youlots

gee...took you an hour to come back with that dirge. so you don't cavil with the figures & dissemble instead. Football is a business. What those figures tell us is that over the period in question we won the double for very little outlay. But now - and rather than retract your nonsense you want to turn it around vis a vis Wenger. You disingenuous creep. the point is that one can only get blood out of a stone for so long - once you stop spending/refreshing & combined with age & poor form, there's only one outcome. Or didn't you get that far in school?

oh...now KKB and his other 'friends' have left....tut tut

still waiting.....

well come on KKB - you've been staring at my post for a good 10 minutes now - what say you & the rest of the trailer trash that seem to like your posts?

The bilge on this site just gets worse day by day....and usually from one the newbies: the above is a good example of that bilge. Leaving aside for one moment, the first paragraph (to which I'll return) we have the statement that Mourinho was one of the highest spending managers since his return which is course rather inaccurate on two fronts: first, it presupposes that Mourinho had unfettered control over transfers at the club which is, course, complete nonsense; secondly, the club, whilst Mourinho had tenure, was one of the lowest nett spenders compared to our main rivals during that tenure. Let's have a look at those nett spends for various clubs during that period shall we? Club 13/14 NettSp. 14/15 NettSp. 15/16 NettSp. Period Total NettSp. City -104.3 - 64.1 -136.3 -304.7 Utd - 76.1 -145.7 - 38.4 -260.2 Arse - 36.2 - 91.1 - 26.8 -154.1 Chels - 52.9 + 8.5 - 3.1 - 47.5 Pool - 22.9 - 52.4 - 29.5 -104.8 Everton + 14.3 - 38.2 - 36.8 - 60.7 Leicester N/A - 22.9 - 40.7 - 63.6 Newcastle + 22 - 21.4 -102.9 -102.3 Soton - 35.4 + 35.8 - 2.9 - 2.5 Albion - 4.3 - 22.6 - 30 - 56.9 Spam - 23.4 - 30.7 - 29.1 - 83.2 Spuds + 14 + 0.8 +16.5 + 31.3 Palace - 32.4 - 28.3 - 21.4 - 82.1 So...in consequence, the club was one of the lowest in nett spend terms during the period. The figures don't lie. As to your reference to Wenger...well, that's looking a bit silly isn't? Over that period the club had a nett spend of one third of Arsenal. Wonder what those neutral non-biased fans would say to that? Still laughing their pants off are they? Care to retract your idiotic statements now?

so which sponsors have we lost this season & for how much?

this is a thread about Mourinho & his rather large legacy at this club- if you don't wish to participate then....don't. But don't have the temerity to tell posters that they should stop posting about that legacy & whether they be yayites or nayites concerning same. I mean what next? Should the mods delete the vintage section because the past 'is gone'? The answer is of course not. So behave.

yep.

righto...dunno about the masterpiece tag but it is very, very good & one hell of a ride: especially if you appreciate how much work & absolute dedication tarantino put into every little bit of it. Thanks Hitchens he's making pictures (70 mm no less) for all of us to see & think about. And the ensemble cast - all uniformly excellent.

I wouldn't bother coxy - didn't have the decency to apologise to jezz or for his sociopathic post & rejoinder for that matter & so he's hardly going to have the balls to join issue with what you stated in any meaningful fashion: he's trailer trash.

dear oh dear. I guess Fergie never lost it with anyone either or Clough for that matter. Look - the owner admitted to the players that he hadn't wanted to dispense with Mourinho - what can we infer from that: first, the squad was no longer the full chop & your all now playing for your futures. Hiddink said as much the other day - that there needed to be a major overhaul of this squad. It's not rocket science. And to say that Mourinho sans 'rampage' could have got us 4th - are you a comedian? With this squad. hehe

Well....no....in fact it's your sh*t post in response to Jezz's post that is annoying. As Jezz has rightly pointed out, he didn't state that 'Mourinho [was] almost assured of success' at all - that was another poster entirely. So all prepositional invention on your part was it not? And from such invention you then attempt to establish a false dichotomy in an attempt to criticise Jezz and, by extension, Mourinho. Tell us fella, what part of Jezz's central tenet did you not understand? He makes the point that the EPL is a tougher competition to win & have sustained success at the top than it was a decade ago. Surely that's not open to debate is it? Or do you think that it is easier to win it now with the likes of City, Arse & Spuds ( & Leicester) joining in what was traditionally back then a comp between us & Manure? To posit as you do that Mourinho may be 'immune to the evolution of the game' is myopic rubbish. In many ways Mourinho was a revolutionary when he hit english shores in terms of his methods & match-day preparation & we benefited big time: but now everyone else has, during that decade, caught up in that regard. And so it makes it that much harder not only for us now but for everyone else. Accordingly, and with this squad, the landing of the double last year was a greater achievement than any of our previous titles/doubles delivered over the last decade. That is likewise unarguable. Our 04/05/06 squad & the 09/10/11 squad were much stronger than the present/last year's squad. And so, given the greater competition in the league & a lesser squad, the double was something to be savoured and not forgotten in a hurry because I doubt that we'll taste the double again for some years. I hope I'm wrong in that regard but I doubt it. An apology to Jezz is required.

well...what else you got then?

