Jump to content
oneBoro Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nics last won the day on February 18 2017

Nics had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Nics

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 11/30/1992
  1. Could always appoint Woodgate and spend money as well. Or, alternatively, recognise that chucking money at everything isn't necessarily the way to go. This is the football industry. This is where the institutional logic of investment equals performance equals sustainability is dominant. We have a tendency to forget the funny story of Leeds, Sunderland, and Portsmouth. Napoli, Fiorentina, and Parma. Mindless spending in the hopes of gratification precedes the dull and boring idea of sustainability.
  2. Certainly a good point. I'd imagine managers are well aware of that. Still, I'd rate him perfectly capable of building a team over 2-3 seasons. I'd imagine Hjulmand would want a team where he's allowed to have 2 "free" seasons. I have some doubts whether fans would be behind him all the way, though.
  3. Kasper Hjulmand is still out of employment. I wouldn't mind seeing him here. He's brilliant with young players, used to a tight budget, he has international experience (albeit not too successful), some Champions League experience, and he's touted as the (next) big star of Danish managers. He's a member of Common Goal, and known for being well liked by club and community. He sets up for attractive, progressive football. He likes wing backs and actual wingers with pace. He's certainly more talented than Thomas Frank at Brentford.
  4. To be fair, I think there would have been hell on if we signed Pukki for a free in the summer. Difference if they’ve developed a system that works, and a good manager that can get the best out the players. I'd have just been celebrating the fact that our scouts actually do know that theres football outside of England, because I'm unsure that they do! To be honest, I am really surprised by his performances. He was good in the Danish Superliga, but not spectacular. Brøndby fans will say otherwise, but I did not see anything special about him. He scored sub-10 goals in his first two seasons, then 20 and 17 goals. Normally, that does not translate to 20-30 goals in the Championship, where the level is much higher. Kenneth Zohore and Simon Makienok both performed atrociously in the Championship. Braithwaite is way too good for the Danish Superliga, and people thought he was .. not good enough.
  5. Because we were playing to their strengths. Proof is in the pudding. They scored. Striking proof that is. https://footystats.org/clubs/england/leeds-united-fc Leeds score most goals second half. 29 % of their goals in min 81-90 according to that site. They have a way of seeing the games out, put pressure. We are - usually - somewhat decent at defending against that pressure. I sincerely doubt that putting on two offensive players with little to no defensive ability about them would have turned the game in our favour. We (and Pulis (and Karanka)) are usually good at grinding out leads. EDIT: @Duvel And yes, I know having a player or two being able to take the ball on, get a freekick, and then waste time is a might fine tactic as well. I am saying that I really doubt that we have any players who could fill that roll post 70 minute given the entire team is likely starting to get tired. Putting on Downing will not relieve any pressure. He can't dribble that well anymore, no pace, and he can't defend for ***. I say that even though some people on here suggested putting Downing on left back in place of Friend. Having ball possession takes energy, too. The movement off ball can be more tiring than sitting deep, and moving side to side in whatever midfield constellation was in place. In my uneducated and arm-chair specialist opinion, we have more chance of scoring - in that scenario (post 70th minute) - hoofing the ball to Britt and hope for the best.
  6. I don't necessarily think our tactics were that wrong. 1-0 lead does not invite for "offensive" changes in the 70th minute against a Leeds side desperate for a goal. Assambalonga makes sense given his pace. Hugill can maybe hold up the ball, but I'd rather have someone who has an off-chance scoring a goal from an individual effort. Clayton is far better defensively than Saville. And dare I say Besic can tackle from time to time as well (or at least stumble into someone). Personally, I would've been ***ed seeing Downing and VLP on against a Leeds side destined to dominate the last 20 minutes regardless of two players who can presumably hold onto the ball. Sure, you can defend a lead by holding onto the ball, play possession. But that rarely works against a side with better players at that game. We have conceded the fewest goals in the league by some margin, and our goalscoring is atrocious at best. Why would we try to play to our weakness rather than our strength?
  7. I'll just throw in the word 'sustainability' again. Jorge Mendes is no doubt the king of the European football market. Gibson showed balls when he cut the ties with Kenyon and Mendes who would later be accused of third-party ownership deals. Almost everywhere he has engaged in similar style as with Wolves, he has left the club behind in turmoil and staggering debt (e.g. Valencia). He orchestrated the whole Bebe farce with Man United, too. What happens once he is bored of Wolverhampton? If FA actually realises his position at Wolves? If the Wolves owners realise Mendes is ***ing them over? If Mendes decides his Portuguese entourage is to play elsewhere? Wolves will be ***ed. I'm happy we never engaged in anything meaningful with that man. He's an insanely good agent, but he'd cross us over.
