Patrick Bamford on Tony Pulis

fmttmadmin said:
Over the times I met him at press conferences Pulis was thoroughly decent. He took an awful lot on the chin to keep the club afloat in tricky financial times.
Click to expand...

Where did this rumour start that Pulis kept the club financially afloat? He spend almost 20 million on Saville, Flint and Mcnair as well as big wages for Hugill, Besic, Van La Parra, Mikel on loan. All while being one of the highest paid managers in the clubs history.
 
I forgot Monk was still with Sheff Wed, they looked like they were about to sack him too.

Only Boro and Hull were in worse form than them, and they had a looming points deduction.
That deduction will almost 100% have been swept under the carpet with this pandemic, so I doubt they'll be relegated now, he may keep the job.
 
parmoboy said:
I actually think Monk failed Bamford more than Pulis. It was a ridiculous decision to go out and spend £31m on Britt, Braithwaite and Fletcher, when we already had Bamford at the club.

Bamford should have been our no 9 the first season following relegation, and then we could still have had Gestede, and one of either Stuani or Rhodes, to add competition.
Click to expand...

Imagine where the club would be now if we had given Karanka that 31 million to spend in January instead of waiting until it was too late.
 
Foggysfplandiet3 said:
Bamford and Rhodes together up front (y)
Click to expand...

Looking back, the club were really short-sighted in their decision to sell Rhodes, especially when there was always going to be a real possibility of relegation. It's infuriating really.

Rhodes probably wasn't good enough for the Premier League, but the guy had a proven track record in the Championship.

Imagine if we could have gone into the following season, with Bamford, Stuani and Rhodes as our forward options.
 
Swapping Monk for Karanka was a bad move by Steve Gibson. (obviously Karanka and Gibson had fallen out to some degree) Then allowing Monk to buy 3 new strikers so we ended up with 5 strikers was nuts, because it unbalanced the squad and left us having to sell players in 2018 to balance the books. I got the impression the Bamford sale was needed to balance the books and Pulis wanted a big man up front (Gestede was always injured so it was Hugill). Pulis transfers in might have been a bit expensive, but he put £10m on the value of Traore and got £15m for Ben Gibson who is struggling to get into Burnley's squad and developed Lewis Wing into a decent quality Championship player after a loan spell at Yeovil.

Rhodes has struggled badly since leaving us. I felt he was too light weight and had peaked quite early in his career which had given him a high price tag that he was struggling to justify and had become a bit of a weight to carry psychologically.
 
Last edited:
I still don't get why people defend Pulis so much, yes, Monk came in and spunked cash, but Pulis started off so well with Monks players, we played decent football mostly. Then he dismantled all that (yes I know we needed to sell too) and played the most depressing style of football I've ever seen.
 
Wasn't it £12m for Gibson? Regardless I think it's a stretch to give Pulis credit for that one. His value was on the basis of his performances for us in the premier league. Pulis just happened to be manager when we sold him, which was pretty much inevitable.

As for Bamford. It's a puzzler. Based on that Q&A he neither forced a move, nor did he fall out with Pulis. Yet there's still something that went on behind the scenes. The club's press release at the time was a bit odd for starters. Don't think it thanked him for his service or anything yet they nearly always do. It was very matter of fact.

As for the gazette. He apparently struggled up front on his own did he? Yet scored 10 in 15 and looked far more comfortable there than our main striker Britt ever has. And funnily enough has gone to play in that position for Leeds where fans moan about his finishing, but love his all round play as a lone striker.

The journalists at the gazette haven't got a clue have they? Utterly clueless. They get at least half their "features" off here for a start. The recent article on Emerson's cousin was embarrassing. Stated he played right back when it was left back and that we won the game 1-0 when it was 3-0. And that was from Vickers, supposedly the best one (he probably is, but it's a very low bar).
 
It's almost like we didn't want Bamford for some underlying reason other than the fact he was actually a good footballer.

