is hardly good enough.  

monk lost 3 in a row to tiny clubs like roth wycombe and played shocking . id say we would be very similar points wise if he stayed

[Guest Grandad]

3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I never said I was happy with Pulis record and he certainly wasn't my preferred choice. 

I didn't say you did

 

I was merely pointing out that Monk was better than Pulis so far

[83owl]

5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

At the average points per game we were picking up under Monk we would be on 17 points, so 1 point above Rotherham and Derby but they would have 2 games and 1 game in hand on us respectively and as one of those games is against each other at least one would go above us and we would therefore still be in the relegation zone.

 

An average of 1.1 points per game, which is what we were getting under Monk this season, is hardly good enough.  

Comfortably better than what we have been on since. Over the season it would have seen us safe, now however....

[dykwim]

1 minute ago, morganowl said:

i can he thinks we are worth far more than he paid for us, some time ago he said he turned down well over 100 million for us . in the present market id say nearer 20 million if we go down . 

We’re not worth anything. It doesn’t look like we are profit making. I can’t see the latest accounts to be sure. Chansiri can put whatever price tag he likes on us but on the value of the club, it’s worth offloading for £1 to stop having to find the losses from what I can tell. 
 

Expecting his wasted ‘£350m’ back is folly. He’ll do well to offload us just so he can cut his losses. He’ll have to come to that conclusion eventually, or keep putting money in (I’m not sure he will continue to do that). 

[Guest Therealrealist]

7 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

If he was greedy he would have snapped their fingers off.  

Hes never had any serious offers for us

[Guest Grandad]

2 minutes ago, morganowl said:

monk lost 3 in a row to tiny clubs like roth wycombe and played shocking . id say we would be very similar points wise if he stayed

There's not a manager in football that hasn't gone on bad runs like that

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, Therealrealist said:

Hes never had any serious offers for us

 

Yeah, I think it was probably said in the heat of the moment, but you never know.

[83owl]

3 minutes ago, morganowl said:

monk lost 3 in a row to tiny clubs like roth wycombe and played shocking . id say we would be very similar points wise if he stayed

And got 4 points from Bournemouth and Watford. It doesnt matter who the points are against the fact is we were on course for staying up, now we are on course for relegation.

[Sergeant Tibbs]

11 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

I wouldn't have employed him either burly for his footballing philosophy  but we need to get behind him now he is here and let the politics play out, nothing we can do about that. 

 

We are on a two match undefeated run, heady days.

The man is clearly at odds with the club, seems overly self servant. I can’t get behind him until his approach changes.

[83owl]

3 minutes ago, dykwim said:

We’re not worth anything. It doesn’t look like we are profit making. I can’t see the latest accounts to be sure. Chansiri can put whatever price tag he likes on us but on the value of the club, it’s worth offloading for £1 to stop having to find the losses from what I can tell. 
 

Expecting his wasted ‘£350m’ back is folly. He’ll do well to offload us just so he can cut his losses. He’ll have to come to that conclusion eventually, or keep putting money in (I’m not sure he will continue to do that). 

I dont think you need to see the latest accounts to be honest. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, 83owl said:

And got 4 points from Bournemouth and Watford. It doesnt matter who the points are against the fact is we were on course for staying up, now we are on course for relegation.

 

If we win the next what will the course be then?  Neil says we are staying up and he's never wrong