Bolton 0-3 Middlesbrough

I'm not sticking up for Pratley as such but who else was there to pick for a centre midfield role?

The West Ham lad was dropped - probably quite rightly too because it would be unfair to expect him to take Boro on in the centre of the park by himself at his age and experience - Vela is injured and the rest are right wingers.

We can't even use our own youngsters because of the embargo.

So I think it was probably Hobson's Choice that Pratley HAD to play.

(Great signing by Coyle though - with the foresight to keep other clubs hands off him by tying him to us with a massive wage and a five year contact - thank you Owen, brilliant business).

I also can't really find fault with Parkinson either because his interview today -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...basically said he was halfway through signing players when the EFL changed the goalposts, which meant the intended midfield defensive players (and other positions) were left the wrong side of a wage cup imposed upon us - which the ST and Iles took great glee in telling us about at the time!

So we were/are knackered.

Hopefully Anderson can work his magic and get the ban lifted and we can get in a few unattached players - or we suffer now until the next transfer window.

Chins up though, we were always going to lose to Boro, so keep the faith chaps.

Ken Anderson will pull a rabbit out the hat before long - just you wait and see!

Sluffy wrote:

Ken Anderson will pull a rabbit out the hat before long - just you wait and see!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Two minutes of match highlights here -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not good.

Iview may not get much of a rap being that they redefine the meaning of "useless" but I'd like to personally thank them for NOT streaming this game and so saving me from the misery of having to actually watch this train wreck of a match

Really hard to be positive at this point, we are were we deserve to be, it was men v boys today, Traore  performance was both strong and skillful one of the best i have seen from an opposing side since the prem days. 3 defenders pushed aside for the first goal and a superb cross the guy oused confidence.

Every game we look like we have no athletes on the park, Derik got his chance and failed to take it (again) the guy is no better (or worse) than the rest but he is not the answer. He lacks presence for that position. The only positive ? we would all take 4th from bottom we are still in touch.

Can we stay in touch lets see how we fair on Tuesday, if we go behind then we loose can't see many goals coming our way, however Madine struck two great shots to be met with equally good saves.

jono wrote:Iview may not get much of a rap being that they redefine the meaning of "useless" but I'd like to personally thank them for NOT streaming this game and so saving me from the misery of having to actually watch this train wreck of a match

I'm very surprised that this game wasn't streamed in Aus as it was on a good few channels around the world yesterday.

Looks like they had more sense than most!

I was able to watch it on some bogus stream.....

The difference was they had the two strikers that had power and skill. Gaz had a couple of good shots but otherwise is pretty much statuesque.  Nowt we can do about it with our current state of affairs.
I thought the young lad at left back showed some promise and Noone wasn't bad for his first game.

We could easily break the record for least amount of points earned at this rate.

We have a complete lack of pace in our team and everything is played in front of the opposition. Don't think once this season we have played a through ball that has created a goalscoring opportunity.

DEANO82 wrote:We have a complete lack of pace in our team and everything is played in front of the opposition. Don't think once this season we have played a through ball that has created a goalscoring opportunity.

Agreed. I actually thought Craig Noone looked OK yesterday, it's just he's not nearly fast enough to make a noticeable difference to this team.

Noone looked ok but again we change the team around to incorporate him, Morais on the left didn't work and Noone is actually left footed!

Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Cheung Yeung Lee showing the creativity we sadly lack when he set up that Burnley 1st goal.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Wonder if Ken will be quick to fix the embargo situation as that's always been a good crutch to lean on when questions are raised about his lack of investment

Kane57 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Wonder if Ken will be quick to fix the embargo situation as that's always been a good crutch to lean on when questions are raised about his lack of investment

I think it was more to do with him putting money into to the club when Holdsworth wasn't - that held his investment back.


Think of it this way - a bloke and his wife are going to split up and own a house,  He works and is paying all the bills, she doesn't and isn't contributing financially.
 
The house is a bit run down and needs doing up - that's why they bought it for a cheaper price - both were able to fund the purchase in full by paying half each.
 
The bloke has savings at the bank - the wife doesn't.
 
He pays all the running costs - gas, electricity, council tax, etc.
 
Why would the bloke take his savings out the bank and put it all in to repair the house right now - when he knows it will increase the value of the house but he is only going to get half of the house when they split?  Surely it is better for the bloke to wait until the divorce is finalised and then put his savings in to doing the house up - so he gets the benefit of all his investment and not losing half of it to the wife who put nothing into it other than the initial deposit?
 
If the wife got the money from say a pay day lender as a personal loan and didn't tell the bloke, is it his responsibility to pay off her debt he never knew she had?
 
