Our turnover of playing staff since our last promotion must be the highest.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keane was lucky to have the money to spend he did, but he inherited a depleated squad where good players weren't willing to join. We were on our arses when Keane arrived and were looked upon as a joke due to the 15 and 19 point seasons. There was more than just performances on the field to turn around.


Erm prices are more inflated now. However prices at that time were more inflated than they were for many of the following seasons.


He started to do it and then messed it up. Unbelievable you suggest his base should have been stronger, yet ignore that Bruce spent money adding to it and by the end he barely had a base. Bruce was lucky to both have money and have a decent sized squad in there to wheel and deal with.

Oh and as for Cana, he was that good that by the end of the season Bruce had replaced him with a Keane signing David Meyler.



Of course you judge the season, but there was a marked difference between the first half and the second, which continued on into the next season just as it did with Reid in 2001. It would be foolish to ignore that when the writing is on the wall.



More perilous positions? I don't think we have unless you're going back to 1987. McCarthy might not have had money to spend but he had the end of one season and a squad of almost 60 players to lose the best from and still have a squad that cost about £20m to build. Keane was announced after five defeats and appeared at the WBA game, which gave some belief and a change in mood. I love it how you're trying to include the WBA as a reason to say how things weren't so bad, when infact the change in mind and belief came totally after the annoncement he was taking over and the fact he was at the game almost certainly had an effect. We were heading only one way before he arrived, with some terrible pre season signings after losing everyone of value.




Bruce had started the excuses and backtracking before months before he left, it probably heightened the feelings of dislike towards him.
Money talks and Keane had it. Providing that's there players will sign regardless of how we may have appeared.
I don't think they are more inflated now it's just relative to how prices of everything will increase over a period of time.
His base should have been stronger. He had a handful of decent enough premier league players to choose from out of an expensively assembled squad which he added some good players too.
Cana got crocked around January and never looked the same. Up until that point he'd been excellent.
To sack Bruce after finishing tenth would've been very harsh. He'd earned the right to rebuild with the money he generated. Hindsight a wonderful thing.
The situation Reid walked into was far and away more perilous man. We had flirted with the third tier just about every season in the 90s until he turned up. Poor crowds, no money I think the fans had just about give up. Promotion under him was a complete bolt out of the blue. We had never looked so far away from top flight football apart from mcmenemys two years.
So Keane sitting in the stands was enough to inspire an insipid bunch into action was it? Come on perry you know your stretching it a bit there mind. To say we were heading one way is again purely used to suit your agenda. We had played 5 games yet when Keane left in the November a few year later you said it was too early to judge how it would turn out. Trying to have your cake and eat it again mind perry.
Bruce talked of his signings needing time to gel which is the standard line managers use when bringing a few in in order to try and buy time. Nothing will alter my stance that the fans turned so vociferously against him because of his heritage and record against the mags coupled with them unexpectedly flying. Don't get me wrong there would certainly have been mutterings whoever it was but it wouldn't have been quite as severe.

He knows fuck all mate
No opposition fans to have a roll about with today like general? :lol:
 


Keane kept us up despite his inexperience in management shining through.

Despite those mistakes, Keane began the longest ever premier league run in the clubs history and the longest post war top flight run we've ever had.

50 years worth of managers couldn't do that. Despite sometimes flirting near relegation, we have not looked back since or experienced the same humiliating relegations we were having.

We're a premier league club, a team of shite buys and an inexperienced manager achieved that. Well done.

When you think about it that's really pathetic really.
 
When have I ever knocked bardsley,Richardson or jones? Malbranque 7m for a 5 a side player I question mind. The ultimate flatter to deceive player. And regardless of Gordon being unlucky with injury he was never a 9m keeper in a million years.
Bent and Gyan were offered more money than we were prepared to offer that's hardly Bruce's fault mind. What was his fault was paying 8m for whickham.
Westwood,Angeleri,Da Silva and Riveros cost us about 2m tops in fees. His only major outlay that has been a waste was Gardner. Whickham is still a bit of a work in progress.
Even if Bent cost is 16.5m and went for 18.5m it's a 2m profit plus a boatload of goals.
Will Wickham cease to be a work in progress when you can spell his name?
 
If you really think that we 'turned against' Bruce because of where he was born and not because of the year of dire football he served up at the SoL, then your posts are not worth reading.
And for that reason, I'm out.
 
