OzzieMandias

Shepherd is where the buck stops. Or where it should stop, if the man had any honour.

I wish there was an emoticon for, like, shaking your head sadly and muttering "It's his poor mother I feel sorry for!"

It's because he's unproven at a big club that we have a chance of getting him. Obviously there's a risk involved, but what we most definitely need is someone capable of making a step up who's looking for the stage to prove it. Who cares? I've got no problem with arrogance as long as it's matched by performance. And he definitely should have got the England job. The fact he wants it so much actually gives him a lot of bargaining power with Shepherd. If he doesn't get what he wants with us or another club, he can just sit back and wait for McLaren's final fuck up. Or he felt he should honour his contract, had work left unfinished, or didn't want to come to a club where one player had so much power. Why not if he's the best candidate -- and if we recognize there may have been some validity in his earlier reasons for saying no? Ish. I'd like to see local players who are good enough. Having a few players who always dreamed of playing for the club is important. It gives a team character. But they have to be good enough, and if they're not, I don't care where the others come from. More than content, I reckon. 'Zactamundo. Hell, that was my gut feeling when Bobby arrived... and he was supposed to be doing it, I remember. There was talk of "an audit" of the whole club, but I don't think it ever came to much. Needed now more than ever. Insofar as I'd be happy with Allardyce getting the job, it's because I think he's capable of doing that.

My point is that tactically and team-selection wise, he could not be as fucking incompetent and damaging as Roeder, so we would automatically improve. Not saying he's going to be the immediate solution, but automatically we'd get better through not having that wanker in charge. Yes, I understand and agree. I didn't post the above to disagree with you, but with someone else who said that Allardyce wouldn't get any time here without quick results. With a new manager there's usually a quick upturn followed by a longer settling-in period. Robson had that 8-0, but we didn't finish so strongly that season.

I agree. Used to hear this crap all the time on here during the Souness days, though.

Of course he'd need some time. It took Robson a few seasons to get us sorted, weeding out shite and getting on top of the wage bill. We put up with it because we knew he had a pedigree and we trusted he had a plan. Allardyce's pedigree is not so illustrious, but if we're buying him it's because he's proven himself over a long period at a club with scant resources. There'd be fuck all point in appointing him if we were demanding instant success. If does get the job, the best thing he can do at the outset would be to make a kind of Churchillian, "I can offer you nothing but blood, sweat, toil and tears" speech, just so everyone understand it would be a grind before it got better. There are no instant solutions to a club in our position.

It's definitely the case that for Allardyce to have the kind of impact that makes him worth the bother, "backing the manager" would mean Freddie doing more than just providing some funds for players. It would also mean us lot being patient for a while. I doubt there'd be instant fantastic results. Allardyce, or any manager, would need a season or two to get things sorted.

Spot on.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2070691,00.html Classic!

The old one's better. I've never looked at it closely before, though. "Prepared" is like the fucking boy scouts.

I want to see how the vote is going but I don't want to cast my vote for any one club just so I can have a look.

It could only be a club with a strong enough fan base which, yes, narrows it down to us, Spurs, Man City, Everton and Villa. The current period of renewed investment might throw up a contender, but I agree it is more likely just to consolidate the clubs already at the top. Still, there is room for mistakes to be made, and opportunities to be siezed, until the new ownership landscape settles down.

I can see why most people say Arsenal, but I think you can make a case for either Chelsea or Man U, too. Weirdly, Liverpool seem the most stable. The takeover's gone smoothly, Benitez is securely in charge, the club is pleased with itself, the new owners seem to "get" the place. And even if Benitez buggers up (and it would take more than losing in Athens to AC Milan for him to have done that) I don't think they would be jolted by a change of manager as much as any of the other three clubs. When Ferguson eventually retires, who knows what'll happen at Man U? I was thinking that might be the end of this season, if he'd won a Double or a Triple or something. Now I think he'll be around for another season or two. They'll obviously be able to replace him with a top manager, but you never know, it might not "take". Or a changeover might need loads of cash, and the Glazers might not release enough. Or whatever. Wishful thinking perhaps, but it will definitely be a real wrench when Ferguson goes. He's totally what they are. Chelsea... Abramovich decides that he's spent a fuck of a lot just to win the League Cup and gets bored with the whole thing. Mourinho is replaced by another manager who doesn't really know what to do with a squad so carefully tailored to someone else's system and there is no longer unlimited funds to change it around. Arsenal... It depends whether they can keep Wenger. Under him I think the squad can only get better, and they could get over the loss of Henry, even though they won't be able to replace like with like. Depends what happens behind the scenes, but Wenger isn't going to retire and he isn't going to get the sack. But the whole Dein/Kroenke thing has to play itself out, and that'll leave either a taken-over club with a secure manager and new investment, or a less uncertain set-up under the old mob without Dein, and it's conceivable that a situation might develop where Wenger would want to move on. I think they're all strong enough to weather transition, but they all have their dangerous moments to negotiate. Change also depends on another club being able to challenge for a seat at the top table. Might conceivably be Spurs. If this Thai guy takes over Man City they might make a run for it. But I can't see the balance shifting in the near future. It was at its most open just before Abramovich bought Chelsea -- and just before first Leeds, and then us, dropped out of contention.

Well, they played without Shevchenko and Ballack last night, and they were boring as fuck.

Robson's too old. Houllier would be an interesting appointment, but he's too foreign and intelligent for Shepherd.

His approach to the medical, training and coaching aspects, is the big reason for his success at Bolton and the biggest thing he would bring to Newcastle mate. Add to that the fact that Bolton have improved all the time he has been there, and he's a "stayer", which is also what we want. He manages players who are hard to handle, and is good in front of the press. Two huge things for a manager of Newcastle as well. How many players do you see wanting to leave Bolton ? And a lot of them are temperamental players ? He is in charge, he is the boss. Brian Clough he aint, but who is ? I think he is the man for us, 3 years too late though if he comes. I'm not so sure I think Pearson is a waste of space mind, but McDermott certainly is. Well, blow me down, I completely agree with a post by NE5.

Gradi's an anomaly. Respect to him, but I think he's a one club man.

Unless you're Shepherd, of course, in which case you replace Robson with Souness and Souness with Roeder.

Sadly, I think you're probably right. Reforming of the club from top to toe is definitely what's needed,, but I can't see Shepherd coping with all of Allardyce's new-fangled ideas.

And even more importantly than that, like every post-Keegan manager except Gullit, he knows that if he walks he won't get his pay-off.

Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/b/bolton_wanderers/6605673.stm

The talk is usually about buying a "conventional" centre-forward, but I reckon Tevez would also be a really good foil to either Martins or Owen. OK, he's no target man, but he's great at link-up play, tenacious as fuck, and brilliant at holding the ball up.

M'lud, I would also like the disgraceful home thrashing by a championship club which saw us out of the FA Cup and the pathetic away capitulation that saw us out of the UEFA to be added to the case for the prosecution. Also the fact that the blooding of youngsters was done out of bare necessity rather than intelligent design. (The most promising of these, we note, the young Master Krul, was a Souness signing.) In partial mitigation, we note the rehabilitation of Dyer, and the fact that the signing of Bernard had more of a whiff of Shepherd rather than Roeder about it. But the verdict must surely be: Guilty. He's crap.

No... he did it when they pulled back to 2-1. therefore sensing it wouold give them an extra edge as Evertone would be a bit delicate. My point being, I am hoping Roeder can learn to judge when teh right time to make subs is and not just when the crowd tell him to Well, we can all sit around and hope that Roeder suddenly becomes a top manager...