Another Samuels dig

[8lade]

Nah na na na na na na nah
Nah na na na na na na nah
We all lovin' Michael Doyle
Doin' the Lambeth walk

So fuck off Samuels you fat waste of fucking space.

 

[Champagneblade]

Maybe he should write about the women’s game and how West Ham squeezed into the top flight when they shouldn’t have.

Then again, his moral compass is probably not switched on to that.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

You think we are a small club? Don't even think Wednesday fans would label us as small. He's put us on the same bracket as a club who don't even exist anymore!

I had to read it twice before I realised what you were getting at. I didn't see anything wrong with it first time around. I can see what you mean on second reading, but I think he was just conveniently lumping together 3 clubs who Basset had managed, 2 of whom are traditionally smaller clubs, and another who's recent past had been languishing in the lower divisions, and therefore not "big" in the sense of being perennial diners at the top table of football.

He's still a chuff though, I agree!

 

[grafikhaus]

I think you're imagining things.

I've read his articles for years and he often writes some good and relevant stuff. However his love for West Ham is a constant theme. He blithely ignores the fact that the gifting of Coe's Folly was a criminal act of diverting tax-payers cash to one of the favoured clubs. Spurs spent nothing in the summer because they're building a new stadium. West Ham, unencumbered by such matters, spent £100m. And the £22m - and ongoing - losses on London Stadium in the last year doesn't concern them. But the 'authorities' don't seem to consider this breaches FFP rules.

In truth, West Ham are a 'small club'. Their owners are rich but bent. They don't own their ground but even if they did, so what? Playing at Hampden Park doesn't make Queen's Park a 'big team'. The only thing that's kept them in the PL is blatant corruption. And where's it got them? They'll never win anything again. The last thing they won? The FA Cup a mere 38 years ago. Since then? The Intertoto Cup (me neither) in 1999. Does the mention of 'West Ham' evoke knowing winks in Sao Paulo or Singapore? Hardly. The only 'tradition' they claim is winning the World Cup in 1966, which everybody knows is laughable. Samuel, like Alf Garnett, harks back to the 'good' old days of the East End. Gor blimey, guv'nor. It was, and still is, a crime-ridden shithole.

Samuel's fixation on the Blades and Neil Warnock borders on the psychotic.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I had to read it twice before I realised what you were getting at. I didn't see anything wrong with it first time around. I can see what you mean on second reading, but I think he was just conveniently lumping together 3 clubs who Basset had managed, 2 of whom are traditionally smaller clubs, and another who's recent past had been languishing in the lower divisions, and therefore not "big" in the sense of being perennial diners at the top table of football.

He's still a chuff though, I agree!

Yep, exactly how I read it, and to be fair, our record over the last 40 years kind of backs up his point. To play devil's advocate, if we start saying we are bigger than the likes of Bournemouth, Palace etc because of the crowds, that makes us no better than our neighbours.

Over the history of football we're around 21st in the league table last time I looked in terms of league position so arguably we are where we should be at the moment.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

In truth, West Ham are a 'small club'.

Oh come on.

Macclesfield and Forest Green are small clubs.

West Ham are one of the most famous names in English football and are an established top flight club.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Yep, exactly how I read it, and to be fair, our record over the last 40 years kind of backs up his point. To play devil's advocate, if we start saying we are bigger than the likes of Bournemouth, Palace etc because of the crowds, that makes us no better than our neighbours.

Over the history of football we're around 21st in the league table last time I looked in terms of league position so arguably we are where we should be at the moment.

That's how I see it too.

Look...when I was a kid I had this football game called "Wembley". You had a set of cards representing all the football leagues clubs from Division 1 to Division 4. You drew the cards and played off against your opponents to progress through the rounds of the FA Cup until you reached the final. The scores were determined by rolling a dice - however - there were several different coloured dice. The Division 1 team's dice had lots of high scoring numbers on it, and possibly only one zero. Whereas the 4th division's team's dice had several zero's on it and only one or two higher numbers. So, as in real life, if a Division 1 team got drawn against a Division 4 team, the chances were in favour of the Division 1 team winning the tie and going through.

Back in those days, Sheffield United were a Division 1 team - at least in "Wembley" terms. The likes of Bournemouth would have been Division 3 or Division 4. I would have chortled to have drawn Bournemouth at "Wembley" as it was almost inevitable Sheffield United would give them a right old pasting.

