Quote from: John M on August 23, 2010, 09:41:27 AMI like the balance to our ex-manager getting the blame for what went wrong yesterday and none of the credit for the West Ham result. What a stupid comment.West Ham was everything Martin wasn't, young attacking team, with youth getting a chance off the bench.Yesturday was a copy of when Martin was here, lightweight in the middle, waiting too long to change it and bringing heskey on when you need a goal.
I like the balance to our ex-manager getting the blame for what went wrong yesterday and none of the credit for the West Ham result.
We would never have lost by the same score yesterday had MON been in charge.
Quote from: Mark Kelly on August 23, 2010, 12:09:20 PMWe would never have lost by the same score yesterday had MON been in charge.If I said that I'd be accused of being a MONette and mourning the loss of mt Messiah, but you're right!
Quote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:51:57 AMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on August 23, 2010, 10:41:37 AMQuote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:30:38 AMIf the LMA are to be believed and O'Neill walked because the CEO did the deal to bring Ireland in against his wishes, then he had no choice but to walk and it is Faulkner who is the twat in this. btw: "yesturday" is apt. Where's this?According to Charles Sale in the Daily Mail, the League Managers Association said that none of O'Neill's targets was outside of the wage structure but Ireland was. So it's not lazy journalism any more?
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on August 23, 2010, 10:41:37 AMQuote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:30:38 AMIf the LMA are to be believed and O'Neill walked because the CEO did the deal to bring Ireland in against his wishes, then he had no choice but to walk and it is Faulkner who is the twat in this. btw: "yesturday" is apt. Where's this?According to Charles Sale in the Daily Mail, the League Managers Association said that none of O'Neill's targets was outside of the wage structure but Ireland was.
Quote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:30:38 AMIf the LMA are to be believed and O'Neill walked because the CEO did the deal to bring Ireland in against his wishes, then he had no choice but to walk and it is Faulkner who is the twat in this. btw: "yesturday" is apt. Where's this?
If the LMA are to be believed and O'Neill walked because the CEO did the deal to bring Ireland in against his wishes, then he had no choice but to walk and it is Faulkner who is the twat in this. btw: "yesturday" is apt.
Quote from: dave.woodhall on August 23, 2010, 11:48:22 AMQuote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:51:57 AMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on August 23, 2010, 10:41:37 AMQuote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 10:30:38 AMIf the LMA are to be believed and O'Neill walked because the CEO did the deal to bring Ireland in against his wishes, then he had no choice but to walk and it is Faulkner who is the twat in this. btw: "yesturday" is apt. Where's this?According to Charles Sale in the Daily Mail, the League Managers Association said that none of O'Neill's targets was outside of the wage structure but Ireland was. So it's not lazy journalism any more? I'm sorry, that's too obscure for me to understand.
...Side articles such as this one, with no direct quotes, tend to be disregarded as false, and lazy journalism to boot. This one, though, is regarded as gospel.
Quote from: dave.woodhall on August 23, 2010, 01:31:59 PM...Side articles such as this one, with no direct quotes, tend to be disregarded as false, and lazy journalism to boot. This one, though, is regarded as gospel. I don't regard it as gospel, I think it poses a question that hasn't yet been answered. It would be interesting to know what the reasons were that O'Neill gave to the board for his resignation.
Just another pointless thread which could have easily been included somewhere else to save space. And further edfidence than many of you are having trouble moving on, its quite sad really.
Quote from: Villadawg on August 23, 2010, 01:41:55 PMQuote from: dave.woodhall on August 23, 2010, 01:31:59 PM...Side articles such as this one, with no direct quotes, tend to be disregarded as false, and lazy journalism to boot. This one, though, is regarded as gospel. I don't regard it as gospel, I think it poses a question that hasn't yet been answered. It would be interesting to know what the reasons were that O'Neill gave to the board for his resignation. But you certainly are jumping to conclusions.