OzzieMandias

I think it's probably the right decision.

They all say the right things when they first get here, though.

Tino Asprilla.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/feb/03/sunderland-wigan-premier-league-relegation

Three points above the drop zone, no win in their last ten PL matches. Vote, vote, vote! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2010/feb/03/sunderland-too-good-go-down

It's about his ability to command respect, and the feeling that it would be pretty hard on Bridge if he has to drop out of the squad because of bad feeling Terry's actions have caused.

I don't know about "thrilled", exactly, but it's way better than anyone expected, and it's addressed lots of obvious problems. Would have been nice to get one of the players who were generating a bit of excitement (Beckford, Moses) but half the people who are moaning that we didn't were predicting that we'd be selling players.

I think factors concerning how comfortable and "at home" you feel in your surroundings are very real indeed when it comes to any work that involves concentration and creativity. It's important also to be able to travel well, though, sure.

Man U have a heated dugout for the home team, an unheated one for the visitors. I always thought that was clever.

It's not simply psychological. Pitches are different sizes, turf varies in quality, the light comes from different angles and so on.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article7011592.ece

Meanwhile, when did we last have such a decent January window? 2003 when we bought Woodgate (and no one else)?

You're basically correct. Robert is the only one of the names you mentioned about whom there can be any real argument. Both him and Bellamy, signed at the same time, basically came from the "bent tins" shelf, though. Notoriously difficult players that Sir Bobby was prepared to take a risk with, and had the exceptional man-management skills to make it work.

Strange argument, Bob. I hardly see that I'm being NE5-ish just because... a) I correctly explained why this is happening, b) I think the players and or the Togo FA had the right to participate in the competition, if they wanted to continue, whatever their government says, and c) I think the independence of football from political authority is a good thing.

They wanted to play, though. How come everyone else supposedly knows better?

I find it highly unlikely that FIFA won't support this. I find it extra unlikely that anyone with a brain would support South Africa getting punished for the actions of the Togolese. It is called brinkmanship. The CAF would withdraw with that threat imo. If there was the remotest liklihood that FIFA would get all heavy-handed and start threatening one of their member associations in order to go against a rule they strictly uphold themselves, which of course there isn't. The rule exists to stop governments interfering with the appointments of managers, team selections, competition rules etc, for political ends. This is something completely different. FIFA may well be in a difficult decision when it comes to deciding whether to intervene. That doesn't mean that the CAF have acted wisely. I don't know anything about the political situation in Togo, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the Togolese government called the players back for a day of national mourning in order to make some political use of the event. The political situation was that people were murdered, the whole Togo team witnessed it, and the players needed someone to tell them what to do. That is all there is to it. History is littered with dictators who think they know what people need to be told to do. Did you miss the bit where Adebayor actually asked the Togo government through the press to tell the team what to do? Doesn't affect the point I am making in the slightest. If the players wanted to stay, if the Togo FA wanted them to stay, then there is a conflict.

I find it highly unlikely that FIFA won't support this. I find it extra unlikely that anyone with a brain would support South Africa getting punished for the actions of the Togolese. It is called brinkmanship. The CAF would withdraw with that threat imo. If there was the remotest liklihood that FIFA would get all heavy-handed and start threatening one of their member associations in order to go against a rule they strictly uphold themselves, which of course there isn't. The rule exists to stop governments interfering with the appointments of managers, team selections, competition rules etc, for political ends. This is something completely different. FIFA may well be in a difficult decision when it comes to deciding whether to intervene. That doesn't mean that the CAF have acted wisely. I don't know anything about the political situation in Togo, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the Togolese government called the players back for a day of national mourning in order to make some political use of the event. The political situation was that people were murdered, the whole Togo team witnessed it, and the players needed someone to tell them what to do. That is all there is to it. History is littered with dictators who think they know what people need to be told to do.

I find it highly unlikely that FIFA won't support this. I find it extra unlikely that anyone with a brain would support South Africa getting punished for the actions of the Togolese. It is called brinkmanship. The CAF would withdraw with that threat imo. If there was the remotest liklihood that FIFA would get all heavy-handed and start threatening one of their member associations in order to go against a rule they strictly uphold themselves, which of course there isn't. The rule exists to stop governments interfering with the appointments of managers, team selections, competition rules etc, for political ends. This is something completely different. FIFA may well be in a difficult decision when it comes to deciding whether to intervene. That doesn't mean that the CAF have acted wisely. I don't know anything about the political situation in Togo, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario whereby the Togolese government called the players back for a day of national mourning in order to make some political use of the event.

I find it highly unlikely that FIFA won't support this. I find it extra unlikely that anyone with a brain would support South Africa getting punished for the actions of the Togolese. It is called brinkmanship. The CAF would withdraw with that threat imo. If there was the remotest liklihood that FIFA would get all heavy-handed and start threatening one of their member associations in order to go against a rule they strictly uphold themselves, which of course there isn't.

When he was handling our sale, Harris came out in favour of some kind of 'local involvement' as he put it, and he seems to be adopting the same policy here. I think he's acting a bit beyond his brief, which is purely that of financial adviser / broker. There is a danger to this kind of alliance between a fans' protest group and a buyer. You can get an opportunist trying to make a fast buck by using the fans' antagonism to force the owner out at a cheap price. The Man U group need to be careful here. Harris is also a Man U supporter, according to the link.

I find it highly unlikely that FIFA won't support this. I find it extra unlikely that anyone with a brain would support South Africa getting punished for the actions of the Togolese.

I remember the Togo team being ordered back for some national mourning jamboree. If that was against the wishes of the Togo FA and the team itself, it was wrong. If it was for the PR purposes of the Togolese government, it was wrong. Tough on Togo's footballers, like.

http://www.playthegame.org/news/detailed/more-countries-under-fifa-monitoring-for-government-interference-4612.html