benjii

Like Pochettino and Koeman did 90% of the time...?

This is correct. I like the idea that we should implement "exciting football", as if this is a common phenomenon in the Premier League and some sort of glorious Saints tradition. The fact is that very few Premier League teams play more exciting football than us. Most of the teams below us play proper ****e football. What people really wish is that we'd scored a few more goals. Which is quite reasonable but something entirely different. The most exciting things about Koeman's teams were Mane and Pelle. Occasionally we had matches where everything clicked and we battered teams but goals breed goals and the problem this year has been not converting when on top and then conceding with the opposition's first attack. Plus missing penalties! The most unexciting football I have seen from Saints in a long time was the turgid long-ball crap served up by Koeman at times. There was nothing exciting about our 3-2 comeback win against Liverpool until Mane single-handedly undid them. We were terrible and lucky they weren't well out of sight at half time. There was nothing exciting about our 6-1 league cup defeat. There was nothing exciting about the two tactically inept performances against Midjetyland. There was nothing exciting about the embarrassing display away to Bournemouth. There was nothing exciting about the FA Cup beating by Palace or the narrow scraping through over two monotonous and poor performances against Ipswich in the previous round. I wasn't very excited when Sheff Utd knocked as out of the League Cup the year before. The fact is, the league was always going to be unexciting this season once it became evident we had nothing to play for - which was some time ago. The EFL cup run was very exciting. Goals are the problem. So, the real question is: do you want to finish 8th or 13th and score more goals. Well, ceteris paribus, that would mean conceding more as well. Either way neither 8th, nor 13th, is likely to be very exciting. Relegation battles are exciting. Winning things is exciting. Qualifying for Europe is exciting.

Cuco must pinch himself often!

What the **** is a "Jeremy Corbyn bag"? I think we have to question the mental well-being of anyone in possession of such a thing and it's a hot day so let's not give her a hard time. Let's put the kettle on and have a nice cuppa out of our Theresa the Leader mug.

I haven't seen a single person say the "on the other hand" element of your post. Who has been saying he's justified (other than other terrorists)?

He was what we needed at the time and, whatever you think of him, he delivered results despite the rough edges. Where we are now though, he would only be any use if he brought another "Markus" with him.

Utter ****.

I don't particularly. I would like to see a general erosion of all stupid religions.

It does look like we're stuck for now. It's just that most intelligent people see your "solution" for the block-headed idiocy that it is and have a bit more gumption about them. They see that becoming unstuck won't happen by running around persecuting vast swathes of the population.

The trust purchased shares in the new football club company with its donations. Each donation was £1,000 and each share was £1,000. The trust had enough donations to buy just over half the shares, I think. The President's bought the rest, again kn the basis of £1,000 per share (but they each own and benefit individually from their shares - there was no collective "Presidents" body). When more money was needed, Presidents subscribed to new shares, of the same class, meaning that the trust shareholding was diluted to under 50%. Eisner has agreed to give the trust and the Presidents £1k for each share. The trust will distribute this money back to the donees in accordance with their individual donations. There's also another offer from Eisner where instead of the £1k now, you get a smaller initial payment but potentially more in the long-run if the club achieves certain footballing targets.

I've told him this before. It's a bit complicated for him, I think.

Ah, the old "it's just a football forum", retreat.

Like I said before, a terrorist's wet-dream. That's what you are.

No, I don't think that's right. They are all the same category of shares so you can't be "under-represented" in terms of voting rights. The Trust may have been over-represented on the board though. Presumably the Presidents that voted "no" are ones who actually wanted to make a decent profit on their shares at some point.

Nelly. I love the way Chinese choose obsolete English names. Makes me chuckle.

So, expand on the solution?

I'm happy enough in my current job. If our competitor offered me three times my wage I would go.

He got them a good home "bounce" but they remained useless away from home and when the pressure was on in crunch games they were awful. Any decision would have to be based on his whole career, not just his time at Hull but I don't think his time at Hull makes him markedly more attractive than he would have been previously; maybe a little, for now knowing the league a bit, but that's about it.

The Pied sub made sense. He was brought on to hug the touch line and get crosses in. Obviously Jay Rod, Long or Sims would have potentially been better but none of those were available at the time. I loved the bloke behind me baying for Clasie or Hojbjerg to come on instead, like they are renowned for goals/assists.

Venables? Likes to attack, tactically astute, players love him, good interview bants, not foreign.

Very cynical but not beyond the realms of possibility!

It wasn't our only chance in the first half. Far from it.

You seem to be confusing "style" as a description of how we play and "style" as an abstract concept.

That is a fair point actually, although arguably more telling in defence than attack. I said before the match, "I bet they score a header".