80

From .com Interesting point, actually. A club owner has tacitly come out in favour of standing in seated areas.

That's very unfair. He's had one season in the job, a season in which he was saddled with someone else's squad, and no chance to spend in the summer window due to the takeover not going through until September. This is the crux of the problem on this subject (SA) - people judge too early. It is pointless judging managers after a year or so, especially not when they take over fucked up clubs. You've got to give them time. How much you give SA is debatable, but I'd have thought two years is a decent time frame for a manager to start to show some real, sustainable progress. This is fair comment. In fact, thinking back to it brings me out in hives. But he's got January to sort the weaknesses. We've had a decent-ish start to the season after a pretty difficult opening set of fixtures (we've played all the top four bar Arsenal who we play in two weeks). If he can see to the deficiencies in the January window, then that's fine. Again, coming back to the premature judging - 11 games in is way, way too early to judge a season. Incidentally: These days half of Britain doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone who isn't in the "big four", they're not really arsed about who they see as bigger out of Newcastle and Spurs. I only said "slightly", I was factoring in the transfer window and added the caveat that I'm not exactly paying a great deal of attention. Regarding the transfer window, for all I know, it might be that the new owner was holding O'Neill up, so I could conceive of it not being a fair point. If he was raring to go, though, then it would look to me that O'Neill had missed a crucial chance to press on - particularly with the likes of Portsmouth and Man City having romped ahead. Things will be clearer for you in a year's time. There was a body of support for the idea that O'Neill is such a good manager that he'd have you snapping around 4th and certainly gunning for a UEFA Cup spot by now, though. Not that I'm saying the sane counted amongst them. I see your point about the "Big 4", but I still think my point is true and important. I'm talking about media portrayal (or what would've been the lack of portrayal), I'm talking about the 10 year olds of 1995 who're now in football and don't think of a move to Newcastle like they would a move to Sunderland. It's not about who we're ahead of so much as it is who we're not behind, basically. Despite not winning anything, NUFC was one of the biggest gainers from the 90s boom (and it took some stupendous feats to nearly squander those gains), whilst the Evertons were some of the biggest losers. It'll be a long long time before they recover their status, they've still an aura of dirty relegation battlers about them. Few outside of Liverpool cares a fuck for Dixie Dean, but there are the Berbatovs who think of Alan Shearer and all that malarkey with us, now. Not necessarily sensible, but there you go.

I wonder about Patrick Barclay sometimes...."O'Neill is a better manager than Allardyce". There was also a worrying assumption by these hacks that Ashley is clueless and might be bad for the club. Nonsense. O'Neill IS a better manager than Allardyce - his trophy record proves it, as does his getting Celtic to a European Final ; Allardyce has won NOWT... that means souness was better than keegan ? Lets put it another way - as you brought KK into it, who would you choose if both KK and MON were in for the NUFC job at the end of this season? Sorry, but for me, its MON...proven winner and interested in ALL aspects of a club, not just buying players. Proven against Scots. To put it yet another way, who would you have had back in 1992? We are not back in 1992 - I asked who would you choose if both were in for the NUFC job at the end of THIS season - so - who would YOU choose??? And as for your comment about the Scots, did Celtic only play Scots when reaching the UEFA Final against Porto..!!? Oh, well in that case, probably Martin O'Neill. I would also prefer Martin O'Neill to Brian Clough, Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley and Jock Stein. I reckon he'd out-perform the lot of them. Well, he might, anyway. You said O'Neill was a proven winner - he's won several things in Scotland and an English League Cup, just like Graeme Souness. Graeme Souness has also won an English FA Cup. Graeme Souness has won a cup in Turkey, too, unlike Martin O'Neill. Martin O'Neill has won nothing in trans-European competition. Souness was three injuries away from getting us into the UEFA Cup Final. Steve McLaren did get Middlesbrough into the UEFA Cup Final. Martin O'Neill's achievements with Celtic are worth little. Getting a bit silly now, aren't we ? How do Clough, Paisley et al come into this ? I thought most of the people you mentioned were DEAD ! To the league football, so is Keegan. Retired, sick of it, burnt out etc. People are different at different times in their lives. I don't imagine MO'N would've been much of a manager when his wife was at death's door, and understandably so. Any comparison between today's O'Neill and Keegan is irrelevant, therefore. When people debate who would've won Tyson-Ali, they talk of when they were at their best. I assume O'Neill hasn't regressed as a manager, so it would make sense to compare him today to Keegan circa '92-'96. If today's O'Neill had taken us over in 1992, we might well have stayed up. I'm not sure he'd have gotten us up the next season, but he probably would've done within a couple of years. We'd have then buzzed between 14th and 5th , never having changed the popular perception of us in the way we did under Keegan. We may have come to be known for last minute failure and dodgy defences, but we were established as contenders at a critical moment in footballing history; it has contributed to Ashley buying us today. We could otherwise have been Sunderland. Keeping Keegan aside and dealing with today, I'd have Allardyce. Souness is, of course, a joke. I've never been impressed with O'Neill. He just seems to have a good PR machine, to me, possibly aided by some supporters of clubs like ours having green hearts and giving undue credit to his achievements up North. He's alright, he won't get you relegated, but I see nothing special about him. I've repeatedly tried to get answers out of his fans regarding just what's so good about him - not hostile, just genuinely wanting to know. All I ever get is 1) he's passionate, he'd really get us supporters going (not me, by the way) and 2) look at what he achieved with Leicester and Celtic. I've made the case for Allardyce several times, meanwhile, so I can't really be bothered to do it again. I've always said he's partially a gamble, albeit it one we had to take at the time of his appointment, but his strengths have been our traditional weaknesses and he was/is the most likely to show he's a great manager waiting for his chance (out of those we could once have realistically obtained - we agree on the Hiddink point). Noone in their right mind would appoint Souness ahead of O'Neill, I agree. The whole point of that has been your saying O'Neill's trophy record proves he's a better manager than Allardyce. Whether you think he is or isn't, it doesn't matter, but you're now admitting you have to look at more than just a cabinet to judge a man. I can't say that much for O'Neill's record since Celtic, beyond that to a disinterested outsider, he seems to be slightly underachieving with the new, Ellisless Villa. This place would've gone into meltdown had he run a transfer window in the way he did this Summer up here. Souness and O'Neill had their Scottish successes with the respective halves of the Old Firm. Their League Cup successes were with Blackburn Rovers and Leicester City, respectively - two quite comparable, middling teams. I appreciate that Souness has managed even bigger clubs without success, but I'm not arguing he is as good a manager as O'Neill, let alone a better manager. I'm seeking to undermine the idea that a manager's trophy record "proves" he is better or worse than another manager. Whether anyone like sit or not, winning trophies is ALL that matters in establishing a club as a top side with worldwide respect - West Ham were universally held up as proponents of football as it should be played in the 60s, and even they won the FA Cup/Cupwinners Cup(they did have Moore, Peters, Hurst etc i the side), but Man U went on to be the most renowned side because of title wins and European Cup success.. Real Madrid have never replicated their successes in Europe that made them world famous in the 60s, but they are still revered because of them. NUFC have won NO Domestic trophies since 1955 , NO trophies at all since 69 - name me another club with our fan base who have been so unsuccessful - KK did a great job for us, but by walking out, he demonstrated that he couldn't finish it off ; either that or he thought the way the club was being run did not allow that because he wouldn't have limitless funds. If that was totally the case, we'd receive a lot less attention than we have done over the past few years. The moment was seized at a critical time, and now half of Britain, certainly its youth, is probably under the impression we've always been a bigger club than Everton and Spurs. I agree that winning trophies is fundamental to a club's ranking, though. That isn't the case with managers, however, Souness proving the case.

Good comments from Mort.

Souness and O'Neill had their Scottish successes with the respective halves of the Old Firm. Their League Cup successes were with Blackburn Rovers and Leicester City, respectively - two quite comparable, middling teams. I appreciate that Souness has managed even bigger clubs without success, but I'm not arguing he is as good a manager as O'Neill, let alone a better manager. I'm seeking to undermine the idea that a manager's trophy record "proves" he is better or worse than another manager.

I wonder about Patrick Barclay sometimes...."O'Neill is a better manager than Allardyce". There was also a worrying assumption by these hacks that Ashley is clueless and might be bad for the club. Nonsense. O'Neill IS a better manager than Allardyce - his trophy record proves it, as does his getting Celtic to a European Final ; Allardyce has won NOWT... that means souness was better than keegan ? Lets put it another way - as you brought KK into it, who would you choose if both KK and MON were in for the NUFC job at the end of this season? Sorry, but for me, its MON...proven winner and interested in ALL aspects of a club, not just buying players. Proven against Scots. To put it yet another way, who would you have had back in 1992? We are not back in 1992 - I asked who would you choose if both were in for the NUFC job at the end of THIS season - so - who would YOU choose??? And as for your comment about the Scots, did Celtic only play Scots when reaching the UEFA Final against Porto..!!? Oh, well in that case, probably Martin O'Neill. I would also prefer Martin O'Neill to Brian Clough, Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley and Jock Stein. I reckon he'd out-perform the lot of them. Well, he might, anyway. You said O'Neill was a proven winner - he's won several things in Scotland and an English League Cup, just like Graeme Souness. Graeme Souness has also won an English FA Cup. Graeme Souness has won a cup in Turkey, too, unlike Martin O'Neill. Martin O'Neill has won nothing in trans-European competition. Souness was three injuries away from getting us into the UEFA Cup Final. Steve McLaren did get Middlesbrough into the UEFA Cup Final. Martin O'Neill's achievements with Celtic are worth little.

I wonder about Patrick Barclay sometimes...."O'Neill is a better manager than Allardyce". There was also a worrying assumption by these hacks that Ashley is clueless and might be bad for the club. Nonsense. O'Neill IS a better manager than Allardyce - his trophy record proves it, as does his getting Celtic to a European Final ; Allardyce has won NOWT... that means souness was better than keegan ? Lets put it another way - as you brought KK into it, who would you choose if both KK and MON were in for the NUFC job at the end of this season? Sorry, but for me, its MON...proven winner and interested in ALL aspects of a club, not just buying players. Proven against Scots. To put it yet another way, who would you have had back in 1992?

Whether you agree with him or not, and I'll keep my opinions to myself on that one, it is hardly a controversial suggestion is it? Patrick Barclay is a twat, though I'd say the certainty with which it was said, particularly by Matt Dickinson, is controversial, at least.

I'm not sure that the job Allardyce has today is the same job as he took on, he took on a job that was with a club hindered by debt. I would say most fans understood this and were willing to give him longer than they probably are willing to give him now. Expectations have changed because our circumstances are not the same as they were when he came. I expect more from him now than I did when he was first appointed and I'll not apologise for that. He has more to work with and should be able to produce more because of that. Aye. I still think it's too early to demand significant success, it was a disrupted Summer afterall and all managers need some time. He does, though, need to be showing signs that's there is reason for us keeping our faith in him - bearing in mind he has to achieve more, to be able say his position here improves the club, than he once would have done.

I think I'd say Souness as well, even though he was worse for us than Roeder.

I nearly started a thread about this last night, but couldn't find any statistics on his time at Bolton. We do seem to be worse off after the half-time break, generally. I was wondering if Bolton supporters had ever thought to compile a league table of First Half and Second Half "results".

Why do you say that? I'm not inclined to strenuously disagree, mind. I think Mort might not be terrible at making a choice, though. He seems sharp. I hope I'm not wrong and he's impressed by charmers, as other "savvy" business-types have been in Football. I take the fact he's Mike Ashley's caretaker as a positive. I just don't think either are that switched on when it comes to football, neither seem to have been great followers of the sport in the past and it makes you think what route they will go down when/if they have to replace Allardyce. Mort seems to me to be a top business man and will eventually turn this club around on the financial side of things, how he'll go about deciding on a replacement for Allardyce is another thing. He'll take advice. The first port of call of any successful professional. I really need to type quicker...

Why do you say that? I'm not inclined to strenuously disagree, mind. I think Mort might not be terrible at making a choice, though. He seems sharp. I hope I'm not wrong and he's impressed by charmers, as other "savvy" business-types have been in Football. I take the fact he's Mike Ashley's caretaker as a positive. I just don't think either are that switched on when it comes to football, neither seem to have been great followers of the sport in the past and it makes you think what route they will go down when/if they have to replace Allardyce. Mort seems to me to be a top business man and will eventually turn this club around on the financial side of things, how he'll go about deciding on a replacement for Allardyce is another thing. I (would like to) think Mort will know that part of his job is to recognise he doesn't really know something and to get the advice of someone who will. Its part of his trade. Of course, if he gets the advice of a plausible idiot...

Why do you say that? I'm not inclined to strenuously disagree, mind. I think Mort might not be terrible at making a choice, though. He seems sharp. I hope I'm not wrong and he's impressed by charmers, as other "savvy" business-types have been in Football. I take the fact he's Mike Ashley's caretaker as a positive.

Nice to have something a bit different to talk about, isn't it? Obviously, discussion had been fairly stagnant in the dying days of Roeder and the old Board. Whilst the events of the Summer were interesting of course, a lot of it was us just experiencing sensations, waiting to see where things went. Now it's bedded down, we've got some time to both reflect and look forwards. New personalities, new challenges etc.

Made an edit. The point is he would allow things to be done against his better judgement, Allardyce would resign. Souness wouldn't do that because he'd risk losing his compensation money, of course.

