collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Unai Emery by Skipper_The_Eyechild
[August 23, 2025, 11:54:44 PM]


Boxing 2025 by Rory
[August 23, 2025, 11:52:53 PM]


Brentford vs Aston Villa Post-Match Thread by VillaTim
[August 23, 2025, 11:47:37 PM]


Summer 2025 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc. by ozzjim
[August 23, 2025, 11:44:06 PM]


Morgan Rogers - PFA Young Player of the Year 24/25 by Skipper_The_Eyechild
[August 23, 2025, 11:41:10 PM]


Aston Villa and the missing spark by Beard82
[August 23, 2025, 11:05:29 PM]


Evann Guessand by ozzjim
[August 23, 2025, 10:38:21 PM]


Ollie Watkins by ozzjim
[August 23, 2025, 10:36:17 PM]

Recent Posts

Re: Unai Emery by Skipper_The_Eyechild
[August 23, 2025, 11:54:44 PM]


Re: Boxing 2025 by Rory
[August 23, 2025, 11:52:53 PM]


Re: Boxing 2025 by dave.woodhall
[August 23, 2025, 11:49:02 PM]


Re: Unai Emery by Smirker
[August 23, 2025, 11:49:01 PM]


Re: Brentford vs Aston Villa Post-Match Thread by VillaTim
[August 23, 2025, 11:47:37 PM]


Re: Boxing 2025 by Rory
[August 23, 2025, 11:47:14 PM]


Re: Brentford vs Aston Villa Post-Match Thread by Pete3206
[August 23, 2025, 11:46:58 PM]


Re: Brentford vs Aston Villa Post-Match Thread by The Edge
[August 23, 2025, 11:44:30 PM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Mons tribunal hearing?  (Read 97274 times)

Offline Greg N'Ash

  • Member
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: birmingham
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #330 on: May 26, 2011, 11:12:59 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

Online Rudy Can't Fail

  • Member
  • Posts: 41500
  • Location: In the Shade
    • http://www.heroespredictions.co.uk/pl/
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #331 on: May 26, 2011, 11:22:34 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.

Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.

Offline Chris Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36462
  • Location: At home
  • GM : 20.07.2026
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #332 on: May 26, 2011, 11:24:35 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

Offline Greg N'Ash

  • Member
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: birmingham
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #333 on: May 26, 2011, 11:27:38 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

heh!

 And i'll think i'll leave it there....

Offline Concrete John

  • Member
  • Posts: 15175
  • Location: Flying blind on a rocket cycle
  • GM : Mar, 2014
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #334 on: May 26, 2011, 11:27:55 AM »
We were midtable until January that season and then signed Solano, who seemed to gell everything together and we went on a fanstastic run to the end of the season scoring loads of goals.

Anyone expecting the squad as it was when MON joined to finish 6th wants locking up for public safety.

Offline Chris Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36462
  • Location: At home
  • GM : 20.07.2026
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #335 on: May 26, 2011, 11:33:51 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.

Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.

We didn't try to buy him, Doug turned down the money to extend the loan. It was a side that relied on the likes of Aaron Hughes, Gavin McCann, De la Cruz, Jlloyd Samual and Milan Baros.

Offline Concrete John

  • Member
  • Posts: 15175
  • Location: Flying blind on a rocket cycle
  • GM : Mar, 2014
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #336 on: May 26, 2011, 11:36:32 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

heh!

 And i'll think i'll leave it there....

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 3 consecutive league placings and a one off then it's probably best for all concerned that you do.

Offline Greg N'Ash

  • Member
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: birmingham
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #337 on: May 26, 2011, 11:39:28 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

heh!

 And i'll think i'll leave it there....

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 3 consecutive league placings and a one off then it's probably best for all concerned that you do.


well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side  stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance

Offline Chris Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36462
  • Location: At home
  • GM : 20.07.2026
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #338 on: May 26, 2011, 11:45:47 AM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

heh!

 And i'll think i'll leave it there....

16th, 6th, 10th, 16th.

O'Leary had two top ten finsihes which earned him the chance to another season but he just took us back to where were were before he came.

O'Neill took us to sixth and kept us there.

You'd have to be a fool to think the two things were comparable.

Offline Concrete John

  • Member
  • Posts: 15175
  • Location: Flying blind on a rocket cycle
  • GM : Mar, 2014
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #339 on: May 26, 2011, 11:49:30 AM »
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side  stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance

I admit defeat here - you've lost me.

Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?

Online Rudy Can't Fail

  • Member
  • Posts: 41500
  • Location: In the Shade
    • http://www.heroespredictions.co.uk/pl/
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #340 on: May 26, 2011, 12:06:30 PM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.

Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.

We didn't try to buy him, Doug turned down the money to extend the loan.

Leeds were not willing to extent the loan, they wanted cash and you're right, we didn't try to buy him.
Ignoring Bakke, your original post hit the right notes, just not in the wrong order. We didn't have the cash to strengthen or at least, not on players Doug didn't approve of. You never knew with Ellis.

Online Louzie0

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15940
  • Location: wrangling jellied eels in the Albert Dock
  • UTV: I’m retired, hurrah!
  • GM : 04.03.2026
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #341 on: May 26, 2011, 12:10:09 PM »
On a 'would you believe it' note - The Tehran Times has this story, which proves that they know what's important in terms of world sport  - the Villa!
Or are they hoping for MON to join their domestic league?

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=241452

Offline Clampy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 30297
  • Location: warley
  • GM : PCM
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #342 on: May 26, 2011, 01:11:09 PM »
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.


I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season

The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.

heh!

 And i'll think i'll leave it there....

16th, 6th, 10th, 16th.

O'Leary had two top ten finsihes which earned him the chance to another season but he just took us back to where were were before he came.

O'Neill took us to sixth and kept us there.

You'd have to be a fool to think the two things were comparable.

Take into account getting beat 3-0 at Doncaster and DOL flopping in his only other job in the 5 years since he's been gone.

Offline Greg N'Ash

  • Member
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: birmingham
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #343 on: May 26, 2011, 02:10:34 PM »
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side  stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance

I admit defeat here - you've lost me.

Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?


I'm not trying to prove anything about MON John. I'm just pointing out that teams with the same group of players can finish in wildly differing league positions whatever their value on paper.. My amusement at Chris' comments are based on being told DOL's only good season was a fluke by the last guy on here and probably the whole world to adandon the goodship HMS DOL before it finally sunk, and even then had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the lifeboats.

I'd imagine on a golf course somewhere a pigfaced irishman has suddenly felt like someone has walked over his grave....

Offline Chris Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36462
  • Location: At home
  • GM : 20.07.2026
Re: Mons tribunal hearing?
« Reply #344 on: May 26, 2011, 02:25:25 PM »
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side  stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance

I admit defeat here - you've lost me.

Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?


I'm not trying to prove anything about MON John. I'm just pointing out that teams with the same group of players can finish in wildly differing league positions whatever their value on paper.. My amusement at Chris' comments are based on being told DOL's only good season was a fluke by the last guy on here and probably the whole world to adandon the goodship HMS DOL before it finally sunk, and even then had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the lifeboats.

I'd imagine on a golf course somewhere a pigfaced irishman has suddenly felt like someone has walked over his grave....

Do you understand the meaning of the word "hindsight"?

It is only after the 3rd season where we finished 16th that we are able to say that he's taken us back to where we started. I realise that honesty and consistency are alien concepts in your world but my position was very straightforward. I said after the 10th place he deerved another season and at the end of that I said that he should go as he flopped.


 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal