Isegrim

Nope, no idea. Any clues?? Must be someone who rarely played. Ollie Bernard?

Same for Van Der Vaart, always injured, always complaining and slow as hell. He played 24 of 32 of the games this season (missing three because of a red card), hasn't really complained and been a fantastic player all around.

I don't answer No. 3 ;-) Nr. 6 is Caniggia

It's not the "success" of last year's World Cup that makes Klinsmann an attractive option, but rather the work he has done with the German national team in the two years leading to it. He has totally revamped the German national team in every sense. German football was stuck in the past, Klinsmann brought in new methods, new people and laid a new foundation to the team that his successor (and former assistant) does profit from. Imho Klinsmann could be an as inspirational choice as Keegan back then. He is obviously a big risk. But what from what I've seen from Klinsmann he would try to install a professional set up at the club that would both pay off short and long term. Fair enough, and I agree, Klinsmann could be somewhat an inspirational choice and he's certainly a better option than a few listed, but I don't think the club would plump for what would be quite a gamble and to be honest, neither would I. Anyhoo, he's no Hitzfeld Of course he would be a (huge) gamble. Though, Newcastle don't have much to lose in the current state, do they. If Klinsmann was to succeed with his ideas it probably would kick off big time. Just watch him sign for a different club and Newcastle curse to have missed out an opportunity again. Pfffft.

Is Houllier available? I thought he was still employed by Lyon. And imho there is no better time to take a risk then now. The club is lumbering in mediocrity. No European football next season. A bunch of overpaid, but underperforming yokels. The club needs a total revamp at every level. At the moment it is run like a pub team. And I'd have more faith in Klinsmann doing it, because he has a certain philosophy and ideas than someone like Eriksson who I don't think as someone with strategic thinking. I also don't get the difference between club and country. A lot of those things Klinsmann did for the national team were rather things you expected being done at club level. In fact there was a huge controversy with club managers who thought that Klinsmann's work was too much interfering with their own work. A lot of them now starting to implement some of the ideas now... I stand by my point of view that Klinsmann would be a rather inspirational choice than a manager who lives from his club track record ages ago...

It's not the "success" of last year's World Cup that makes Klinsmann an attractive option, but rather the work he has done with the German national team in the two years leading to it. He has totally revamped the German national team in every sense. German football was stuck in the past, Klinsmann brought in new methods, new people and laid a new foundation to the team that his successor (and former assistant) does profit from. Imho Klinsmann could be an as inspirational choice as Keegan back then. He is obviously a big risk. But what from what I've seen from Klinsmann he would try to install a professional set up at the club that would both pay off short and long term.

I vant Klinsi. Pffff. Edit: I'll give you some Üs in return...

Exactly, I always wondered about the big "Roeder did a good job at the academy" myth. If he had worked there for a longer time and regularly brought players through who made it at first team football, fair enough. But I find it difficult to judge his work from a couple of months with mostly ressources put in front of him and without really applying his own strategies...

FYP Like may Dutch forwards/wingers he is wildly overated mainly cause he scored a hatful of goals in a weak league. We will see, but I think Martins will score more (Owen you can bet your house on it) than Kalou or Kuyt next year. Kuyt overall game is better than Martins but he has no 'X' factor. Martins has often scored when we were getting pummeled for posession and had no control of matches. I don't think he will ever have a first touch or develop the awareness of Anelka, but he will get his share of goals. Well, I like players more who regularly contribute to the game and make the team better as a unit. So I can easily do without a player whose only contribution is the occasional flash of magic and whose 'X' factor is to stand out in between crap. People often say that the goal from Martins saved us from relegation. I won't deny that, but I am not sure if actually a player with better positional play, better movement and better link up play would have made an even bigger impact in those games we lost easily as we couldn't create anything up front (i.e. the games against the likes of Charlton, Man City etc.) Owen is better at these parts of the game but is often completely anonymous. He was even shocking in the West Ham game but got a hattrick. And? Of course a player can be poor at times, especially strikers relying on service. But in gerenal, Owen's all around game is way ahead of the game of Martins. It would have made much more sense to buy a supporting striker for Owen for the long term and maybe a goalgetter for the short term. This would have also saved us from relegation imho. But now we face the problem of having to multi-million pound strikers who probably hardly fit together. Martins game is very limited imho and I am not sure if actually the role he played at Inter was getting the best out of him - being a super sub to throw on at the end of matches. For 10m a bit of a luxury if you ask me.

It was really worth the wages to keep him here for the last couple of months, wasn't it...

FYP Like may Dutch forwards/wingers he is wildly overated mainly cause he scored a hatful of goals in a weak league. We will see, but I think Martins will score more (Owen you can bet your house on it) than Kalou or Kuyt next year. Kuyt overall game is better than Martins but he has no 'X' factor. Martins has often scored when we were getting pummeled for posession and had no control of matches. I don't think he will ever have a first touch or develop the awareness of Anelka, but he will get his share of goals. Well, I like players more who regularly contribute to the game and make the team better as a unit. So I can easily do without a player whose only contribution is the occasional flash of magic and whose 'X' factor is to stand out in between crap. People often say that the goal from Martins saved us from relegation. I won't deny that, but I am not sure if actually a player with better positional play, better movement and better link up play would have made an even bigger impact in those games we lost easily as we couldn't create anything up front (i.e. the games against the likes of Charlton, Man City etc.)

Kuijt actually has impressed me a lot. His goal return isn't too bad and his workrate and movement is exceptional. To say that Martins has been a better value is kidding yourself.

He really has worked wonders with our defenders, hasn't he. I got shot down back then for not getting carried away so early...

And, did you put any money on it? *whistles innocently*

You're right of course. I had a look at .com. It was just that Chopra started a second too early. I just remembered that the decision was totally unnecessary, although not the ref's but Chopra's fault. But I still think that he had a decent game back then, which was more my point.

Jamie McClen looked immense alongside Acuna up against Vieira and co at Arsenal, didn't stop him looking distinctly average the rest of the time. But did he really look THAT average? His first ever start against Blackburn was decent (he would have scored if it hadn't been for an incorrect offside decision). And after his goal against the mackems he looked not too bad in his starts against West Brom and Chelsea. That are already nearly half of the games he actually started in the Premierleague. So I am somewhat amused about the "rest of the time" bit tbh. I don't remember Ameobi's first 20 games being real eye catchers either, in fact I don't remember Ameobi being more than distinctly average in most of his first 120 appearances...

Has he? 7 starts in the Premiership and 14 sub appearances, a lot of them just for very few minutes. In European football one start and 4 sub appearances. Not that I necessarily think that Chopra has it to succeed in the Premierleague, but I found it very hard to judge him on the very limited number of games he got at Newcastle.

That's what I worry about. If we do appoint a DOF, and sack the manager, the DOF may have to leave to, some managers may say "I don't work with DOF". For all we know, Souness might have said that. Rather an argument for a DoF, isn't it...

I have noticed that myself, I am aware all clubs, even we do, have in one form or another, a DOF. FS is our DOF (and Chairman, fat greedy b****** etc.) I did say further above that Arsenal won't be appointing a DOF as such, which I aknowledged was a fany title more than anything. But the one that Baggio seems to base his views on or advocates is the European DOF which is what Spurs have, no? I.e. someone who is directing the football, someone who will not have any say on the financial side of things, like who to give contracts to, what wages to pay, how much to spend in the transfer window etc. Just someone who looks after scouting, coaching and other football aspects below the actual manager and his staff. Only Spurs and Chelsea here in the UK have a true DOF in that case, then. Don't know if you can call it the "European DOF". If I look at Jormany and take the director's of football from Bayern (Hoeneß) and Bremen (Allofs) then they are very much involved in the financial side of things. On the other hand I wouldn't say that the likes of Kenyon or Dein aren't/weren't involved in the football sides of things with developing strategies on how to improve on the field. In the end Dein's major strategic decision in that respect was to appoint Wenger... Is Hoeneß called a DOF in Germany? Or do they call them Technical/Sporting Directors? I must say I haven't heard the word DOF branded about that often in European football if I'm honest, so it seems it could well be an English working title if you like for a foreign concept. I've only really been aware of DOF in the last few years, when David Pleat was appointed as one at Spurs. The German titles are totally different. Hoeneß is called "manager", which not the same as the English manager and I've read the translation to "director of football" a couple of times. The terms "Sportdirektor, Technischer Direktor" etc. can all be found as well. But there you see that the actual job title doesn't matter, but what the person's job really is...

I have noticed that myself, I am aware all clubs, even we do, have in one form or another, a DOF. FS is our DOF (and Chairman, fat greedy b****** etc.) I did say further above that Arsenal won't be appointing a DOF as such, which I aknowledged was a fany title more than anything. But the one that Baggio seems to base his views on or advocates is the European DOF which is what Spurs have, no? I.e. someone who is directing the football, someone who will not have any say on the financial side of things, like who to give contracts to, what wages to pay, how much to spend in the transfer window etc. Just someone who looks after scouting, coaching and other football aspects below the actual manager and his staff. Only Spurs and Chelsea here in the UK have a true DOF in that case, then. Don't know if you can call it the "European DOF". If I look at Jormany and take the director's of football from Bayern (Hoeneß) and Bremen (Allofs) then they are very much involved in the financial side of things. On the other hand I wouldn't say that the likes of Kenyon or Dein aren't/weren't involved in the football sides of things with developing strategies on how to improve on the field. In the end Dein's major strategic decision in that respect was to appoint Wenger...

Reminds me of: http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=8442

I think HTT harps too much on the title . Wenger's stance on the need to appoint a director of football now that Dein has left just demonstrates that there isn't a great difference between a chief executive or a DoF or whatever you want to call the person. It's not so much the the job title that matters, but the job description. And in that regard all top teams have a "director of football" (or whatever you want to call him). Newcastle don't have one since Feddie Fletcher went and half of the board jobs are split between Freddie Shepherd himself and Mr. Vacant (http://nufc.com/2006-07html/geninfo.html)

I'd comfortable with a Scandinavian player. In general they seem to be more reliable than players from France, Italy etc. Dutch or German might do, too.

Luque Luque - Luque - Luque - Luque Luque - Luque - Luque - Luque Luque - Luque I might put Alberta on the bench too, could be handy in the late minutes with his vision and skills...

I think it is a huge amount of drivel - hastily put together.