Kenwyne Jones= made profit
Etuhu= made a profit
Mcshane= waste
Anderson= waste
Chopra= waste
Stokes= waste
Higginbotham= broke even
Gordon= injury, not keanes fault
Bardsley= 7 years worth of service
Richardson= 6 years worth of service, £2.5 million sale
Evans= great loan deal
Cisse= good loan deal
Tainio= waste
Malbranque= outstanding signing
Diouf= waste
Chimbonda= waste

How is Keanes record any worse than let's say, Steve Bruce's?

Ferdinand, McCartney, prica, healy. The list is endless

Keanes is by far the worst. Find it incredible that people excuse it by saying it had to be done in order to stay up! Utter nonsense. He had unprecedented amounts of money to spend and relegation shouldn't even have been an issue given his budget.
We stayed up on the last day of the season he walked out (18th when he left) then Bruce has to sort out the
mess he left and for the first couple of seasons seemed on the right track. His record in market was pretty good but 2011 was his annus horribilis and that finished him off .
Keane did a good job in getting us up
although not even nearly the miracle people would have you believe. A miracle was Reid taking us up in 95/96 after flirting with the third tier for the early part of that decade. Keane took over a club with a lovely stadium and state of art training facilities that had for the majority of that decade been in the top flight. Yes the situation wasn't ideal but we'd have been around 10 points off top of league when he took over and was given a good budget to take us up.

One thing with Keane. He give us our pride back
 
Money talks and Keane had it. Providing that's there players will sign regardless of how we may have appeared.

As I've said before, some will, some wont touch us, which I've said before. we weren't paying crazy high wages, just decent ones and to get reasonable players we were probably having to pay over the odds.

and Bruce had money too, barring a couple of players he didn't add much quality either.

I don't think they are more inflated now it's just relative to how prices of everything will increase over a period of time.

You what? Prices for the market we're in have gone up about 40% from last season alone due to the massive increase of the new TV deal. Have you missed the last month?

His base should have been stronger. He had a handful of decent enough premier league players to choose from out of an expensively assembled squad which he added some good players too.

Maybe it should have been stronger, but Keane had to spend initially to get players in to get us out of the Championship. He then had to spend again when we got up . Anyone who thinks he could have signed Premiership players in the Championship or that he could have simply added quality straight away is deluding themselves, because he certainly tried to. Some of the players had and were already being moved on at that point too, it's not as if when Bruce came in the squad had £80m of Keane signings in it.

Cana got crocked around January and never looked the same. Up until that point he'd been excellent.

Certainly wasn't 'excellent'. Had a decent start, but he wasn't actually that mobile despite getting stuck in and being a reasonable player. His form seemed to deteriorate when Cattermole got injured.
To sack Bruce after finishing tenth would've been very harsh. He'd earned the right to rebuild with the money he generated. Hindsight a wonderful thing.
The situation Reid walked into was far and away more perilous man. We had flirted with the third tier just about every season in the 90s until he turned up. Poor crowds, no money I think the fans had just about give up. Promotion under him was a complete bolt out of the blue. We had never looked so far away from top flight football apart from mcmenemys two years.

Where did I suggest sacking Bruce when he finished tenth? I simply said he never recovered from the bad period that season and it continued into the next.

Lets get this straight you go on and on and on about Keane's side dropping into the bottom three in November with easy games coming up and it's the worst situation out of the three examples you gave of Keane, Bruce and MoN leaving, simply because we're in the bottom three. Yet the situation when Reid arrived, when we're sliding, have less games, but not in the bottom three is worse than when Keane was announced when we were rock bottom after five games?

As for having no money when Reid turned up, we'd just spent 500k on Angell on deadline day and bought Agnew and Martin Scott, also taking Matteo on loan. Then the next season Reid went out and spent a few quid bringing in 5 or 6 players. Sure we had less money, but it wasn't like you make out at the time.

I think you underestimate the situation massively, we could barely sign anyone even though we had money. Our signings ranged from Clive Clarke, Darren Ward, Tobias Hysen (just in), Robbie Elliott, Kenny Cunningham ffs. We barely had a squad capable of playing at that level. Crowds had dropped, we had the the two lowest points tallys ever in the top flight in the last two seasons and then we start with five defeats on the spin? Even when Keane came in it took a while to instill some belief and there were players playing for us at that time who looked conference level.

