The Huddersfield Way

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:39 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Instead our board made a brainfart decision in appointing League One Laws, and we surrendered meekly in vital games against Portsmouth, Wolves, Wigan, Blackburn, Bolton....

Was it a brainfart, as you put it, or the fact that no-one else wanted to manage a team that looked like it was only heading one way?

Boro got rid of Karanka and put Agnew in charge, remember.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:42 pm

It was a gigantic brainfart. Wednesday sacked him because he was clueless. We appointed him solely because he played for us a few times. He wouldn't have been on our radar other than that, because his management CV was dire.

I can name two people who wanted to manage us straight away - Curbishley and Villas-Boas.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:42 pm

joey13 wrote:They haven't got a debt

Do you need to go check your facts Joey ?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:47 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:We didn't have better players than Man Utd, Sunderland, Everton, Spurs etc.

Take those performances and replicate them against the teams down near us, we'd have slaughtered them.

First 3 of those all at the start of the season when you see lots of the promoted teams over performing.

Spurs result in a meaningless game when we were already down.

United and Everton games we should have been beaten in both - penalties and loads of chances missed in both games.

Again not sure of your point - we were miles off being good enough that year....just look at the players we had.....Jensen, Jordan, Carlisle and Caldwell compared to our recent keeper / defences !!!

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:49 pm

TVC15 wrote: Again not sure of your point - we were miles off being good enough that year....just look at the players we had.....Jensen, Jordan, Carlisle and Caldwell compared to our recent keeper / defences !!!

Whilst I don't disagree with the crux of your point, if you swap the Wigan and Man Utd home results for that season then we'd have stopped up - so not quite 'miles'.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:50 pm

TVC15 wrote:Again not sure of your point - we were miles off being good enough that year....just look at the players we had.....Jensen, Jordan, Carlisle and Caldwell compared to our recent keeper / defences !!!

Well it comes all the way back around to my original point.

People are saying that Huddersfield don't have a chance, that they'll be the whipping boys etc. They said exactly the same about us in 2009.

We were only 2 wins (or one 6-pointer) from staying up. with Jensen, Jordan, Carlisle and Caldwell in our team.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:51 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It was a gigantic brainfart. Wednesday sacked him because he was clueless. We appointed him solely because he played for us a few times. He wouldn't have been on our radar other than that, because his management CV was dire.

I can name two people who wanted to manage us straight away - Curbishley and Villas-Boas.

Would that be the same Curbishley who's not managed a club since 2008?

At the time Boas was an unknown in the boards defence, but feel free to beat them about it.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:54 pm

Brian Laws was an unknown to the Premier League too.

Unfortunately in his interview Villas-Boas used a load of English words our board didn't understand, and didn't get the job. Instead they gave it to the bloke who kicked a ball for us a few times 15+ years before.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:11 pm

Yes I'm sure there was a box that needed ticking.

Did applicant play for Burnley?

Yes

No

Please tick as applicable.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:16 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It was a gigantic brainfart. Wednesday sacked him because he was clueless. We appointed him solely because he played for us a few times. He wouldn't have been on our radar other than that, because his management CV was dire.

I can name two people who wanted to manage us straight away - Curbishley and Villas-Boas.

Love the theory Curbishley 'wanted' to manage us!!!!!

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:20 pm

Spent quite a bit on players without actually improving the team.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:32 pm

joey13 wrote:Decent players being signed early ,decent manger signing a new two contract, exactly the sort of thing we should be doing .

Best fishing trip in ages.

HarryPottsDesk · Post by **HarryPottsDesk** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:40 pm

Huffersfield are starting from a position where they finished fifth in the Championship having lost a third of their games and scored 56 goals, conceding 58 in the process. They scored 1 goal from open play in 4 hours of play-off games, and scraped through on penalties courtesy of saves made by an on-loan goalkeeper who has since returned to Liverpool. They had 5 first team regulars on loan, of whom only Mooy has so far been signed. They are in a very different position than ours.

HarryPottsDesk · Post by **HarryPottsDesk** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:41 pm

Huddersfield are starting from a position where they finished fifth in the Championship having lost a third of their games and scored 56 goals, conceding 58 in the process. They scored 1 goal from open play in 4 hours of play-off games, and scraped through on penalties courtesy of saves made by an on-loan goalkeeper who has since returned to Liverpool. They had 5 first team regulars on loan, of whom only Mooy has so far been signed. They are in a very different position than ours.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:17 pm

dsr wrote:If you think Wagner won't be linked with any other jobs for the next year because of his 2 year contract, you might be surprised.

Yes I know that , but you can get more compensation, thought that was obvious.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:21 pm

TVC15 wrote:Do you need to go check your facts Joey ?

No they haven't got a debt , got promoted with 3rd lowest budget in championship last season

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:22 pm

Not if he quits.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:22 pm

Walton wrote:Best fishing trip in ages.

Thanks

dpinsussex · Post by **dpinsussex** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:23 pm

claretdom wrote:The way it is sounding everyone is going to stay up this season except us

Same as last year then

Wait .... hang on a minute

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:24 pm

joey13 wrote:No they haven't got a debt , got promoted with 3rd lowest budget in championship last season

Budget and debt are different things.

This needs updating, but I'm sure you'll understand the debt line which shows £40 million in 2015...
There's been no reports since that it was cleared.

: wp_ss_20170630_0004.png (688.02 KiB) Viewed 4475 times

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:30 pm

joey13 wrote:No they haven't got a debt , got promoted with 3rd lowest budget in championship last season

Wow - are you really that dumb ?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:35 pm

http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/footbal ... s-13253048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huddersfield had a wage bill operating at 111% of income in the year we got promoted.

