Stoke in bottom 3 17:52 - Oct 21 with 3963 views | macclesfieldman | 😎😎😎😃😎😎😎😎😎 | |
| Wild horses couldn't drag me away... |
| | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:25 - Oct 21 with 3849 views | WestonsuperR | Love it! Will never forgive Hughes, a whole pre-season and almost a blank chequebook and he acehived one of the worst starts in Prem history. | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:26 - Oct 21 with 3838 views | ShotKneesHoop |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:25 - Oct 21 by WestonsuperR | Love it! Will never forgive Hughes, a whole pre-season and almost a blank chequebook and he acehived one of the worst starts in Prem history. |
Still not as bad as redknobb. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:29 - Oct 21 with 3841 views | PunteR | HAHA..Brilliant. That man deserves a relegation on his CV | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:30 - Oct 21 with 3837 views | queensparker | Stoke, West Ham and Everton going down would be nice | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:40 - Oct 21 with 3814 views | RangersDave | Meticulous! 😠| |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 21:32 - Oct 21 with 3704 views | SimonJames |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:30 - Oct 21 by queensparker | Stoke, West Ham and Everton going down would be nice |
Not Palarse or the scum? | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:15 - Oct 21 with 3642 views | dodge_stoke_r | Would be very happy for it to be just this way come May | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:25 - Oct 21 with 3616 views | Toast_R | I know it's easy to suggest in hindsight but the worst decision the board made was to sack Hughes. They should have stuck with him till the very end that season, the VVanker should have been made to go down with the ship. To give him a payoff was criminal. | | | | Login to get fewer ads
Stoke in bottom 3 on 04:42 - Oct 22 with 3500 views | bosh67 |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:25 - Oct 21 by Toast_R | I know it's easy to suggest in hindsight but the worst decision the board made was to sack Hughes. They should have stuck with him till the very end that season, the VVanker should have been made to go down with the ship. To give him a payoff was criminal. |
Agreed. Stoke mate of mine really can't stand him. Main problem is that he plays one way and once players lose confidence in that, that really is it. On reflection though he took advantage of our very naive board. Spend a fortune on a totally new team, many of whom have never played in the UK and who can't speak much english. Buy others that are just coming for a truck full of money. This in response to narrowly avoiding relegation the season before and saying, this will never happen again. Had he come out and said I really didn't get it right and I should have done a lot better, some would have forgiven him, but he never did and seemed to blame the club in the end. | |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:11 - Oct 22 with 3295 views | TGRRRSSS |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 21:32 - Oct 21 by SimonJames | Not Palarse or the scum? |
Any of those 5 would ne nice, but however much we dream it lets face it, can you honestly see Scum getting relegated in most of our lifetimes? As for Hughesless, was interviewed in The Times Sports yesterday, quite a piece about him and how he's into the club and it's community what nots, it's fair to say when it focused on the football it was a huge amount of whitewashing going on of his past, in terms of ourselves it wasn't mentioned once. I still don't think they will go down personally. | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:17 - Oct 22 with 3288 views | TGRRRSSS | ON Wiki Hughes managerial record from first job to yesterdays result.. Team From To Record Ref P W D L Win % Wales 3 August 1999 13 October 2004 41 12 15 14 29.3 [177][178] Blackburn Rovers 15 September 2004 4 June 2008 188 82 47 59 43.6 [179] Manchester City 4 June 2008 19 December 2009 77 36 16 25 46.8 [52][179] Fulham 29 July 2010 2 June 2011 43 14 16 13 32.6 [56][179] Queens Park Rangers 10 January 2012 23 November 2012 34 8 6 20 23.5 [179] Stoke City 30 May 2013 Present 186 68 45 73 36.6 [179] Total 569 220 145 204 38.7 | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 16:21 - Oct 22 with 3146 views | daveB |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 19:26 - Oct 21 by ShotKneesHoop | Still not as bad as redknobb. |
caused the club far more long term problems than Redknapp did, will take years to recover from what Hughes did from getting rid of QPR men from the coaching side to the terrible signings and massive contracts handed out in what was our own great chance to establish ourselves in the prem | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 16:30 - Oct 22 with 3141 views | Boston |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:11 - Oct 22 by TGRRRSSS | Any of those 5 would ne nice, but however much we dream it lets face it, can you honestly see Scum getting relegated in most of our lifetimes? As for Hughesless, was interviewed in The Times Sports yesterday, quite a piece about him and how he's into the club and it's community what nots, it's fair to say when it focused on the football it was a huge amount of whitewashing going on of his past, in terms of ourselves it wasn't mentioned once. I still don't think they will go down personally. |
When your only hope is to throw on a 35 year old beanpole substitute, you're going down. | |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 18:34 - Oct 22 with 3092 views | colinallcars | Out of the bottom three tonight. | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:40 - Oct 22 with 2975 views | TW_R |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:25 - Oct 21 by Toast_R | I know it's easy to suggest in hindsight but the worst decision the board made was to sack Hughes. They should have stuck with him till the very end that season, the VVanker should have been made to go down with the ship. To give him a payoff was criminal. |
No - the worst decision the board made was employing him in the first place. | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 09:56 - Oct 23 with 2821 views | qprphil | Please make a dream come true............................... | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:32 - Oct 23 with 2787 views | Toast_R |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:40 - Oct 22 by TW_R | No - the worst decision the board made was employing him in the first place. |
Probably right there, but on paper it was a sound appointment, he'd done well at Fulham and Blackburn but no doubt had to tow the line with their respective boards. However, all that nonsense about him interviewing QPR and the club matching his ambition etc, Fernandes and Beard should have walked away there and then the absolute fools. | | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:36 - Oct 23 with 2778 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 22:40 - Oct 22 by TW_R | No - the worst decision the board made was employing him in the first place. |
No the boards error was allowing themselves to be interviewed by Hughless Oooops, just a couple of minutes too slow there. [Post edited 23 Oct 2017 11:38]
| | | |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:57 - Oct 23 with 2758 views | Hooparoo |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:36 - Oct 23 by WrightUp5hit___ | No the boards error was allowing themselves to be interviewed by Hughless Oooops, just a couple of minutes too slow there. [Post edited 23 Oct 2017 11:38]
|
Surely the big warning bell was the disgusting arrogance he showed towards Fulham when he walked out. Tosser. | |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 11:00 - Oct 23 with 2751 views | paulparker | Stoke, Palace & west ham going down would make me cum oil for a fortnight | |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 13:19 - Oct 23 with 2671 views | toboboly |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 11:00 - Oct 23 by paulparker | Stoke, Palace & west ham going down would make me cum oil for a fortnight |
This. This. This. This. This. | |
| Sexy Asian dwarves wanted. |
| |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 13:30 - Oct 23 with 2653 views | TW_R |
Stoke in bottom 3 on 10:36 - Oct 23 by WrightUp5hit___ | No the boards error was allowing themselves to be interviewed by Hughless Oooops, just a couple of minutes too slow there. [Post edited 23 Oct 2017 11:38]
|
Not at all. You interview the candidates based on your perception of their credentials. The error wasn't the interview - the error was the appointment. | | | |
| |