So Keane sitting in the stands was enough to inspire an insipid bunch into action was it? Come on perry you know your stretching it a bit there mind. To say we were heading one way is again purely used to suit your agenda. We had played 5 games yet when Keane left in the November a few year later you said it was too early to judge how it would turn out. Trying to have your cake and eat it again mind perry.

It gave the whole place a lift yes, it inspired the players. I don't think there's a reasonable Sunderland alive who would say it didn't. You suggesting that is purely used to suit your agenda against Keane.

I never at all said it was too early to judge Keane, I actually said he'd lost the plot. What are you rambling on about? :D

Bruce talked of his signings needing time to gel which is the standard line managers use when bringing a few in in order to try and buy time. Nothing will alter my stance that the fans turned so vociferously against him because of his heritage and record against the mags coupled with them unexpectedly flying. Don't get me wrong there would certainly have been mutterings whoever it was but it wouldn't have been quite as severe. :lol:

I think Bruce got off leniently tbf over that 9 month period, we were shocking for the most part of it.
 
As I've said before, some will, some wont touch us, which I've said before. we weren't paying crazy high wages, just decent ones and to get reasonable players we were probably having to pay over the odds.

and Bruce had money too, barring a couple of players he didn't add much quality either.



You what? Prices for the market we're in have gone up about 40% from last season alone due to the massive increase of the new TV deal. Have you missed the last month?



Maybe it should have been stronger, but Keane had to spend initially to get players in to get us out of the Championship. He then had to spend again when we got up . Anyone who thinks he could have signed Premiership players in the Championship or that he could have simply added quality straight away is deluding themselves, because he certainly tried to. Some of the players had and were already being moved on at that point too, it's not as if when Bruce came in the squad had £80m of Keane signings in it.



Certainly wasn't 'excellent'. Had a decent start, but he wasn't actually that mobile despite getting stuck in and being a reasonable player. His form seemed to deteriorate when Cattermole got injured.


Where did I suggest sacking Bruce when he finished tenth? I simply said he never recovered from the bad period that season and it continued into the next.

Lets get this straight you go on and on and on about Keane's side dropping into the bottom three in November with easy games coming up and it's the worst situation out of the three examples you gave of Keane, Bruce and MoN leaving, simply because we're in the bottom three. Yet the situation when Reid arrived, when we're sliding, have less games, but not in the bottom three is worse than when Keane was announced when we were rock bottom after five games?

As for having no money when Reid turned up, we'd just spent 500k on Angell on deadline day and bought Agnew and Martin Scott, also taking Matteo on loan. Then the next season Reid went out and spent a few quid bringing in 5 or 6 players. Sure we had less money, but it wasn't like you make out at the time.

I think you underestimate the situation massively, we could barely sign anyone even though we had money. Our signings ranged from Clive Clarke, Darren Ward, Tobias Hysen (just in), Robbie Elliott, Kenny Cunningham ffs. We barely had a squad capable of playing at that level. Crowds had dropped, we had the the two lowest points tallys ever in the top flight in the last two seasons and then we start with five defeats on the spin? Even when Keane came in it took a while to instill some belief and there were players playing for us at that time who looked conference level.



It gave the whole place a lift yes, it inspired the players. I don't think there's a reasonable Sunderland alive who would say it didn't. You suggesting that is purely used to suit your agenda against Keane.

I never at all said it was too early to judge Keane, I actually said he'd lost the plot. What are you rambling on about? :D



