hypochondriac

Exactly. To call something positive "lucky" means you have to refer to everything negative that happened as "unlucky" which is nonsensical. You could just as easily say we were unlucky against Everton otherwise we would have stayed up comfortably.

I think if you did a poll of what position people would like to strengthen most it would be up front so I think it's clear that that's where we need to sort first of all.

Odd that you would think luck played any part in that at all. Hughes improved our points per game ratio and it was enough to keep us up. He did a good job and I'm glad he was appointed and he should now be given a chance to see what he can do. There's thus far been zero indication that we would actually do worse this season than the abysmal performances last year and the fact you think we will actually do worse can only really be based on your harsh opinion of Hughes rather than anything he has actually done whilst here.

I don't think luck had anything to do with it. He improved our performances to a point that we were able to survive relegation. He wasn't lucky, he was competent.

I think that's the consensus. Even if he's not good enough to be a starter, he's certainly good enough to be part of the squad.

Apart from save us from relegation. What specifically should he have done differently to answer your criticisms? Kept us up by more points?

Something you certainly would not have predicted when he was appointed so maybe you are wrong in this case too?

Of course people do, I was referring specifically to the poster in question rather than a general thing about people changing their opinions.

He was incredibly anti Hughes before he came in so he's hardly likely to change his position now. I can't see why we would be more likely to go down this season than last season considering that Hughes is a miles better manager than Pellegrino.

Yes but TBF you really didn't want us to employ him in the first place and he was great and saved us from relegation last season.

I doubt he would do worse than what I saw last season. I'd give him a run of games and see what he can do.

Agreed. I really can't understand why people are saying he has shown he isn't good enough. Almost every time I've seen him play he's looked exciting and shown that he very much is good enough.

Tbf hojbjerg seemed very intelligent and said all the right things but it meant diddly squat on the pitch.

You haven't been here long have you buddy.

The club didn't want to admit their mistake so rather than sack him, they spent the most in our history on a failure.

It's all monopoly money as far as we are concerned. Whether he is on 70k or 100k it's an obscene waste and whoever gave him the new contract needs firing.

I think it's more "we can reach you from anywhere. If you betray us then you will never be safe." seens pretty strong to me and no doubt will make potential double agents strongly consider not going ahead. Or maybe they did mean to kill them and didn't do a good job. Either way the fact that most sane people realise it has Russian fingerprints all over it means that their message got out which was surely the whole point.

Not much of a detterant? Not sure about you but if I were thinking about it it would put me right off.

Because the point wasn't to kill him, it was deter others from pulling the double agent stuff.

I doubt he gives the shiniest of sh*tes

Neptune rising combined with real debrid has worked for me for about six months now.

Lol.

But he was completely correct...

You should put the blog on from that excellent writer who does it.

I'd rather have him than long. Sell long and keep gabbi and Austin and add one other striker like wellbeck. More than enough games this season to gove Gallagher a good go out of that lot.