  8. I think this is a bit unfair. I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do. I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying. For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson. I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad Probably used to cover some debt? We made something like £11m in profit in the premier league season. The cost of promotion was something like £25m. Then comes all the wages, loss (I guess?) of sponsorship(s), TV revenue, parachute payments gone soon. Sure, most of our loan(s) is/are repayable on demand. This is an unpopular opinion, but that - to me - is not exactly reassuring in an legislative environment in which FIFA are changing rules often. More concerning is if Gibson decides to no longer support the club. Then what? Debt (that is not owed to Gibson) has increased during our Premier League season, not decreased. Maybe this is Gibson saying the club should aim to run sustainably without the luxury of Premier League TV money. I may have misread or misinterpreted the annual account, but I understand why we are not splashing money even if we did sell players. EDIT: Latest annual report shows no dividend was paid. Next annual report should be available 15 April 2019. EDIT 2: It's not really a huge problem if Leeds have not paid anything for Paddy (yet). The balance books will just show we have money due, which is fine as long as cash flow allows us to pay wages etc.. As far as I remember, we are somewhat 'insured' when it comes to transfer fees.
  9. well if it's any consolation, it sounds like you've got the perfect blend of misery and negativity to fit right in on this forum You frame me like a brand of tobacco. Nics tobacco. The perfect blend of misery for your negativity pipe. Gentlemen's choice.
  10. Part of me hopes Gibson throws away the coffin, swallows the key, and suffers from acute constipation. Oh, and - of course - all laxatives are sold out. I cannot see why Pulis should be allowed to sign more players that are almost only suitable for his style of play. Why would we actively sign players that automatically become deadwood the minute Pulis puts his ancient mummified hands on another unfortunate club badge? I hardly watch us anymore. I don't need my hair any thinner than it already is.
  11. On another note, did you read the terms and conditions for using the voice recording service? It's a good thing if your first born is a cock up, I guess
  12. I haven't watched us for long time as I - like many others - find our style of football a bit tedious. I didn't mind it in the Prem with Karanka going full Mourinho mode, but we were underdogs back then. We are not anymore. Yesterday, however, was not that tedious. We were playing a side happily sitting back in the first half. We tried to lump balls into the penalty area, but Britt was no match in the air against their CBs. We tried the cut-back pass a few times and we were rather close to them connecting. We tried paced grounded passes into the box, but they did not connect as Britt rarely made the run to the front post. Maybe we didn't play short passes, one-twos, and piercing through-balls. Our passing was at times as sloppy as that of Wednesday's - but we were the far more positive side while remaining in control and being disciplined. Second half was far more positive: Britt linked up well at times, Besic continued his confident style from the first half, and Howson got more involved with deep runs. Friend and Shotton were further up the pitch (albeit that did not offer much offensively). We won the crucial second balls. Players starting beating their direct opponent - and suddenly we were in front. One howler later, and a nail biting last 10 minutes. Sure, we could've been more creative, but it really wasn't as tedious as I expected. Great game, really.
  13. Can they look at that again retrospectively? If the ref missed it then yes it will depend on his match report I'm pretty sure he'll struggle to get retrospective action for it. The ref didn't miss the call, he still called it a foul and judged it to be no booking. Not entirely 100% with the laws of the game on this but I think retrospective action is only for things the referee didn't see or make a decision on at all. "Firstly, it’s important to state that the principal objective behind retrospective action is to punish players who have clearly committed a red card offence ‘off the ball’. It is not designed to ‘re-referee’ tackles but can be applied if an act of violent conduct or serious foul play occurred secondary to the challenge or if the match officials’ view of the specific misconduct was unclear. In order for The FA to take retrospective action it must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was ‘not seen’. If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken" https://help.thefa.com/support/solutions/articles/7000039299-how-does-the-fa-decide-whether-to-retrospectively-charge-a-player-for-an-incident-not-seen-by-the-m For me, it boils down to whether the ref saw the elbow or not. If he called the foul for pushing or whatever, then retroactive action could be taken for the elbow as it may be interpreted as secondary to the challenge. But I doubt anything will come from this anyway.
  14. Can they look at that again retrospectively? Honestly, it did look like a red. Raised elbow, checked him to the face. We all know Ayala suffers from chronic clumsiness, but he went full UFC on Fletcher with that elbow. Also, I think they can look at it retrospectively if the ref didn't realise it was an elbow. If the ref had booked him and noted it for high elbow or whatever, then no. Although I am ready to be corrected on that one.
  • Create New...