I think Bruce got off leniently tbf over that 9 month period, we were shocking for the most part of it.
Bruce did have money and made mistakes too. Just not as many as Keane. We had more money than any side at the bottom end and didn't use it properly.
The market prices are relative for the time though. A player worth around 6m then prob around 10m now. It is around 7 year since Keane was splashing cash.
I'm pleased you've finally accepted that the squad should've been better. It's took a while ;). Also when did I say he could sign Prem players in championship? He had good money by championship standard then good money by newly promoted club standards the following season.
Cana was excellent in my opinion first half of season. Liverpool game in particular was as good a performance as I've seen in red and white.
You are the one using the situations of the three managers to suit your argument perry. Check through posts to see how I've pointed this out.
The Reid situation was one that had been going on for the whole of the 90s man. It was horrendous. As a fan I've never felt so far away from the top flight. To save us from relegation to the third tier one season then get us promoted the next was pretty much a miracle. Keane took over a side yo yoing between the top flight and second tier with a good championship budget. He done a great job in getting us up but to try and paint it as a grimmer situation than the one Reid faced is ridiculous.
Brett angel 600k, Scott I believe around 750k and Agnew 250k. Neither signed by Reid and as for Matteo that was a complete embarrassment. We even lost at Barnsley just to compound matters!
Reids side that went up was mainly.
Chamberlain
Kubicki
Scott
Ord
Melville
Agnew
Bracewell
Ball
M Gray
P Gray
C Russell
The only player out of that side Reid bought was Bracewell. The rest had all been part of the relegation threatened sides of previous years. He brought in David Kelly and Gareth Hall as well as Terry Cooke and Shay Given on loan later in season. Perry there isn't even a comparison to be made mind.
The Keane appointment gave us a lift but that game also showed the side wasn't as bad as the first 5 games showed.
You have constantly looked to make excuses for Keane by claiming that it was only November and we had a nice run of games coming up whilst ignoring until I pointed it out that the Bruce situation was almost identical . You then claimed that Sbragia should have had us safe by April yet the side he took over was 3rd bottom thanks to Roy Keane. It came across as if Keane with his nice run of fixtures and fact we'd beat Mags 5 weeks earlier would have achieved that.
We were that shocking in those 9 Months that we never touched the bottom three. It wasn't good and he had to go but to listen to some fans you'd think we were heading towards another 15 point season under him.
 
Bruce did have money and made mistakes too. Just not as many as Keane. We had more money than any side at the bottom end and didn't use it properly.
The market prices are relative for the time though. A player worth around 6m then prob around 10m now. It is around 7 year since Keane was splashing cash.

There was a high period when Keane took over a lot of (supposedly) new money coming in with new owners allover the place and transfer fees for a couple of seasons till the bank crash in 2008 or so were artificially high. There was a lot of spending going on Villa, West Ham, City, ourselves and the usual suspects. That pushed prices up whether you like it or not.

I'm pleased you've finally accepted that the squad should've been better. It's took a while ;).

I think you'll find I've said it from the start, but I can see how it went the way it did as players simply wouldn't sign for us. It ended up paying over the odds to get players in, who long term weren't good enough rather than stand still.

Also when did I say he could sign Prem players in championship? He had good money by championship standard then good money by newly promoted club standards the following season.

Didn't say you did. Merely pointing out that several teams had to be built to get us up and stay up and thus spending was done in both areas.

You are the one using the situations of the three managers to suit your argument perry. Check through posts to see how I've pointed this out.

Nope. You asked previously how I thought the situation when Keane left was rescuable, but we were on the way down with the two others (which I hadn't actually said). What I did say was that it looked to be easier to rescue as the rot hadn't set in over a long time period it was just a dodgy patch and the manager was imploding, whereas with Bruce and O'neill the rot set in over a period of time.


The Reid situation was one that had been going on for the whole of the 90s man. It was horrendous. As a fan I've never felt so far away from the top flight. To save us from relegation to the third tier one season then get us promoted the next was pretty much a miracle. Keane took over a side yo yoing between the top flight and second tier with a good championship budget. He done a great job in getting us up but to try and paint it as a grimmer situation than the one Reid faced is ridiculous.
Brett angel 600k, Scott I believe around 750k and Agnew 250k. Neither signed by Reid and as for Matteo that was a complete embarrassment. We even lost at Barnsley just to compound matters!

Different time, different age. Reid came in 95, we'd been in the top flight in 91 and a cup final in 92. We spent several seasons pissing about granted, but until the season and a half before Reid came it wasn't as depressing and as dismal as you're making out.

And I know who signed who, I merely pointed out that they came in just before, so we had spent a decent amount (relative to the time). The preseason before we spent next to nowt though.

Reids side that went up was mainly.
Chamberlain
Kubicki
Scott
Ord
Melville
Agnew
Bracewell
Ball
M Gray
P Gray
C Russell
The only player out of that side Reid bought was Bracewell. The rest had all been part of the relegation threatened sides of previous years. He brought in David Kelly and Gareth Hall as well as Terry Cooke and Shay Given on loan later in season. Perry there isn't even a comparison to be made mind.
The Keane appointment gave us a lift but that game also showed the side wasn't as bad as the first 5 games showed.

Why has this been made into a what Peter Reid done thread? You're changing the course of it completely when I never argued Reid had less money, did a less impressive job etc. I was simply talking about how low an ebb we had reached and just after the 15 point season was as depressing as anything I've seen since relegation to the third teir after the play offs.