 
OK I've massively oversimplified and for those who are PC the two people who bought the house together could be lesbian, gay or transgender (or the wife had the money and the bloke had non) - but hopefully you see what I'm getting at - namely why put money into something when there's a substantial risk that you may lose half of it in the near future?
 
Surely it is better to keep your money in the bank until things are sorted rather than let the wife (or QQ) reap the benefit of it?
 
That's what I suspect Mr Anderson has been doing.

Well we'll soon see.

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Wonder if Ken will be quick to fix the embargo situation as that's always been a good crutch to lean on when questions are raised about his lack of investment

I think it was more to do with him putting money into to the club when Holdsworth wasn't - that held his investment back.


Think of it this way - a bloke and his wife are going to split up and own a house,  He works and is paying all the bills, she doesn't and isn't contributing financially.
 
The house is a bit run down and needs doing up - that's why they bought it for a cheaper price - both were able to fund the purchase in full by paying half each.
 
The bloke has savings at the bank - the wife doesn't.
 
He pays all the running costs - gas, electricity, council tax, etc.
 
Why would the bloke take his savings out the bank and put it all in to repair the house right now - when he knows it will increase the value of the house but he is only going to get half of the house when they split?  Surely it is better for the bloke to wait until the divorce is finalised and then put his savings in to doing the house up - so he gets the benefit of all his investment and not losing half of it to the wife who put nothing into it other than the initial deposit?
 
If the wife got the money from say a pay day lender as a personal loan and didn't tell the bloke, is it his responsibility to pay off her debt he never knew she had?
 
 
OK I've massively oversimplified and for those who are PC the two people who bought the house together could be lesbian, gay or transgender (or the wife had the money and the bloke had non) - but hopefully you see what I'm getting at - namely why put money into something when there's a substantial risk that you may lose half of it in the near future?
 
Surely it is better to keep your money in the bank until things are sorted rather than let the wife (or QQ) reap the benefit of it?
 
That's what I suspect Mr Anderson has been doing.

Or...

Two blokes decide to open a business together (let's call them Dean and Ken) but Ken has £5 grand extra to put in so as the main investor gets to make all the decisions i.e. 55% of the investment buys you 100% control of the decisions
It's all going well until one day Ken says he's decided that they are going to buy a company car. Dean says he has no more money to put towards a company car so we shouldn't get one and Ken tells him tough shit - we're getting one whether you like it or not and if you don't contribute I'm going to take your shares sucker. And every decision I take will make damn sure I eventually get all your shares in the business. 
Because the biggest mistake in business you are involved in is to let any person have a majority shareholding as from that moment on they own your ass.

Norpig wrote:Another depressing afternoon at the Macron , can't believe Parky stills picks Pratley, it's like playing with 10 men. He spends all his time either chasing shadows or trying to wrestle someone to the ground and giving away free kick after free kick,

Pratley was once a decent box to box midfielder with a big engine who tried and failed to fill the shoes of Muamba and Holden etc, but sadly his engine has done over 300K miles, the parts are worn and the oil needs changing.
Things are made worse by the absence of other midfield athletes because it's impossible to close everything down on your own - and that's why he gives so many fouls away - a combination of trying to compensate for the work rate of others and sheer frustration.
Without Vela and someone else who can cover the ground, he's on a hiding to nothing and dropping him is just as likely to make it worse as better.
Bottom line is we have a lightweight midfield that lacks the power, pace and skill to compete.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Wonder if Ken will be quick to fix the embargo situation as that's always been a good crutch to lean on when questions are raised about his lack of investment

I think it was more to do with him putting money into to the club when Holdsworth wasn't - that held his investment back.


Think of it this way - a bloke and his wife are going to split up and own a house,  He works and is paying all the bills, she doesn't and isn't contributing financially.
 
The house is a bit run down and needs doing up - that's why they bought it for a cheaper price - both were able to fund the purchase in full by paying half each.
 
The bloke has savings at the bank - the wife doesn't.
 
He pays all the running costs - gas, electricity, council tax, etc.
 
Why would the bloke take his savings out the bank and put it all in to repair the house right now - when he knows it will increase the value of the house but he is only going to get half of the house when they split?  Surely it is better for the bloke to wait until the divorce is finalised and then put his savings in to doing the house up - so he gets the benefit of all his investment and not losing half of it to the wife who put nothing into it other than the initial deposit?
 
If the wife got the money from say a pay day lender as a personal loan and didn't tell the bloke, is it his responsibility to pay off her debt he never knew she had?
 