And that wasn't much different to real life. Whilst Sheffield United were at the top end of Division 2 or in Division 1, Bournemouth were at best a Division 3 club. I only recall one notable thing about them from the 1970's and that was they had a goalscorer called Ted McDougall, who was prolific in Division 3. (He later went on to Man United I think?).

So, I have grown up, conditioned to believe, that Bournemouth (and many others who are now above us) are "little" clubs, "insignificant" clubs, clubs not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Sheffield United.

But...

The reality is...

We've fucked up so bad in the management of our club over the years that these little tin pot clubs, like Bournemouth, are not only above us, but are multiple times richer than us, and can steal our best players. Bournemouth are a much bigger, more successful club, than Sheffield United. Now that's really hard to take - but it's true.

Yes we've got the proud history and the bigger level of support - but football is a business and they've managed theirs well and we haven't. It's really that simple.

To put my stuck record on again...this is why we HAVE to bust a gut to get back to the Prem. Because that's our opportunity to truly become a major force in English football again - and the longer we leave it, the bigger the money gap gets, and the harder it becomes. As things stand now, we're probably a good 5 years before we can even think about being on the same level, in terms of financial stability, of the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley, Swansea, Watford and other such piffling ex-lower league clubs.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

That's how I see it too.

Look...when I was a kid I had this football game called "Wembley". You had a set of cards representing all the football leagues clubs from Division 1 to Division 4. You drew the cards and played off against your opponents to progress through the rounds of the FA Cup until you reached the final. The scores were determined by rolling a dice - however - there were several different coloured dice. The Division 1 team's dice had lots of high scoring numbers on it, and possibly only one zero. Whereas the 4th division's team's dice had several zero's on it and only one or two higher numbers. So, as in real life, if a Division 1 team got drawn against a Division 4 team, the chances were in favour of the Division 1 team winning the tie and going through.

Back in those days, Sheffield United were a Division 1 team - at least in "Wembley" terms. The likes of Bournemouth would have been Division 3 or Division 4. I would have chortled to have drawn Bournemouth at "Wembley" as it was almost inevitable Sheffield United would give them a right old pasting.

And that wasn't much different to real life. Whilst Sheffield United were at the top end of Division 2 or in Division 1, Bournemouth were at best a Division 3 club. I only recall one notable thing about them from the 1970's and that was they had a goalscorer called Ted McDougall, who was prolific in Division 3. (He later went on to Man United I think?).

So, I have grown up, conditioned to believe, that Bournemouth (and many others who are now above us) are "little" clubs, "insignificant" clubs, clubs not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Sheffield United.

But...

The reality is...

We've fucked up so bad in the management of our club over the years that these little tin pot clubs, like Bournemouth, are not only above us, but are multiple times richer than us, and can steal our best players. Bournemouth are a much bigger, more successful club, than Sheffield United. Now that's really hard to take - but it's true.

Yes we've got the proud history and the bigger level of support - but football is a business and they've managed theirs well and we haven't. It's really that simple.

To put my stuck record on again...this is why we HAVE to bust a gut to get back to the Prem. Because that's our opportunity to truly become a major force in English football again - and the longer we leave it, the bigger the money gap gets, and the harder it becomes. As things stand now, we're probably a good 5 years before we can even think about being on the same level, in terms of financial stability, of the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley, Swansea, Watford and other such piffling ex-lower league clubs.

A lot of people on here are stuck a long way back in the past.

The list of clubs that have pissed all over us in the past 30 years is endless.

 

[pommpey]

Samuels. Just the name evokes that feeling akin to when you've hurriedly drawn up your clarts without wiping properly because the taxi is beeping outside or your mobile has gone off and you can't talk to your mum whilst sliding out a foot long section of nutty clay.

Why is he like this? I mean, his bolt is shot. His club is over subscribed, known to be cheating the football system, supported by swaggering cock-er-nee wideboy cartoon cunts and has, season-upon-season, continued to underperform and underachieve, regardless of the fackin' miwwyuns pumped into (and out of) it's bank account. He has no platform from which to open his weeping anal vent of a mouth and commentate upon, given he himself lies like a fucking hairy egg about the whole situation. The added fact that he writes for an openly bigoted daily toilet paper tabloid whose core readership are less cerebrally gifted than a fucking guppy further qualifies why he is irrelevant and indeed laughable.

The day West Ham United crash out of the lorded Premier League, their players running like rats from a burning building for seemingly lower clubs like Bournemouth and Watford, the ground forcibly repossessed and left empty by some bankrupt marxist borough council and the club itself found serially guilty of bumming each and every one of their deluded barrah-boi fans then the better. I'd love to read his column then, but in that event, the new editor of the DM might not want to hear any more bum gravy from such a Nimitz-Class wanker such as he.

pommpey

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

That's how I see it too.