Expectations were so low when Reid came that the disappointments of fighting relegation at the bottom of the Championship weren't exactly expected, but it was nothing new. 13 or so years on, new facilities, new money, new fans, more expectation and relegation from the top flight for the second time in two seasons, with the two lower points tallys ever and then having hopes raised with Drumavilles arrival, to then get shafted on every player and manager we went after and have to have Quinn as a caretaker manager, then signing players like Kenny Cuninningham and Robbie Elliott and being bottom, that was beating somebody when they were on the floor taking their last breaths. You suggesting it wasn't on a par may be true in the sense the club had moved on, but it was a far more periless situation

And actually I think you'll find Paul Stewart played quite a few games too, initially on loan, then permanent. John Mullin had been brought in too, as had David Kelly for 900k and Lee Howey played a bit as well.

You have constantly looked to make excuses for Keane by claiming that it was only November and we had a nice run of games coming up whilst ignoring until I pointed it out that the Bruce situation was almost identical . You then claimed that Sbragia should have had us safe by April yet the side he took over was 3rd bottom thanks to Roy Keane. It came across as if Keane with his nice run of fixtures and fact we'd beat Mags 5 weeks earlier would have achieved that.
We were that shocking in those 9 Months that we never touched the bottom three. It wasn't good and he had to go but to listen to some fans you'd think we were heading towards another 15 point season under him.

Again I haven't 'constantly made excuses for Keane saying it was only November'. I said it was only November in respect of the players we had and the upcoming games and how far out of his depth Keane was looking, that it should have been easily rectified should someone remotely competent have taken over, especially with the upcoming fixtures to get us back on track. I never ever ever hinted that Keane would have achieved that, what on earth are you rambling on about?? I've always said he'd lost it by then and said so in this thread several times.

The difference with Bruce's sacking was that it had been something sliding that way for nine months and he'd put an unbalanced squad together which had mustered one home win all season. And 'lol' to the we were never in the bottom three under Bruce. It seems you don't like taking parts of the season in isolation when it doesnt suit you, but when you can include something like that it's all well and good.

Oh and under Bruce we had 11 points by the 26th of November when he was sacked 13 games in.

Under Keane we had 12 points by the 29th November 14 games in.

The difference in where we found ourselves when both managers left is marginal, just out of the relegation zone under Bruce, just in it with Keane. How you can criticise Keane in that instance and lay off Bruce Ive no idea.
 
Last edited:
Keane was lucky to have the money to spend he did, but he inherited a depleated squad where good players weren't willing to join. We were on our arses when Keane arrived and were looked upon as a joke due to the 15 and 19 point seasons. There was more than just performances on the field to turn around.


Erm prices are more inflated now. However prices at that time were more inflated than they were for many of the following seasons.


He started to do it and then messed it up. Unbelievable you suggest his base should have been stronger, yet ignore that Bruce spent money adding to it and by the end he barely had a base. Bruce was lucky to both have money and have a decent sized squad in there to wheel and deal with.

Oh and as for Cana, he was that good that by the end of the season Bruce had replaced him with a Keane signing David Meyler.



Of course you judge the season, but there was a marked difference between the first half and the second, which continued on into the next season just as it did with Reid in 2001. It would be foolish to ignore that when the writing is on the wall.



More perilous positions? I don't think we have unless you're going back to 1987. McCarthy might not have had money to spend but he had the end of one season and a squad of almost 60 players to lose the best from and still have a squad that cost about £20m to build. Keane was announced after five defeats and appeared at the WBA game, which gave some belief and a change in mood. I love it how you're trying to include the WBA as a reason to say how things weren't so bad, when infact the change in mind and belief came totally after the annoncement he was taking over and the fact he was at the game almost certainly had an effect. We were heading only one way before he arrived, with some terrible pre season signings after losing everyone of value.




Bruce had started the excuses and backtracking before months before he left, it probably heightened the feelings of dislike towards him.
nailed on

Bruce out
 
Keane clearly wasn't that good a judge of a player once we got promoted, but I'd be far more inclined to blame Quinn and Walton for the ridiculous spending in the summer of 2007. Pretty sure I remember reading that Short had to fund the spending for the transfers in the summer of 2008 due to the Drumaville lot already being skint by that point.

Despite his many flaws, Keane is the only manager we've had since Reid who I have any time for.
 