 
OK I've massively oversimplified and for those who are PC the two people who bought the house together could be lesbian, gay or transgender (or the wife had the money and the bloke had non) - but hopefully you see what I'm getting at - namely why put money into something when there's a substantial risk that you may lose half of it in the near future?
 
Surely it is better to keep your money in the bank until things are sorted rather than let the wife (or QQ) reap the benefit of it?
 
That's what I suspect Mr Anderson has been doing.

Or...

Two blokes decide to open a business together (let's call them Dean and Ken) but Ken has £5 grand extra to put in so as the main investor gets to make all the decisions i.e. 55% of the investment buys you 100% control of the decisions
It's all going well until one day Ken says he's decided that they are going to buy a company car. Dean says he has no more money to put towards a company car so we shouldn't get one and Ken tells him tough shit - we're getting one whether you like it or not and if you don't contribute I'm going to take your shares sucker. And every decision I take will make damn sure I eventually get all your shares in the business. 
Because the biggest mistake in business you are involved in is to let any person have a majority shareholding as from that moment on they own your ass.

You don't half talk some bollocks!

It was only a week or so ago that you were banging on that Anderson had gone out his way to fuck the club up by STOPPING anyone trying to get a MINORITY stake in the club.

wanderlust wrote:
In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest.

One moment you are clamouring for minority shareholding investment - the next telling us how STUPID anyone would be for even considering to do such a thing!  That Anderson FEARS others having a minority ownership - to Anderson SHITS ON minority shareholders!!!

Make your fecking mind up!

You're a joke mate.

Getting a bit tired of this vendetta against wanderlust. He's a bellend no doubt, but he's our bellend.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Kane57 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Noone was just a ridiculous signing, made even worse by the fact Parky moved our best player (Morais) out of position to accommodate him.

Clueless manager, but as he can always point the finger of blame at the finances he's in a win-win situation.

Wonder if Ken will be quick to fix the embargo situation as that's always been a good crutch to lean on when questions are raised about his lack of investment

I think it was more to do with him putting money into to the club when Holdsworth wasn't - that held his investment back.


Think of it this way - a bloke and his wife are going to split up and own a house,  He works and is paying all the bills, she doesn't and isn't contributing financially.
 
The house is a bit run down and needs doing up - that's why they bought it for a cheaper price - both were able to fund the purchase in full by paying half each.
 
The bloke has savings at the bank - the wife doesn't.
 
He pays all the running costs - gas, electricity, council tax, etc.
 
Why would the bloke take his savings out the bank and put it all in to repair the house right now - when he knows it will increase the value of the house but he is only going to get half of the house when they split?  Surely it is better for the bloke to wait until the divorce is finalised and then put his savings in to doing the house up - so he gets the benefit of all his investment and not losing half of it to the wife who put nothing into it other than the initial deposit?
 
If the wife got the money from say a pay day lender as a personal loan and didn't tell the bloke, is it his responsibility to pay off her debt he never knew she had?
 
 
OK I've massively oversimplified and for those who are PC the two people who bought the house together could be lesbian, gay or transgender (or the wife had the money and the bloke had non) - but hopefully you see what I'm getting at - namely why put money into something when there's a substantial risk that you may lose half of it in the near future?
 
Surely it is better to keep your money in the bank until things are sorted rather than let the wife (or QQ) reap the benefit of it?
 
That's what I suspect Mr Anderson has been doing.

Or...

Two blokes decide to open a business together (let's call them Dean and Ken) but Ken has £5 grand extra to put in so as the main investor gets to make all the decisions i.e. 55% of the investment buys you 100% control of the decisions
It's all going well until one day Ken says he's decided that they are going to buy a company car. Dean says he has no more money to put towards a company car so we shouldn't get one and Ken tells him tough shit - we're getting one whether you like it or not and if you don't contribute I'm going to take your shares sucker. And every decision I take will make damn sure I eventually get all your shares in the business. 
Because the biggest mistake in business you are involved in is to let any person have a majority shareholding as from that moment on they own your ass.

You don't half talk some bollocks!

It was only a week or so ago that you were banging on that Anderson had gone out his way to fuck the club up by STOPPING anyone trying to get a MINORITY stake in the club.

wanderlust wrote:
In essence, it looks like KA has pawned the club in order to get control, rather than let anyone else take an interest.

One moment you are clamouring for minority shareholding investment - the next telling us how STUPID anyone would be for even considering to do such a thing!  That Anderson FEARS others having a minority ownership - to Anderson SHITS ON minority shareholders!!!

Make your fecking mind up!

You're a joke mate.

You clearly have no grasp of logic. 

Maybe you just enjoy posting your come face emoji?