Look...when I was a kid I had this football game called "Wembley". You had a set of cards representing all the football leagues clubs from Division 1 to Division 4. You drew the cards and played off against your opponents to progress through the rounds of the FA Cup until you reached the final. The scores were determined by rolling a dice - however - there were several different coloured dice. The Division 1 team's dice had lots of high scoring numbers on it, and possibly only one zero. Whereas the 4th division's team's dice had several zero's on it and only one or two higher numbers. So, as in real life, if a Division 1 team got drawn against a Division 4 team, the chances were in favour of the Division 1 team winning the tie and going through.

Back in those days, Sheffield United were a Division 1 team - at least in "Wembley" terms. The likes of Bournemouth would have been Division 3 or Division 4. I would have chortled to have drawn Bournemouth at "Wembley" as it was almost inevitable Sheffield United would give them a right old pasting.

And that wasn't much different to real life. Whilst Sheffield United were at the top end of Division 2 or in Division 1, Bournemouth were at best a Division 3 club. I only recall one notable thing about them from the 1970's and that was they had a goalscorer called Ted McDougall, who was prolific in Division 3. (He later went on to Man United I think?).

So, I have grown up, conditioned to believe, that Bournemouth (and many others who are now above us) are "little" clubs, "insignificant" clubs, clubs not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Sheffield United.

But...

The reality is...

We've fucked up so bad in the management of our club over the years that these little tin pot clubs, like Bournemouth, are not only above us, but are multiple times richer than us, and can steal our best players. Bournemouth are a much bigger, more successful club, than Sheffield United. Now that's really hard to take - but it's true.

Yes we've got the proud history and the bigger level of support - but football is a business and they've managed theirs well and we haven't. It's really that simple.

To put my stuck record on again...this is why we HAVE to bust a gut to get back to the Prem. Because that's our opportunity to truly become a major force in English football again - and the longer we leave it, the bigger the money gap gets, and the harder it becomes. As things stand now, we're probably a good 5 years before we can even think about being on the same level, in terms of financial stability, of the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley, Swansea, Watford and other such piffling ex-lower league clubs.

Most people are pre-conditioned, and delusional in some cases, you only have to listen to the average Forest fan to hear someone living on past glories. Closer to home for me, we were 10 divisions above Fleetwood when we were in the Prem yet were on a level playing field 7 years later. I'm not saying the stature of any two clubs is the same because they are in the same division at any given point but you are where you are and when that position averages out over 20, 30, 40 years, that really is your standing.

Things will change, hopefully, and we will doubtless have a better run in the Prem than we have had historically at some point but for now, and for two generations of football fans, can anyone argue that we should be considered as a 'top club' ? We are a big club in many ways but unfortunately, on the pitch......

 

[sitwell]

I wouldn't describe any of the teams you've mentioned as being small clubs.


But youre quite alright with him calling us a small club ?

 

[super_pig]

where does he actually call us a small club (not that i care anyway).. he mentions Harry as being ex manager of x, y and sheffield united and someone who knows his stuff.. as well as being known for being manager of us..
perhaps i missed it..

 

[super_pig]

Most people are pre-conditioned, and delusional in some cases, you only have to listen to the average Forest fan to hear someone living on past glories. Closer to home for me, we were 10 divisions above Fleetwood when we were in the Prem yet were on a level playing field 7 years later. I'm not saying the stature of any two clubs is the same because they are in the same division at any given point but you are where you are and when that position averages out over 20, 30, 40 years, that really is your standing.

Things will change, hopefully, and we will doubtless have a better run in the Prem than we have had historically at some point but for now, and for two generations of football fans, can anyone argue that we should be considered as a 'top club' ? We are a big club in many ways but unfortunately, on the pitch......

here's the thing. when do your past glories become irrelevant. Liverpool and Forest and Leeds prattle on about stuff that happened 30 years ago. is it ok for us to prattle on about our 1899 team??

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

where does he actually call us a small club (not that i care anyway).. he mentions Harry as being ex manager of x, y and sheffield united and someone who knows his stuff.. as well as being known for being manager of us..
perhaps i missed it..

 

[cahill]

initially read that as bracketing us with Wimbledon and Watford. On reflection perhaps he was just outlining Bassett’s credentials.