Keane clearly wasn't that good a judge of a player once we got promoted, but I'd be far more inclined to blame Quinn and Walton for the ridiculous spending in the summer of 2007. Pretty sure I remember reading that Short had to fund the spending for the transfers in the summer of 2008 due to the Drumaville lot already being skint by that point.

Despite his many flaws, Keane is the only manager we've had since Reid who I have any time for.

Think desperation to push on and lack of experience from both the manager and the people in charge played a part. We went after some big players and some decent up and coming ones, but we couldn't get just about any of them. Although we had money to spend, we didn't have enough to really make good players make the move. We ended up buying players hungry, mostly British and with things to prove first season up and it kept us up, though we overspent doing so.

Second season up, again we couldn't get the quality in we needed, so ended up buying players who had done ok but not brilliantly for over inflated fees and took chances on several players with question marks over them. The latter is where it completely fell apart as Keane clearly couldn't handle the characters.
 
Keane kept us up despite his inexperience in management shining through.

Despite those mistakes, Keane began the longest ever premier league run in the clubs history and the longest post war top flight run we've ever had.

50 years worth of managers couldn't do that. Despite sometimes flirting near relegation, we have not looked back since or experienced the same humiliating relegations we were having.

We're a premier league club, a team of shite buys and an inexperienced manager achieved that. Well done.


We have struggled far too much for my liking, it's a good job the Premier League is pretty shit or we could've easily gone in the last two seasons.
Until we step up and mix things up in the last third that will always be the case.
 
Kenwyne Jones= made profit
Etuhu= made a profit
Mcshane= waste
Anderson= waste
Chopra= waste
Stokes= waste
Higginbotham= broke even
Gordon= injury, not keanes fault
Bardsley= 7 years worth of service
Richardson= 6 years worth of service, £2.5 million sale
Evans= great loan deal
Cisse= good loan deal
Tainio= waste
Malbranque= outstanding signing
Diouf= waste
Chimbonda= waste

How is Keanes record any worse than let's say, Steve Bruce's?

I thought we managed to get our money back in the next window?
 
Name someone other than Mig who Bruce signed who gave value for money, didn't fuck off straight away and had a resale value. Most of the shit you aim towards Keane can be used with Bruce too, Bruce spent around £30m in each of his three seasons, where's the quality?

That's an incredibly harsh set of criteria that mind, Perry. The nature of the club we support means that anyone who has a resale value will be sold. I've supported SAFC since the late 70s, and barring a few of Reid's signings between 1997-99, I'd struggle to name any manager who signed more than one player who gave decent service and had a reasonable resale value. Gabbiadini, Goodman, Mignolet as you say. Now I'm struggling. That's 35 years worth.
 
There was a high period when Keane took over a lot of (supposedly) new money coming in with new owners allover the place and transfer fees for a couple of seasons till the bank crash in 2008 or so were artificially high. There was a lot of spending going on Villa, West Ham, City, ourselves and the usual suspects. That pushed prices up whether you like it or not.



I think you'll find I've said it from the start, but I can see how it went the way it did as players simply wouldn't sign for us. It ended up paying over the odds to get players in, who long term weren't good enough rather than stand still.



Didn't say you did. Merely pointing out that several teams had to be built to get us up and stay up and thus spending was done in both areas.



Nope. You asked previously how I thought the situation when Keane left was rescuable, but we were on the way down with the two others (which I hadn't actually said). What I did say was that it looked to be easier to rescue as the rot hadn't set in over a long time period it was just a dodgy patch and the manager was imploding, whereas with Bruce and O'neill the rot set in over a period of time.




Different time, different age. Reid came in 95, we'd been in the top flight in 91 and a cup final in 92. We spent several seasons pissing about granted, but until the season and a half before Reid came it wasn't as depressing and as dismal as you're making out.

And I know who signed who, I merely pointed out that they came in just before, so we had spent a decent amount (relative to the time). The preseason before we spent next to nowt though.



Why has this been made into a what Peter Reid done thread? You're changing the course of it completely when I never argued Reid had less money, did a less impressive job etc. I was simply talking about how low an ebb we had reached and just after the 15 point season was as depressing as anything I've seen since relegation to the third teir after the play offs.

