Neil Warnock

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

PeteBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
9,396
Location
Sheffield
Ex Sheffield United Manager Neil Warnock will not be taking over Sheffield United as some on here have said they would like to happen, as he's taken over at QPR (again).


I think this is relevant enough to post on this forum o_O
 



Only a temp job for him though.

He will need to get back to his tractor again soon.
 
Well that's about a week after he came in to help out. Obviously with no hint of a nod and a wink from the owner. Or was his first report to the board "it's all wrong, all wrong, tha needs to get me back in there or we're doomed I tell you, doomed"
 
I wish we had the Warnock spirit in the team that's for sure.

But due to his behaviour half way through 2005 over his contract and the twattish way he conducted himself after his departure, I wouldn't have him back.

I'd have him back every day of the week. All great managers have a bit of a nasty side to them. I don't want Mahatma Gandhi in charge, I want someone with a bit of chutzpah.
 
I think he's mellowed. Is the hunger still there for him?
Without the passion or desire he'd not be the same.
 
So Chris Ramsey hasn't lasted until Christmas then? Oh my God, I can't believe it. That was never likely to happen.

That's two black managers sacked in two days.

Better prepare for a shitstorm.

Jason Roberts, John Barnes, it's your time to shine. Come on lads, let's be avin yer...
 
Let's hope he doesn't come to BDTBL to try and pinch some of our rubb... er mega stars.
 
Still got the respect for him but really do we need another change of manger? Surely we need to stick with NA, he has a proven record and is only five minutes into the job.
 
I think we need to debate if Warnock could have got Southampton promoted in 2011.
I'm in the 'no' camp myself.
 
Still got the respect for him but really do we need another change of manger? Surely we need to stick with NA, he has a proven record and is only five minutes into the job.

that 5 mins is actually 26 games which is probably about a third of the time that Clough had in total and we seem to be going in the wrong direction.
 
Clearly stick with Nigel as he needs time to build a whole new squad. But no issue with celebrating one of our best ever managers.
 
that 5 mins is actually 26 games which is probably about a third of the time that Clough had in total and we seem to be going in the wrong direction.
How do you work that out? Unless you're counting friendlies?
 



How do you work that out? Unless you're counting friendlies?

I worked it out by counting them :)

Yes Im including pre-season, they still give him time to asses the squad which he didn't really do very well
 
Bloody hell, to suit an agenda we're counting pre season friendlies?
 
Bloody hell, to suit an agenda we're counting pre season friendlies?

so why shouldnt they count?

but if you want to be pedantic lets just say hes had just over a quarter of the games Clough had, same result, we're going backwards and hes had enough games to be make his mark on the team
 
so why shouldnt they count?

but if you want to be pedantic lets just say hes had just over a quarter of the games Clough had, same result, we're going backwards and hes had enough games to be make his mark on the team
Well, that's your opinion but I disagree. Although I'm actually now past caring.
 
so why shouldnt they count?

but if you want to be pedantic lets just say hes had just over a quarter of the games Clough had, same result, we're going backwards and hes had enough games to be make his mark on the team

We haven't gone backwards.
He's been able to recruit 5 players into a squad of 26.
3 of which are loaners.
And it's certainly not pendantic to talk about the absurdity of including pre season friendlies.
 
Well, that's your opinion but I disagree. Although I'm actually now past caring.

what do you disagree with, that we're going backwards or that hes not had long enough? If not long enough then how long is long enough
 
We haven't gone backwards.
He's been able to recruit 5 players into a squad of 26.
3 of which are loaners.
And it's certainly not pendantic to talk about the absurdity of including pre season friendlies.

yes it is when Im talking about the length of time hes had with the squad, Id agree if I was counting wins or losses in them but hes had a full preseason with the team to asses it and make changes, something Clough didnt have at first, 5 players, thats almost half a team
 
Bloody hell, to suit an agenda we're counting pre season friendlies?

so why shouldnt they count?

but if you want to be pedantic lets just say hes had just over a quarter of the games Clough had, same result, we're going backwards and hes had enough games to be make his mark on the team

Actually if we want to be pedantic, Clough had 104 games and Adkins has had 20 games. So Adkins has had just under 1/5th of the games.

Unless for complete accuracy you want to count Clough’s pre-season friendlies as well in which case it’s probably still about 1/5th of the games.
 
what do you disagree with, that we're going backwards or that hes not had long enough? If not long enough then how long is long enough
I've already said I don't care. I think it should be two years. That's my opinion. Yours differs. We're not going to agree on this if we debate it until now and when NA gets the sack. So I'm not wasting any more time on it.
 
yes it is when Im talking about the length of time hes had with the squad, Id agree if I was counting wins or losses in them but hes had a full preseason with the team to asses it and make changes, something Clough didnt have at first, 5 players, thats almost half a team

*Almost* half a match day 11, should they all start, which they don't.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom