if they cannot be bother neither can i - so i aint even going to slate them. Shepherd and Davey are taking the club down and that is obvious. We will probably even finish bottom! Ritchie should never have been sacked - end of! I woudl rather have gone down fighting and playing proper football than the ***** we have been served up since he went! The money that has been wasted on 7 players should have been given to ritchie to sign chopra and keep mcphail. They aint getting a penny of my money next year. They can ******. Ive never seen such a pathetic roll over and die like we have done this year. UTTER ****
My arse. This notion of a fighting spirit under Ritchie gets my goat. It's all well and good fighting from two goals down but better not to concede them in the first place. We have signed three players, not 7, since Ritchie left. The rest were on loan and I'd wager what we've paid in total wouldn't have paid McPhail and Chopra's wages for a fortnight.</p> We started promisingly but we were worse in Ritchie's last few games than we are now. And I, for one, had no confidence in Ritchie's ability to turn it around. Whether Davey has is another matter and I'll be first to say he wasn't my first choice. But as for whether Ritchie had to go, I'd say a resounding YES. </p>
pay peanuts, get monkeys and monkeys aint reight good at footy. Mattis aint fit to lace nicky wroe's boots and thats saying summat.
RE: My arse. Ritchie shafted on contract, performances dropped. Davey's recordis enhanced by a poxy last minute win against Ipswich. Also of the home performances which were worse than today ?</p>
Richteas poor results were the reason for the fall down of his contract talks. I said to a bloke at work when AR was mentioned by Dave Allen that he may as well go because he would be sacked by the end of November.
RE: My arse. Hardly. Ritchie being "shafted" was more a case of the board not wishing to plough more cash into a manager whose stock was falling by the week. Eventually it fell so far, contract offers were withdrawn. We were already in decline long before Ritchie's departure. And as for performances, Luton and Coventry were just as bad, with similar outcomes, against far inferior opposition.
aye because the results are much better now... ... and the performances are fooking *****... which perfomances at oakwell were poor under ritchie ???
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted.
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted.
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted. Also
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted. Also maybe
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted. Also maybe AR
RE: My arse. I'll give you that Coventry was poor, but since AR went can you name ANY good performances under Davey, Leeds away excepted. Also maybe AR wanted
RE: WTF happened there ? nt What happened was the site took a while to respond to you pressing "Submit". You pressed it a few more times and so when the site caught up, it had the same post waiting for it 6 times over.</p> I missed Burnley so can't comment but I thought we were a match for West Brom and largely comfortable against Southend. Admittedly we have not improved as much as any of us would like to see but as I said before, I am not defending Davey's appointment, just Ritchie's sacking. </p>
RE: aye because the results are much better now... How many good results did we get at Oakwell under Ritchie?
RE: aye because the results are much better now... if you consider only wins as good results then not many, however I feel that the draws against southampton and stoke were also good results. Performances? your turn mate.