Expectations were so low when Reid came that the disappointments of fighting relegation at the bottom of the Championship weren't exactly expected, but it was nothing new. 13 or so years on, new facilities, new money, new fans, more expectation and relegation from the top flight for the second time in two seasons, with the two lower points tallys ever and then having hopes raised with Drumavilles arrival, to then get shafted on every player and manager we went after and have to have Quinn as a caretaker manager, then signing players like Kenny Cuninningham and Robbie Elliott and being bottom, that was beating somebody when they were on the floor taking their last breaths. You suggesting it wasn't on a par may be true in the sense the club had moved on, but it was a far more periless situation

And actually I think you'll find Paul Stewart played quite a few games too, initially on loan, then permanent. John Mullin had been brought in too, as had David Kelly for 900k and Lee Howey played a bit as well.



Again I haven't 'constantly made excuses for Keane saying it was only November'. I said it was only November in respect of the players we had and the upcoming games and how far out of his depth Keane was looking, that it should have been easily rectified should someone remotely competent have taken over, especially with the upcoming fixtures to get us back on track. I never ever ever hinted that Keane would have achieved that, what on earth are you rambling on about?? I've always said he'd lost it by then and said so in this thread several times.

The difference with Bruce's sacking was that it had been something sliding that way for nine months and he'd put an unbalanced squad together which had mustered one home win all season. And 'lol' to the we were never in the bottom three under Bruce. It seems you don't like taking parts of the season in isolation when it doesnt suit you, but when you can include something like that it's all well and good.

Oh and under Bruce we had 11 points by the 26th of November when he was sacked 13 games in.

Under Keane we had 12 points by the 29th November 14 games in.

The difference in where we found ourselves when both managers left is marginal, just out of the relegation zone under Bruce, just in it with Keane. How you can criticise Keane in that instance and lay off Bruce Ive no idea.
Prices were high but whether you like it or not Antin Ferdinand never was or never will be a 8m player. George McCartney was never a 6m player. There's nothing relative at all regarding fees paid for them and a few others.
So your advocating basically throwing big money at players just for the sake of even though you aren't convinced by them? That is a ludicrous policy. It's hardly surprising we found ourselves in a pickle with that scattergun approach.
Well given oneil came in and achieved safety with relative ease I would say that the situation Bruce left wasn't quite as dire as you've tried to make out. That squad stayed up with ease in comparison to squad Keanr left and that was with a man in charge who you have been very critical of.
We spent several seasons pissing about? That's an extremely blasé way of putting a 20th,21st,12th and again 20th (when Reid came in)league positions in the the old division one mind. A cup final did little to disguise the utter mess we were in. A tired old ground, Regular attendances of 13s and 14000s. We stayed up in 93 after losing our final game at Notts County due to other results going our way. Think that goes beyond just pissing around mind. Getting humped at home to teams like brentford and Southend, having to play at Grimsby in THEIR away kit due to some mix up with ours, bringing in Matteo on loan and playing him despite not being registered. It was a truly horrific time for our club. It was exactly as dismal and depressing as I'm making out Perry.
I've mentioned Reid due to you claiming that Keane was faced with our lowest Ebb since 87. Me bringing the situation Reid faced up is relevant to disagreeing with your assessment thus not changing the discussions course at all.
Expectation was low because the club was dying a slow painful death. People had began to stop caring as the attendances showed. To breath life back into that with the resources available was nothing short of a miracle. Having two dismal seasons of top flight football is still a lot better than 4 seasons of dismal second tier stuff. Don't get me wrong without Keane it could well have headed the way of the early 90s who knows but he had a chance to halt the slide before it became fatal and he did that and some.
Paul Stewart played 2 games tops and one of them he lasted half an hour at Ipswich and his loan ended. He didn't sign permenant until the summer. Mullin was a kid who cost about 50k who I can't even remember playing that season to be honest. Peter Reid didn't sign Howey. Kelly was his only real cash signing.
To say anybody reasonably competent would have kept a side up who were 18th when they took over is bizarre mind. I fail to see how you can so confidently say that. We weren't a particularly good side.
We were never in the bottom 3 under Bruce in 2 and a half seasons! How is that taking periods in isolation? How much longer a period can I take it over? Just pointing out a fact.
As for the last paragraph what on earth are you rambling on about? At what point have I excused Bruce? I have repeatedly stated it was the right decision to sack him and that he has to take his share of responsibility for the struggles since. What we have established in this discussion though is a more rounded view of the facts in regards to positions we were when both Bruce and Keane left. The similarities are spooky yet one manager gets away Scott free while the other is a pariah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top