No debt though....

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:11 pm

Sidney1st wrote:http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/footbal ... s-13253048

Huddersfield had a wage bill operating at 111% of income in the year we got promoted.

No debt though....

They are not in debt

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:40 pm

joey13 wrote:They are not in debt

Go on then, why aren't they in debt?

Buxtonclaret · Post by **Buxtonclaret** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:05 pm

Udders were good to watch last season...going forward. They moved the ball quickly and we'll, from what I watched.
But against any pace, they were often found out at the back and, they got exposed a lot.
Can see them getting a few tonkings off the top sides in full flow.

Glad they've come up though.
Think they'll be entertaining.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:24 pm

double post.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:24 pm

joey13 wrote:They are not in debt

Their balance sheet as at June 2016 shows assets of £16m and liabilities of £48m. They're in debt.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... tcTaygU%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The accounts say that D Hoyle is the man they owe the money to, and that he will not only not demand repayment, he will also put further funds in as required. The auditors are entirely happy with this, to the extent that they don't even draw attention to it in their report.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:27 pm

So if the money isn't going to be asked for, effectively they're debt-free

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:31 pm

joey13 wrote:They are not in debt

Do you think if you keep on repeating "they are not in debt" it might come true ?

Embarrassing

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:36 pm

TVC15 wrote:Do you think if you keep on repeating "they are not in debt" it might come true ?

Embarrassing

I'll keep on repeating they not in debt because they are not in debt , can't believe how dumb some posters are .

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:40 pm

So what do you think £48m of liabilities means ?

Do you think liabilities are wine gums ?

And the fact that you can`t believe "how dumb some posters are" is a bit scary.....are you 11 years old ?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:49 pm

Walton wrote:So if the money isn't going to be asked for, effectively they're debt-free

No. As Bolton found out, and for that matter as Burnley and Blackburn found out, loans owed to even the most benevolent of creditors are still liabilities. Davies at Bolton asked for his money back; Flood at Burnley had financial difficulties and his creditors asked for the his money back; Walker at Blackburn died and his family asked for his money back. Huddersfield's debt is not a problem today. That doesn't guarantee it won't be a problem tomorrow.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:59 pm

joey13 wrote:I'll keep on repeating they not in debt because they are not in debt , can't believe how dumb some posters are .

This is becoming a little bit enbarrrassing now!

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:45 pm

dsr wrote:No. As Bolton found out, and for that matter as Burnley and Blackburn found out, loans owed to even the most benevolent of creditors are still liabilities. Davies at Bolton asked for his money back; Flood at Burnley had financial difficulties and his creditors asked for the his money back; Walker at Blackburn died and his family asked for his money back. Huddersfield's debt is not a problem today. That doesn't guarantee it won't be a problem tomorrow.

In our first premier season we re-payed most of our creditors, doesn't appear that Huddersfield are taking the same approach.Risky if they go back down with a heavy wage bill and not many sellable assets, The debt will always be hanging over them.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:02 am

They won't get out of the bottom two all season.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:02 am

ElectroClaret wrote:They won't get out of the bottom two all season.

With yourselves one place above them?

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:31 am

ElectroClaret wrote:They won't get out of the bottom two all season.

I'll take that as a friendly bet, with all proceeds going to charity?

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:32 am

dsr wrote:Their balance sheet as at June 2016 shows assets of £16m and liabilities of £48m. They're in debt.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... tcTaygU%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The accounts say that D Hoyle is the man they owe the money to, and that he will not only not demand repayment, he will also put further funds in as required. The auditors are entirely happy with this, to the extent that they don't even draw attention to it in their report.

dsr, please will you stop posting common sense and the facts on here, They are parts of a debate that are unwanted and do not belong on this thread/forum.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:03 pm

RocketLawnChair wrote:dsr, please will you stop posting common sense and the facts on here, They are parts of a debate that are unwanted and do not belong on this thread/forum.

Unbelievable

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:05 pm

MACCA wrote:I'll take that as a friendly bet, with all proceeds going to charity?

I'll join you.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:09 pm

They owe 48 million but they've got a minimum of 110 million coming in this season. I don't think they'll be losing any sleep about going under that's for sure.

The way some self righteous posters go on it's like 2009 and the transfer embargo for not paying our bills never happened.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:06 pm

FactualFrank wrote:I'll join you.

Think it's off...

Burnleyareback2 · Post by **Burnleyareback2** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:20 pm

joey13 wrote:Decent players being signed early ,decent manger signing a new two contract, exactly the sort of thing we should be doing .

One day people on here will appreciate the time we did it the Burnley way.

There was a time 9 years ago when we didn't even dream of ever being a premier league team; I'm looking forward to my 4th

UTC

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:30 am

Burnleyareback2 wrote:One day people on here will appreciate the time we did it the Burnley way.

There was a time 9 years ago when we didn't even dream of ever being a premier league team; I'm looking forward to my 4th

UTC

4th time is ok but if we were doing it the 'Huddersfield way' it would be our first and miles more exciting and just better.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:18 pm

Huddersfield just had bid accepted for Inter Milan defender, depends on player terms though , haven't got a name yet .

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:26 pm

How exciting.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:51 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:How exciting.

Exciting enough for you to comment, well done !

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:04 pm

I am genuinely excited about everything Huddersfield do from now on.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:10 pm

joey13 wrote:Huddersfield just had bid accepted for Inter Milan defender, depends on player terms though , haven't got a name yet .

Is his full name Massimo Geeta Di Fooke Chut Lumpio?

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:35 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Is his full name Massimo Geeta Di Fooke Chut Lumpio?

That's the one