Is this a sign of how mad football has become in recent years with clubs not giving managers a chance ?
Or does it have the whiff of another disciplinary sacking like happened here (and at Gillingham I seem to remember) ?
Once he'd bought every item of clothing from the club shop, they probably thought they'd got the best out of him.
(29-12-2020, 10:35 AM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Is this a sign of how mad football has become in recent years with clubs not giving managers a chance ?
Or does it have the whiff of another disciplinary sacking like happened here (and at Gillingham I seem to remember) ?
You are probably right Deepblue.
"Chairman Dejphon Chansiri said in a statement on the club website: "The performances and results have not been of the level expected since Tony Pulis was appointed.
There are also other issues which have had a bearing on this decision."
He should say whether those issues relate to Pulis or otherwise e.g. financial issues, rather than insinuating and semi justifying. The owner /chairman/whatever he is sounds a bit of cuunt
(29-12-2020, 01:24 PM)Tomsk Wrote: [ -> ]He should say whether those issues relate to Pulis or otherwise e.g. financial issues, rather than insinuating and semi justifying. The owner /chairman/whatever he is sounds a bit of cuunt
For sure. I don't believe in the public needing to know everything but if you are going to hint at something then you had better clarify or people will make up their own stories which might be / probably are / unfair on Pulis.
Haven’t Watford had 17 managers in the last ten years? Sound like a great recipe for success
(29-12-2020, 01:37 PM)BilltheCat Wrote: [ -> ]"The owner /chairman/whatever he is sounds a bit of cuunt".
We've had a few of those:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/200...ory.sport7
Not sure we ever found out.
It was something to do with financial irregularites relating to youth team player fines and where the money went. Allegedly.
Pulis's football style or lack of it should be a warning to anyone who employs him. Dont know about financial irregularities here, but the awful long ball shite was too much for most. Still remains the only manager here who got dogs abuse before a kick off.
Hopefully the old Charles Hughes doctrine is dying out, people want more for their hard earned than the shite he serves up.
Pulis may not be everyone's cup of tea but he has a great record of getting "smaller" clubs promoted above their usual level and keeping them there. And without bankrupting them. I do wonder where Pompey would have ended up if we had stuck with him. And yes I do remember how bad the football was, but he would probably have got us promoted and kept us up without bankrupting the club.
(30-12-2020, 05:04 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]Pulis may not be everyone's cup of tea but he has a great record of getting "smaller" clubs promoted above their usual level and keeping them there. And without bankrupting them. I do wonder where Pompey would have ended up if we had stuck with him. And yes I do remember how bad the football was, but he would probably have got us promoted and kept us up without bankrupting the club.
Eleven clubs in 27 yrs says it all , these long ball merchants like Pubeless, Allardyce and Warncock can never stay at a club more than a couple of years because fans hate their " style of hoofball anti football"
Thank goodness they are all dinosaurs that will soon be extinct from football.
(30-12-2020, 05:04 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]Pulis may not be everyone's cup of tea but he has a great record of getting "smaller" clubs promoted above their usual level and keeping them there. And without bankrupting them. I do wonder where Pompey would have ended up if we had stuck with him. And yes I do remember how bad the football was, but he would probably have got us promoted and kept us up without bankrupting the club.
Has he really ? There are surely only two promotions on his CV ? Gillingham from lge 2 and Stoke into the premiership in his second stint there, and really that is the only period of his career that is a success story. Far more failures, far more sackings for misconduct, and far more court cases with chairmen.
As you can guess, I really dislike the man and his football. A thoroughly nasty piece of work all round, typified IMO by trying to defraud Palace out of several million whiuch the courts made him pay back.
Winning ugly loses its shine if you’re not there to feel it.
(31-12-2020, 10:22 AM)Tufnell_Chimes Wrote: [ -> ]Winning ugly loses its shine if you’re not there to feel it.
Hated pullis football but really lost any respect in a TV interview which was trying to get the truth about his Gillingham sacking from him. He replied with something along the lines of I had a great time at Gillingham, say hello to the chairman and (with snide grin on face) ask him to say hello to his wife from me.
Not hard to join the dots is it.
(30-12-2020, 05:04 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]Pulis may not be everyone's cup of tea but he has a great record of getting "smaller" clubs promoted above their usual level and keeping them there. And without bankrupting them. I do wonder where Pompey would have ended up if we had stuck with him. And yes I do remember how bad the football was, but he would probably have got us promoted and kept us up without bankrupting the club.
Before bigging him up, let's s not forget he bought Lee Mills for 1.25m. That's criminal in anyone's book.