Moyes being offered a new contract. FFS

[Vexed]

According to sky they're offering this fucking idiot a 2.5 year contract. I fucking hope not.

[onsideman]

"Fuck me you're a patronising cսnt Ted. Where do you get off with your little man remarks? Bournemouth were terrible at the start of the season (although your hero Moyes didn't manage to beat them) but they have improved immeasurably as their progressive manager begins to impose himself upon his players and they are, of course, one of the form teams in the division (garnering 13 more points at this stage than Moyes did last year) Remind me of your point again."

[Capitol Man]

"goose 9:54 Sat Dec 30 Re: Moyes being offered a new contract. FFS Your teenage-girl nonsense is struggling with reality yet again - though admittedly that never bothers you at any other time. Spurs changed their manager after Conte fell out with the owners, got sick, made it clear that he didn’t want to be there any more. They had also been a merry-go-round and could barely find anyone to manage them at one point. Bournemouth were a complete mess at the start of the season, go take a look at their results. But aside from being utterly fucking stupid examples you did a great job there little man. It’s one thing to change your manager when things are going badly and then talk up the entertainment factor when you select a replacement- it’s another to sack one that’s winning games but not doing it entertainingly enough. A lot of it is when the owners lose confidence in what is going on anyway."

[swindon hammer]

Fair enough goose. That statement about failing does seem like it’s not based on facts then as I can’t think of many clubs that have changed managers purely to improve the style of football. 99 percent of the time it always comes down to results.

[goose]

"I did say that, and I’d be shocked if they got rid. The statement from Karen was that teams who change management to improve the nature of the football mostly fail. The most recent examples of this suggest otherwise."

[onsideman]

I think they did it when they did because they grabbed an opportunity to claim breach of contract when he bad mouthed the club in an attempt to mitigate any pay off

[swindon hammer]

"goose, If his contract was up at the end of the season and as you claim they were doing quite well results wise then why did they sack him in March instead of just waiting a couple of months and just replace him then? Tottenham have had many top 4 finishes over the previous decade under other managers. We haven’t had any top 7 finishes or played in Europe 3 years running under previous managers for a good 20 years. That’s why it might be harder for our owners to make that decision which you yourself even said the other day."

[Side of Ham]

What has that got to do with you thinking you have as much a right to an opinion over those that go and pay into it? Now who’s really backtracking now dolph0?

[goose]

"Wasn’t his contract up at the end of the season? His points per game is the best of the PL era alongside Pochettino. He delivered CL football and had them 4th in the league. Lots of regulars hated his approach to games. No club will ever be a direct comparison, but it’s pretty close. Ted Lasso’s point was that teams rarely do this and improve. Whether they’ve improved is still tbc but their fans are much happier because of his approach to games. It’s definitely true of Bournemouth."

[dolph]

Onside - laters. Don’t be too alarmed by my language to side. We’ve always had a mutual appreciation of our lack of appreciation for one another. Side - you don’t even watch games anymore do you? By your own admission you’re not even a supporter anymore.

[swindon hammer]

"goose, They had just been knocked out of the FA Cup by Sheffield Utd, the Champions League by Milan and had drawn against the bottom club Southampton. Conte then called out their owners publicly over not being backed properly. That’s why he got sacked. Im not disputing that they made a point this summer of finding a new manager that would play better football but they didn’t sack Conte just purely to do that. They did it because the results weren’t satisfactory and he had a falling out with the board over transfers. It’s a different situation to the one we have."

[Side of Ham]

No back peddling I just made it clear why they have the right and you as a non contributing supporter don’t over theirs…..it’s part of the advantage of joining a club as a genuine supporter….I doubt you even pay for your streams dolph which is detracting from further income the club should get….

[onsideman]

"I'm not swerving anything. If you went you'd know that there are multiple empty seats, at every sold out game, an audible chatter about pretty much anything anything other than football and supporters checking their phones rather than watching what's being served up infront of them. But you've proved yourself to be a bit of a nasty cսnt so I'm not engaging further"

[dolph]

"Nice back peddling. Which non attendees have made an argument about what they expect for their £0 match ticket investment? Gets boring listening to people say “you clearly don’t go” to others, which appears to be some sort of uncounterable trump card in their eyes. No one is forcing you to go to see us win games and sit in 6th. If you didn’t, there would be others who would gladly park their cheeks on your seat and maybe be more appreciative. Onsideman - you carry on swerving those questions son"

[onsideman]

dolph 10:32 Sat Dec 30 Stay classy

[Side of Ham]

Dolph…..yep….on the subject of what they expect for their money….

[goose]

Spurs were 4th when Conte got sacked. There’s tonnes of them lot around here and every one of them hated the way he set them up. Same with Mourinho. When they appointed the current fella they made a point of calling out his attacking style of play.

[dolph]

Attendees should have the definitive opinion within an online football forum? The ramblings of a spastic.

[Side of Ham]

Those who go should have the definitive opinion on what they expect to support/watch as they support the club in time & money and those that don’t do this probably don’t put time & money into it because they made a choice to not to support the club this way…..you want a say you should pay for that…..like those that put in do….it’s fucking simple….

[Side of Ham]

Those who go should have the definitive opinion on what they expect to support/watch as they support the club in time & money and those that don’t do this probably don’t put time & money into it because they made a choice to not to support the club this way…..you want a say you should pay for that…..like those that put in do….it’s fucking simple….

[onsideman]

Then there's no point continuing this discussion

[dolph]

Onsideman To go back to your Nando’s reference - two people can tell me that their chicken was shit despite one eating in the gaff and one getting take away. I’m not sure why going to matches makes a supporter’s opinion any more insightful than watching a game on the tv with 300 different angles and replays.

[onsideman]

Jaan Kenbrovin 10:19 Sat Dec 30

[Jaan Kenbrovin]

We had 4 top ten finishes with Harry playing attractive football and blooding youth players. We weren’t 10th in Europe for net spend over a decade either. The idea there is no incentive to improve our style of play is mind-boggling. All of the most successful teams play the best football. That is actually the only thing to aspire to.

[onsideman]

"Of course you can have an opinion, but it wont be anywhere near as nuanced as someone who endures it at the business end"

[dolph]

"No idea what you’re on about here mate. It sounds like you’re suggesting you can’t have an opinion on West Ham unless you go to matches, but that surely can’t be your argument."