Cronky

Completely daft. Running a football club and running a pressure group for supporters are different roles.

This whole re-naming business has become a fiasco, and is symptomatic of the kind of bumbling decision-making that this regime is prone to. Maybe Ashley is one of those difficult bosses who appears to be delegating, but who then intervenes without giving himself time to think or get to know the situation properly. However, there are certain ideas about him that don't hold up, namely - 1) He's only in it for the money - all the evidence is that he's lost millions and is continuing to do so. The profit / loss account on transfers isn't the only indication of what's going on in the balance sheet. It's only the most conspicuous and the one we as fans care most about, because we all want to see good players coming in. 2) He's doing it all out of spite - as he's admitted himself, there have been cock-ups, not conspiracies. Just because you hate him, doesn't mean he hates you. Things can go tits up despite the best of intentions. 3) He never wanted to sell - He publicly named a price, he publicly dropped the price, no-one has claimed that they came up with the money. Our club is not an attractive proposition in a climate when money is tight and people are not keen on taking risks. Above all, trying to force the guy out only makes sense if there's a better alternative available. You might say that things can't get any worse, but that's just a mantra to persuade yourself that the decision is easy. It's perfectly possible for things to get worse.

There are times when I get as annoyed with the owners as I do with those opposing them. If you think that it's in the interests of the club to sell the naming rights to the stadium, then go for it. If you decide in the end that the opposition amongst the fans makes the plan unviable, then admit it and withdraw the idea. I don't have strong feelings either way on the name, but one pleasing aspect of the plan was that at last the owners seemed to be showing some leadership. Looks like I was wrong there. blahdeblah@stjamespark isn't the name of a stadium, it's just an advert. It all feels like a weak proposal which only makes the regime, and the club, look even more of a laughing stock and the butt of media jokes. The whole idea, for better or worse, looks dead in the water now.

A big problem for me is that this re-naming issue has become part of the general power struggle between Ashley and his opponents, and the True Faith article really brings it home. They might well be opposed to such a plan even under a different owner, but I can't imagine that the opposition would be as fierce or as rigid. I then find it hard to sort out my own thoughts. I'm not really too bothered either way on the issue, but I find that kind of pompous crap such a turn-off that I lose all sympathy for the opposition.

I don't think Ashley will need or want to sell any players in January. Unless he gets a really silly bid, he won't want to jeopardise the £30 million or whatever bonanza of promotion. The problem is that players are now quite powerful if they really want to force a move through. They can develop a mysterious back injury, or be a disruptive influence in the dressing room.

It sounds like Curbishley's contract was a lot more explicit and powerful than Keegan's when it comes to this 'final say' issue. West Ham's lawyers must have been half asleep when they allowed that clause to go through. Nearly all working relationships depend on a bit of give and take and partnership working. People's roles and boundaries can never be rigidly defined, although when you get to the legal process often this piece of common sense goes out of the window. I think that's why so many of these tribunals end up being a bit unfair on employers.

The whole 'final say' debate is a bit unreal. As with any business, in practice, the final say always rests with the person who holds overall financial responsibility. It can't be any other way.

Is there a kit maker called St James? That way we'd all be happy.

Agreed. The crowd was very influential and the ref wasn't strong enough. Not only did he let them get away with some bad challenges, but every time one of their players fell over in our half of the field they got a free kick. He was a typical homer. Ironic that our goal came after one of our few fouls that he missed.

Enrique is strong and athletic, and in the Championship that's allowing him to dominate most opponents in attack and defence. His positioning and decision-making is still dodgy, but he's able to recover defensively at this level and we don't pay the penalty.

Harewood had 5 minutes during which all of the play was in our half man. thats my assessment of his time since he's been here, scored against qpr and hasn't tried or done anything else u see when he tried to control that ball on the counter attack, looked lazy imo An experienced player who's been put out on loan from a Premiership club to a Championship one should be busting a gut, trying to prove that his manager was wrong and that he belongs at the top level. Instead, Harewood seems to be sulking.

I didn't say we started with one up front just because of who was on the pitch, I said it because of the numbers in that position. Kevin Nolan spent a lot of time with 2/3 of the pitch in front of him and because of that we invited Sheffield onto us when we should have pushed up and gave them something to worry about. Well it's just not how I saw it tbh. Nolan seemed to be in a very advanced role in the first half, which surprised me, and that was partly why we struggled because he doesn't have the pace or mobility to play there. When Ranger and Harewood came on, they spent most of the time helping out defensively on the wings - Ranger on the left, and Harewood on the right. Ranger made his presence felt, but Harewood just fannied around. I do wonder whether Harewood has got it in his head that all this Championship football is a bit beneath him, and he's really a Premiership player with Aston Villa. It feels like he doesn't put the effort in, just in case his cover is blown.

I'd say we started with two up front, and finished with one. Just because Nolan is normally a midfield player, and Harewood and Ranger strikers, doesn't mean those are the jobs that they are actually doing. We won because in the 10 minutes when we were on top, we showed that bit more class than them. We did actually look like scoring, and kept up the pressure until we did. However, Hughton has to address the fact that for most of the game, we were dominated physically and also mentally, in a sense.

Well, I guess that kind of away win against a very physical side is the sort that gets you promoted. Ranger did very well. Got involved right away. Hughton has to be braver and start him. Harewood's a disgrace. If you come on for the last 10 minutes, you should be running around full pelt, giving your all and closing the opposition down. He didn't look bothered.

Don't you just hate in when Colo is exposed one on one?

The crowd got them that decision

Carroll is worth his place in the team if only for his strength in defensive set pieces. He's got on the end of so many.

Looking better.

The usual. Off the pace. When he gets the ball, shows no confidence or initiative. Just gets rid of it, even if it's to a man in a worse position.

The crowd is putting a lot of pressure on the ref, and he's not handling it too well. The only good thing about that was we haven't conceded, and things can only get better. We look very tentative. As for Butt, it's all been said.

That was terrible. A total refusal to take responsibility.

Nolan's too slow to be an out and out striker. I was expecting him to be behind Carroll.

They look a lot more determined than us so far.

I'd have preferred to see Ranger instead of Butt, with Nolan in the midfield. Hughton obviously wants to keep things tight to start off with. Guthrie has been very disappointing this season. I'm not surprised he's been left out.

Ha ha. There's a few of them.