It is all about perception though

 

[anglian blade]

He is a fat twat but he could be referring to our defeat at Chelsea which saw us relegated.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

here's the thing. when do your past glories become irrelevant. Liverpool and Forest and Leeds prattle on about stuff that happened 30 years ago. is it ok for us to prattle on about our 1899 team??

They never become irrelevant but past glories have no bearing on where a club is now or has been for x number of years since.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

That's how I see it too.

Look...when I was a kid I had this football game called "Wembley". You had a set of cards representing all the football leagues clubs from Division 1 to Division 4. You drew the cards and played off against your opponents to progress through the rounds of the FA Cup until you reached the final. The scores were determined by rolling a dice - however - there were several different coloured dice. The Division 1 team's dice had lots of high scoring numbers on it, and possibly only one zero. Whereas the 4th division's team's dice had several zero's on it and only one or two higher numbers. So, as in real life, if a Division 1 team got drawn against a Division 4 team, the chances were in favour of the Division 1 team winning the tie and going through.

Back in those days, Sheffield United were a Division 1 team - at least in "Wembley" terms. The likes of Bournemouth would have been Division 3 or Division 4. I would have chortled to have drawn Bournemouth at "Wembley" as it was almost inevitable Sheffield United would give them a right old pasting.

And that wasn't much different to real life. Whilst Sheffield United were at the top end of Division 2 or in Division 1, Bournemouth were at best a Division 3 club. I only recall one notable thing about them from the 1970's and that was they had a goalscorer called Ted McDougall, who was prolific in Division 3. (He later went on to Man United I think?).

So, I have grown up, conditioned to believe, that Bournemouth (and many others who are now above us) are "little" clubs, "insignificant" clubs, clubs not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Sheffield United.

But...

The reality is...

We've fucked up so bad in the management of our club over the years that these little tin pot clubs, like Bournemouth, are not only above us, but are multiple times richer than us, and can steal our best players. Bournemouth are a much bigger, more successful club, than Sheffield United. Now that's really hard to take - but it's true.

Yes we've got the proud history and the bigger level of support - but football is a business and they've managed theirs well and we haven't. It's really that simple.

To put my stuck record on again...this is why we HAVE to bust a gut to get back to the Prem. Because that's our opportunity to truly become a major force in English football again - and the longer we leave it, the bigger the money gap gets, and the harder it becomes. As things stand now, we're probably a good 5 years before we can even think about being on the same level, in terms of financial stability, of the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley, Swansea, Watford and other such piffling ex-lower league clubs.

Used to love that game

 

[Balham]

Oh come on.

Macclesfield and Forest Green are small clubs.

West Ham are one of the most famous names in English football and are an established top flight club.

Honours board:

West Ham United:
0 top flight titles (best ever finish 3rd in 1985/86)
2 second division titles (1957/58, 1980/81)
3 FA cups (1964, 1975, 1980)
61/92 seasons in the top flight

Sheffield United
1 top flight title (1897/98)
1 second division title (1952/53)
4 FA cups (1899, 1902, 1915, 1925)
60/114 seasons in the top flight

West Ham United's fame is the emperor's new clothes. Sheffield United and West Ham United are pretty evenly matched; if anything history would suggest that [Sheffield] United is the bigger team as we have more honours. Our recent records are the only difference: they're a top flight club and we're not.

It's a sly dig from someone who should know better and it comes across as petty. If we were to get promoted this season we'd be in the middle strata of clubs in the Premier League when viewed by size: bigger than Bournemouth, Watford, Fulham, Brighton, Southampton, Cardiff & Palace.

 

[gordoncharles]

There is nothing wrong with that article, I agree with practically everything said in it - which is a lot more than I can say for the scratchings of most of the tabloid and broadsheet hacks.

To take offence at his list of Harry's clubs because he refers to them as "small" is risible. Worse, it's positively Wednesdayite.

He says ALL clubs are small "outside the elite echelons" who he lists as Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and "probably Tottenham"

If anything the article is a dig at Spurs.

FFS grow up.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Honours board:

West Ham United:
0 top flight titles (best ever finish 3rd in 1985/86)
2 second division titles (1957/58, 1980/81)
3 FA cups (1964, 1975, 1980)
61/92 seasons in the top flight

Sheffield United
1 top flight title (1897/98)
1 second division title (1952/53)
4 FA cups (1899, 1902, 1915, 1925)
60/114 seasons in the top flight

West Ham United's fame is the emperor's new clothes. Sheffield United and West Ham United are pretty evenly matched; if anything history would suggest that [Sheffield] United is the bigger team as we have more honours. Our recent records are the only difference: they're a top flight club and we're not.