Didn't Sean Dyche take a dislike to him for the fact he was a posh lad?

Which says everything you need to know about Sean Dyche.
 
JM14 said:
Where did this rumour start that Pulis kept the club financially afloat? He spend almost 20 million on Saville, Flint and Mcnair as well as big wages for Hugill, Besic, Van La Parra, Mikel on loan. All while being one of the highest paid managers in the clubs history.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find Uncle Tony started that rumour. He could rival Dom Cummings and Alistair Campbell in the spin department.
 
Selling Bamford was a very poor decision. I don't think he was a Pulis type player and they are certainly chalk and cheese in upbringing.

I have previously blamed Pulis for the sale, but think now that the club hierarchy and expediency may have had more to do with it. After all we had 3 (4 if you include Braithwaite) strikers at the club who we had paid big money and wages for and Bamford, in the end, was the only one anyone was prepared to buy and pay.
 
Erimus74 said:
No, you are indeed correct, not sure the exact amount, maybe £5/6m but yes we turned em down
Click to expand...

Like I said on the previous page, that was in 2017, we sold Bamford in 2018.
I'm sure the club would have snapped Leeds' hands off for that in 2018.

I can only assume that the club were hoping Gestede would replicate his last full season in the Championship, where he scored 20 goals, two years previously.
It was obviously the wrong decision in hindsight, but you can sort of understand it if you squint.
 
Last edited:
Otto42 said:
Selling Bamford was a very poor decision. I don't think he was a Pulis type player and they are certainly chalk and cheese in upbringing.

I have previously blamed Pulis for the sale, but think now that the club hierarchy and expediency may have had more to do with it. After all we had 3 (4 if you include Braithwaite) strikers at the club who we had paid big money and wages for and Bamford, in the end, was the only one anyone was prepared to buy and pay.
Click to expand...

Well possibly. But if we had too many strikers and needed funds for other players it doesn't really explain why we then went out and ***ed £2m up the wall on Hugill.

The stand out attacking players from the play-off season were Traore and Bamford. Having lost Traore it was madness to sell Bamford.

We'd have been better off not signing Hugill, Saville and Flint and keeping Bamford. Would surely have been financially better off too.
 
festa5 said:
Well possibly. But if we had too many strikers and needed funds for other players it doesn't really explain why we then went out and ***ed £2m up the wall on Hugill.

The stand out attacking players from the play-off season were Traore and Bamford. Having lost Traore it was madness to sell Bamford.

We'd have been better off not signing Hugill, Saville and Flint and keeping Bamford. Would surely have been financially better off too.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with most of this, but Flint was a replacement for Gibson.
 
Paddy was by far the most all round benificial to boro at the time ... got to have been a political reason maybe the fair play thingy ... still he was happy here and should have got more game time
 
Nero said:
On the other board didn't Adi reckon he knew Pulis forced him out?
Click to expand...
He did, but Bamford himself clearly doesn't feel like it was all just down to Pulis from his answer to that question. As unpopular as Pulis was amongst some fans, he seemed to get on with the vast majority of players.
 
festa5 said:
Well possibly. But if we had too many strikers and needed funds for other players it doesn't really explain why we then went out and ***ed £2m up the wall on Hugill.

The stand out attacking players from the play-off season were Traore and Bamford. Having lost Traore it was madness to sell Bamford.

We'd have been better off not signing Hugill, Saville and Flint and keeping Bamford. Would surely have been financially better off too.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a poor decision in a long line of poor short term decision making. In fact we would probably have got more for Bamford in the future. However, with football clubs it's sometimes about cash flow and also keeping agents happy. Didnt I hear somewhere that Uncle Tony was on a percentage of sales or is that just gossip?!
 
atypical_boro said:
He did, but Bamford himself clearly doesn't feel like it was all just down to Pulis from his answer to that question. As unpopular as Pulis was amongst some fans, he seemed to get on with the vast majority of players.
Click to expand...
Btw where is Adi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top