More malarky from you: so...let's see...you want to further support your original heresy by resort to the official club statement: deary me - you're young (at least I hope so!) - if you can't work it out then there's no hope. But hey, align yourself in some attempt at comfort with a wooden cliched corporate board statement. Oh & by the way: I do have a relationship with a few punters at the club but I guess you know better. You're a lightweight jcl - we all know it as do you.

You're in the dirge camp too albeit that I'll say this - Les Epsilon is a much better poster than you: in fact I'd say that you're even stevens for the most consistently irrelevant & dumb poster on this board.

Crikey Les Epsilon it'd take you 3 hours to watch 60 minutes & even then your understanding would be patchy at best. You made a statement that Jose was not sacked because of results. It is an indefensible statement: the best you can come up in an attempt to support your statement was speculation that he could have been sacked at any time before he was sacked! But the fact was that he wasn't was he! So not only was your original statement ludicrous, you not only don't even have the grace & honesty to recant, but then you resort to unintelligible fictions to support the original heresy. To further opine as you do that I have in some imagined way 'contradicted' myself is completely disingenuous. Jose was sacked because of our results & our position in the table: pure & simple. The owner didn't want to do it & the reason he didn't want to do it is because he knew that both he & the board had rested on their laurels over summer concerning refreshing the squad & because he knew that many of the 1st team squad were under-performing or, not good enough anymore - so he took it upon himself to tell the 1st team squad that he did not want to sack Jose in order that the players could infer that they were now playing for their futures. Now I know that it may be supremely difficult for someone of your level of intelligence to understand but understand it you must - even if I have to spell it out to you expressly. In consequence of the above, your further statement concerning the gross spend over '3' years is not only inaccurate - Jose only being back here for 2.5 years only - but is of little relevance. Moreover, even when we look at the nett spend for that 2.5 years (which is what one looks at in any event) we find that of the nett 70 million odd spent approximately 52 million was nett spent in 13/14, there was a 4 million nett gain in 14/15 and about 28 million nett spent in summer 15/16: ie a pittance when viewed against the likes of City, United & Arse. So what is you point? As usual with you there doesn't seem to be one. If any point can be made it must be that over the last 3 transfer windows we have rested on our laurels & did not support the thenn manager. So, somewhat paradoxically, your initial 'gross' spend statement has undermined your opinion. The same goes for your referencing Jose's severance pay: what on earth has that got to do with anything exactly? The fact is that it doesn't & nor does it in any way support your original statement that Jose was sacked for other reasons apart from results: again, if anything, should it have been the case that such a severance amount was high, it would have been yet another disincentive for the owner & the board to sack him. However, and in any event, Jose refused any severance monies whatsoever so what in fact is your point?!? Again - there isn't one - it's just more dirge from you but hey, at least you're consistent - with the dirge that is. You then have a go at me in respect to my grammar - from you of all posters!!! Have a look at your last sentence of your post sunshine. Well apart from the odd spelling mistake of mine here is the news: my grammar was ok. And in respect to the number of posters who have had it with you: do you want me to exhaustively list them for you? Chippy was one of many. Be gone.

What complete bollocks - if we'd been in the top 4 or close to it in December do you honestly think that the owner would have dispatched Jose?!? What a completely ludicrous statement. As for the rest of your dribble 'that he was asking for (to be sacked)' - more crap from you - especially given the fact that the owner is on record as stating that he didn't want to sack him. And you morph into gross spend (instead of nett spend - which by the way is a third of City's during the same period - ie. 70 million) which is irrelevant. Then you bring up more crap like severance pay - tell us, how much was the severance money in total paid to Jose? The fact is, you don't know do you? Then you have the temerity to equate this termination with the circumstances of the last termination and, for good measure, throw in a quote that is completely divorced from its context as to when Jose said it. You're not the full quid are you - clearly you never were as your previous untold 'mistakes' in you posts attest. Moreover, it's insulting to have to be presented with your posts on this site & let me tell you - you're one of the prime reasons why the likes of Chippy & other longterm posters have left this site because they simply haven't got the patience anymore to have to wade through such dirge from the likes of you.

Total speculation on your part is not. Therefore, totally sterile as a post. What's more, it's completely arrogant.

Agree with your 1st para Soc & have said so numerous times on here over the last few months. I agree with your further thoughts as well.

Good post. If the 'reality' of the squad not being good enough has only just hit the owner then that is indeed depressing. I'd like to think that that is not the case though & that he already knew that; otherwise why would he say to the team as he did that he had not wanted to get rid of Jose? I bet all of us wished we could have been provided with a transcript of the board's discussions prior to the dispatch of Jose so as to see which 'individuals' wanted him gone but, more importantly, what was aired concerning the abilities of the 1st team squad.

hmmmm.....so a bit of a reality check for a few on here that wanted Jose gone or, if not, belatedly agreed to his dispatch. I like Guus and am glad that after making such an abysmal decision of sacking Jose that the Board was able to get him & that he was available at short notice to take the reins albeit, and as he said, even he didn't know what he was doing here. Since he's taken over results have been somewhat more helpful to our predicament but let's face facts: the opposition we've played in those games has been ordinary & the Palace result, albeit heartening, was against a side that were w/out there two top playmakers who were injured & it is not in doubt that they were extremely lame in shutting down our midfield - they gave us oodles of space & time on the ball - so much so that even Mikel looked great. Other teams coming up such as the toffees & Arse will not be nearly as forgiving in that regard.