It's a sly dig from someone who should know better and it comes across as petty. If we were to get promoted this season we'd be in the middle strata of clubs in the Premier League when viewed by size: bigger than Bournemouth, Watford, Fulham, Brighton, Southampton, Cardiff & Palace.

There's not much between us in terms of titles but the the last 40 years or so, they've averaged a higher league position than us for the majority of the time, particularly in the Prem years which is basically all people use as a barometer these days.

 

[Killamarshblades]

Anyone taking offence at that article needs their head testing. As they should for reading the Mail

In those early years of the Premier League United were a 'small' club...often under transfer embargo, never had money for players, often signing them from lower leagues (or when the manager re-mortgaged his house), attendances generally lower to what we get now..back then we were 'small' and were ran appallingly. Bassett and his staff worked miracles at the club to get four years in the top flight under those circumstances.

Samuels is low rate, he works for the Mail for gods sake, hes no Henry Winter or Daniel Taylor, why people a) read him and b) get wound up is beyond me.

 

[Liverpool blade]

Read the article and he makes some good points.
However he’s still an overweight Bell end who lives in the past and supports a club that is rotten to the core and is owned by crooks. The day of West Ham’s demise will come and I for one will enjoy every moment of it!!. UTB

 

[Revolution]

Sheffield United and West Ham United are pretty evenly matched; if anything history would suggest that [Sheffield] United is the bigger team as we have more honours. Our recent records are the only difference: they're a top flight club and we're not.

Recent in this case being since the 1950s.

Since 1958 - sixty years ago - they've won 4 trophies (you forgot the European Cup Winners Cup) been Cup winners Cup runners up once, been League Cup runners up twice, played 50 out of 60 seasons in the top flight, played in Europe 8 times, and never finished lower than seventh in the Second tier.

In the same time period we have managed 17 seasons in the top flight, been down to the fourth tier, played more seasons in the third tier than West Ham have in the second tier, never played in Europe, and won...nothing.

We have played one season in the top flight in the last quarter of a century. Bigger than West Ham? Don't make me laugh.

 

[bornablade]

Honours board:

West Ham United:
0 top flight titles (best ever finish 3rd in 1985/86)
2 second division titles (1957/58, 1980/81)
3 FA cups (1964, 1975, 1980)
61/92 seasons in the top flight

Sheffield United
1 top flight title (1897/98)
1 second division title (1952/53)
4 FA cups (1899, 1902, 1915, 1925)
60/114 seasons in the top flight

West Ham United's fame is the emperor's new clothes. Sheffield United and West Ham United are pretty evenly matched; if anything history would suggest that [Sheffield] United is the bigger team as we have more honours. Our recent records are the only difference: they're a top flight club and we're not.

It's a sly dig from someone who should know better and it comes across as petty. If we were to get promoted this season we'd be in the middle strata of clubs in the Premier League when viewed by size: bigger than Bournemouth, Watford, Fulham, Brighton, Southampton, Cardiff & Palace.

I think you’ll find most West Ham fans believe they won the World Cup in 1966.

 

[FinchleyBlade]

The 'Not reading it as its in The Mail and neither should you' lot are worse than the actual article itself.

Put a sock in it will you. Its the same comment on every single sports article posted on here from The Mail Online.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

He could easily have written "underfunded" or "clubs on low budgets", which is really what he means, instead he chose the word small, knowing it was in direct reference to Sheffield United. He's a journalist, his living is words and he knew what he was doing. It's the usual dig from a bitter little man.
Anyone who is defending labelling Sheffield United as "small" is actually the one who needs to give his head a wobble. When you are on holiday and you mention to someone that you support the Blades - and they look at you a little puzzled - do you then say, "it's a small English club"?

 

[Revolution]

He could easily have written "underfunded" or "clubs on low budgets", which is really what he means, instead he chose the word small, knowing it was in direct reference to Sheffield United. He's a journalist, his living is words and he knew what he was doing. It's the usual dig from a bitter little man.
Anyone who is defending labelling Sheffield United as "small" is actually the one who needs to give his head a wobble. When you are on holiday and you mention to someone that you support the Blades - and they look at you a little puzzled - do you then say, "it's a small English club"?

The fact they look at you a little puzzled proves we are no longer a big club.

What you then say (I do) is that we are below the PL, which very few people outside the UK have ever heard of.

 

[BushBlade]

Martin Samuel has called us a small club. So fucking what?

 

[mattbianco1]

I'm sure someone posted a link to that a couple of days ago but their thought process was along the lines of "I don't often agree with him but..."