Jump to content

littleyellowbirdie

Members
  • Content Count

    9,035
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

littleyellowbirdie last won the day on October 29 2023

littleyellowbirdie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,394 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

7,723 profile views
  1. Don't you ****ing say 'we were all'. You said it you pompous c*nt, after all your bellyaching over Farke while you had very little to say when I was actually making the case for Farke while he was still here. That's literally me arguing what you were saying while he was still here. Where the f*k were you then? That argument lost the day, so I moved on. So you can live with me continuing to tell you to move on you utter ****.
  2. LDC had the nerve to tell me to 'move on from Smith ' after fans treated him like sh1t precisely because of the stupid sulky attitude of people like LDC. And yet, here is the record of me making the argument at the time for hanging onto Farke when it could have made a difference, but **** all support for the position was shown, not even from his arch disciple LDC. But no, all the fans f*king loved Farke at the time he was sacked; it was all Webber. Absolute f*king horsesh1t.
  3. Here you go @lake district canary. This comment was addressed to all the deluded fans at the time who were loudly arguing that a change of manager was necessary if we had a chance to survive. Those are the people who influenced the board's decision. I didn't get my way over Farke either, but I still didn't **** and whine ad infinitum about his successor like it was his fault that Farke was sacked. @BroadstairsR should also take note. Move the f*k on.
  4. He was a spoon at a knife fight for the Premier League.His Championship record was worthless in the Premier League. His Premier League record was abysmal for us. And, if you insist on bringing up Smith once again, in spite of no Buendia, we still didn't do as abysmally the Premier League season when Smith took over, whereas we were on target to do even worse at the point Farke was sacked, even including the win. Farke 's record was sh1t in the Premier League, even accounting for the quality of players. That's the metric that matters in judging his sacking, not the great performances in the Championship. Like I said, only with hindsight knowing that we didn't survive can you say it was maybe a bad call, but on its own merits arguably he should have been sacked after the first failure so we could have moved on earlier and we wouldn't have been held back by the sickly sentiment towards the guy on account of such a nice guy having been with us for so long. I broadly agree about being phlegmatic about yoyoing, and that's why I spoke in favour of keeping Farke at the time, but the prevailing view had voices like mine and yours in the minority. Generally, I would say I would have been no less happy to just keep trying again with Farke on the offchance he sussed it out, that's they way I tend to approach things in general, but that view was drowned out so it must be recognised that the prevailing view was that we needed to try and survive. Webber did what a lot of fans wanted. Stop b1tching about it for crying out loud.
  5. If you wouldn't say there was much of a clamour then you're wrong. Have a dig through the forum to remind yourself properly. You can't simply dissociate fans opinions from the decision and then whine about 'disconnects' when decisions are made that aren't to the liking of the more vocally negative fans especially when it's only in hindsight as is the case with most of the complainants over Farke. Best of luck to him getting Leeds promoted and keeping them there, but even if he succeeds it's still meaningless, since his experiences since mean he has doubtless learned something since. Move on.
  6. It has to be said, once again, that many many fans were very itchy against Farke and wanted see him sacked at the time the decision was made. Were it not for the timing of the win after the decision had been made, I don't think there'd have been anything like as much fuss. Don't try and rewrite history to put it all on Webber in isolation. 2 points in 10 games as an encore to our lowest top-flight points tally in history was a thoroughly sackable record. If that sacking was unnecessary, then so is every managerial sacking in history. It was worth a throw of the dice at the time; only with hindsight can you criticise it.
  7. They were singing the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.
  8. I think Labour will benefit from the enthusiasm for removing the Conservatives at this point, but equally I think that's going to make Labour's job that much harder to maintain support when in office. Wouldn't be surprised if things were in hung parliament territory by the end of Labour's first term, unless Labour somehow inpire some enthusiams in office, which I can't imagine happening.
  9. If they talk **** about the art itself then that's one thing; if they start talking **** like "โ€œThe darker side of evoking this nationalist feeling is the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong,โ€ then they're stepping out of their lane and what's more, they are making the statement, not anyone else. That's a statement of a censor, not an art gallery. Personally, I don't agree that that implication exists at all in the first place. The gallery is out of line and should amend.
  10. I think anything counts as success if you finish it up with promotion.
  11. After their start to the season looking like contenders for automatic promotion, and given they still haven't beaten us in a derby in yonks, they'd be absolutely bricking it! Well, I think it'd be amazing. Stuff for the history books.
  12. We made the playoffs, met Ipswich in the playoff final, and beat them at Wembley? I think that would be quite nice. ๐Ÿ˜ˆ๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿ’›
  13. The Guardian piece definitely explains where the Fitz was coming from, and also points to how they've made such a mess of it. They've set themselves a mission of an inclusive revamp with more emphasis on modern pieces, but there's no getting around the fact that, before a certain point in time, the peak of diversity was Normans and Saxons. They've decided this is a problem where they have to say something to address it given the overall aim of the revamp.That is their stupid mistake. It goes without saying that society wasn't diverse or inclusive in the days of Constable, but the art's still there for anyone who wants to appreciate it; there was no need to create an issue, but the Fitz created one with an unnecessary and crasse commentary that pretty much condemns a large part of our cultural history as a political inconvenience.
×
×
  • Create New...