Surely you don't have to 'wonder' about this do you? Sounded to me during the latter stages of the game given what was being sung by a fair few of our match going supporters that they had no doubts.

Vale Bowie - a terrible shock for many of us who grew up listening to him: such an icon. An important & oddly underrated musician who was never afraid to experiment & to herald other musicians from all genres. Here's what he was listening to on his ipod in 2010 (c/- The Guardian): I've chosen the songs that I've been playing the most over the last month. Here they are in no particular order. Stay with Me by Lorraine Ellison Ellison only got to record this goose bump-making classic because of a Sinatra cancellation at the studio. The vocal build and release on this track is galvanising. Writer Jerry Ragovoy also wrote "Time Is On My Side". El Ninõ – For with God No Thing Shall Be Impossible by John Adams; Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, Willard White, Dawn Upshaw, Lorraine Hunt Lieberson, conducted by Kent Nagano Just over a minute long and propulsive like a storm. I want to crush furniture. The emotional in search of the divine. Junker's Blues by Champion Jack Dupree Simple, beautiful New Orleans piano. This 1941 song was the blueprint for Fats Domino's 1949 hit "The Fat Man" and probably played a part in the making of Professor Longhair's "Tipitina". Nixon in China: Act I, Scene 1; 'Soldiers of Heaven Hold the Sky' by John Adams; Orchestra of St Luke's, Edo de Waart Adams's minimalism disguises the rich romanticism of his melodies. Ever ascending, rising through the clouds. Embroidering Pouch by Peng Liyuan Hugely huge in China. Peng holds the rank of major general in the People's Liberation Army. I have a thing about Chinese folk music, OK? All These Deserters by Boxharp Mystical country. An eerie yellowing photograph. Wood Beez (Pray Like Aretha Franklin) by Scritti Politti Who could dislike this glistening 1984 beauty? The upside of the 80s. Dinner at Eight by Rufus Wainwright There aren't that many son/father songs but this is the best of them as far as I know. Rufus is just simply one of the great writers. Different Trains I: America-Before the War by Steve Reich; Kronos Quartet One of the late 20th century's most affecting works. I love the use of speech as a source for melody. But it's so much more than a concept, it's also impossibly moving. Blue Skies by Josephine Baker I'm not a big Baker fan but there's something about this performance that touches me. I think it's the break in her voice among all this gaiety and optimism. Gathering Storm by Godspeed You! Black Emperor GYBE are among my, erm, two favourite Montreal bands, Arcade Fire being the other. All Montreal bands have around nine members, I believe. Sonny's Lettah (Anti-Sus Poem) by Linton Kwesi Johnson The great Kwesi Johnson at his saddest. This forceful slice of narrative is part of the continuing evolvement from griot through the Last Poets to Mos Def. Get Around to It by Arthur Russell Quite strange but atmospheric. The late Arthur Russell was supplying all the background effects on his electric cello. Sénégal Fast-Food by Amadou & Mariam Let's dance. Saw this on Africa Channel or maybe Link last year and play it at least once a week. What time is it in Paradise indeed? Jesus' Blood Never Failed Me Yet: Tramp with Orchestra by Gavin Bryars; Hampton String Quartet, Michael Riesman and Orchestra This will either drive you up the wall or you will produce some amazing drawings while listening to it. You could probably cook a fish to this as well.

I agree. He's a very interesting film-maker on so many levels: craft-wise he doesn't miss a beat in any of his films but I feel he can be over-purposive & guilty of affectation at times - ie. showy about his knowledge - to the detriment of the end product. Then again, one's stance on this really depends on what the viewer expects a 'film' to be. For example, in Jackie Brown he adopted a very conventional narrative style and because of this many viewers are more 'comfortable' with the film than with some of his others. In his didactic films where he adopts an unconventional narrative many viewers are uncomfortable: that probably says more about their affectations & expectations though. Of course one can critique his films on many levels but the thing is (and why I admire him greatly as a film-maker) is that he sets out & wants the viewer to 'think' about narrative in the first place: it's very brechtian really. And of course there are moments in all of his films which can be truly sublime on every level of film-making: eg. take Kill Bill 1 & 2 - now I can understand why certain viewers may object to these films as a whole (which I won't go into) but there are various scenes therein that are truly astounding - eg. the exquisite night garden fight scene between Thurman & Lui - that is monumentally great film-making on every level from the music, script, acting, camera, editing etc etc.

The crux of the matter: was she left with no alternative but to resign? I think that the answer to that is no. No doubt there was an assumption made by her legal team that due to all the publicity the club would settle early so as to put a stop to same. That has not occurred which is rather unfortunate for her. I feel that she has been badly advised all along. Perhaps the penny is now starting to drop for her. This will not end well for her.