I agree with that. Aside from the flurry of speculation amidst Ashley's takeover, he and Mort (A&M) have kept their ambitions for the future close to their chests surprisingly successfully, particularly given (partly because?) they've presented themselves as open and eager to engage with us as supporters. The next time they're getting slaughtered in the Bigg Market, someone should ask them just what they're intending to achieve... My sense is that they're happy to go along with Allardyce for next season, so long as we make the top 8, maybe even the top half. I don't really base that on evidence harder than the likes of the manner with which Mort presents in interviews and Ashley's demeanour in public; the way he looks contented with some of the performances he's witnessed (some might say the number on his shirt exhibits the standard he's happy with, at least for the time being). The question is whether all that stuff about spending sprees and wanting Allardyce to "think as big as he could" was partly paper talk or not - MA's comments about being prepared to spend more of his own wealth than other owners suggests the latter. I wonder whether events at Manchester City over the past half year have made them think, as well - they have emerged as our most obvious rivals in any fight to break into the CL monopoly. I'd been a supporter of Allardyce coming to our club for some time prior to his arrival. Ironically, half of my reasoning for this was smashed apart only days after it finally happened. I felt he was someone as good as we could attract in our circumstances, who could make an even greater impact with our natural resources and would overhaul bad practices in player management, refuse to bow to board pressure on all matters and could work on a small budget. With Ashley, the club had a larger budget, seemingly would innately understand the need to improve club practice, supposedly would allow a competent manager to do his job without unnecessary interference and, ultimately, probably could have attracted a high quality manager with more established credentials, no "proving" required. January will tell us a lot, then. I hope Ashley gives us a nice wodge of his own money, and I look forward to seeing Allardyce given the opportunity to spend it. All the same, it might become apparent that A&M have ideas higher than Allardyce, and will seek to find someone who matches their's more closely. Looks like your reasoning for wanting Allardyce here was flawed in some places, unless you believe Souness was a yes-man. I think in effect he was, at times, yes. Fundamentally, he was self-interested, he'd do what he thought was good for himself. Obviously, that would alter depending on his circumstances. He's insisted that he'd give a list of players (or positions) he wanted and would be kept in the dark, not sure of whether he'd get anything resembling what he wanted. Allardyce would never have accepted that.

I agree with that. Aside from the flurry of speculation amidst Ashley's takeover, he and Mort (A&M) have kept their ambitions for the future close to their chests surprisingly successfully, particularly given (partly because?) they've presented themselves as open and eager to engage with us as supporters. The next time they're getting slaughtered in the Bigg Market, someone should ask them just what they're intending to achieve... My sense is that they're happy to go along with Allardyce for next season, so long as we make the top 8, maybe even the top half. I don't really base that on evidence harder than the likes of the manner with which Mort presents in interviews and Ashley's demeanour in public; the way he looks contented with some of the performances he's witnessed (some might say the number on his shirt exhibits the standard he's happy with, at least for the time being). The question is whether all that stuff about spending sprees and wanting Allardyce to "think as big as he could" was partly paper talk or not - MA's comments about being prepared to spend more of his own wealth than other owners suggests the latter. I wonder whether events at Manchester City over the past half year have made them think, as well - they have emerged as our most obvious rivals in any fight to break into the CL monopoly. I'd been a supporter of Allardyce coming to our club for some time prior to his arrival. Ironically, half of my reasoning for this was smashed apart only days after it finally happened. I felt he was someone as good as we could attract in our circumstances, who could make an even greater impact with our natural resources and would overhaul bad practices in player management, refuse to bow to board pressure on all matters and could work on a small budget. With Ashley, the club had a larger budget, seemingly would innately understand the need to improve club practice, supposedly would allow a competent manager to do his job without unnecessary interference and, ultimately, probably could have attracted a high quality manager with more established credentials, no "proving" required. January will tell us a lot, then. I hope Ashley gives us a nice wodge of his own money, and I look forward to seeing Allardyce given the opportunity to spend it. All the same, it might become apparent that A&M have ideas higher than Allardyce, and will seek to find someone who matches their's more closely.

You see, Teasy, 2sheds has a problem with America per se. This would never have happened had you stumbled upon a website quoting in Euros.

Is he showing his own statement to be wrong, or is the club winning trophies it's not telling us about?

Good website, that.

Geordie boy Steven Taylor - born in London with a Welsh surname. C'puter says no - http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/Map.aspx?name=TAYLOR&year=1881&altyear=1998&country=GB&type=name

It's not. Not sure it ever will be, in fact.

I don't know what Beye was doing in the middle for the first. He may or may not have had a legitimate reason, it isn't clear off of the replay. I'd lay the blame fundamentally at Zoggy's feet. He didn't have the defensive instinct to angle his run towards goal, ensuring he'd stay that side of Baines and would, as it turned out, cut the pass out, too. He is an attacking midfielder who was tracking back, of course. For the second goal, it was Alan Smith's fumbled interception which landed him on his face that caused the problem. Beye suddenly had two men to mark on his own.

I seem to remember there were some strange comments made by Scandinavians visiting this place when we were last playing out there re: how tickets were being arranged, hoping to eat with players and such. Put it down to translation difficulties, high hopes and different practices in arranging matches, at the time.