Cronky

If this is true, Freddie had better watch out. Bates will eat him for breakfast.

Not all of it is from Bobby's book. Take Woodgate's sale. When announced Sir Bobby live on SSN said "I don't want him to go, I want my chairman to tell Madrid he's not for sale" He then went on to say "I hope the deal falls through for us" Woodgate on leaving "I never wanted to leave Newcastle and didn't even know about their interest" This indicates that FS went behind Sir Bobby's back. He did it with Speed and Bowyer too. On Rooney, we had Alan Shearer trying to convince him to sign yet the manager hadn't even spoken to the player. Whenever asked about Rooney Sir Bobby would either say "you'll have to ask my chairman", "he's a great young player" without ever committing more to it or "we need defenders" Anyway I know exactly what happened with Sir Bobby. Towards the end of the season we had finished 5th the board decided it was time to think about his eventual replacement so they sounded out both Bruce and Allardyce who weren't best pleased they were touting their big mate's job around. Interested of course they said they'd listen when, and only when, Sir Bobby calls it a day. So the board decided to announce that Sir Bobby would be in his final year as NUFC manager, and subsequently held back funds from him as they knew they'd be hiring a new man in 9 months time who would need some money, this also prompted the sale of Woodgate. (Rooney was going to be paid by Northern Rock who later paid for Owen) Anyway Sir Bobby was kicking up a fuss over things such as Woodgate's sale, the Rooney interest "how come you've told me we don't have any funds yet you can chase an 18 year old player for £23m"? and such, that coupled with our start to the season, booing on the stands and talk of dressing room unrest the board panicked and decided to sack Sir Bobby, believing in either Bruce or Allardyce, they had a replacement lined up. Only the pair said no not while a season was underway, come back at the end of the season. Bugger, thought the board. They then made inquiries for O'Leary, McLaren and Moyes but were told to go away. Then the name of Venables popped up, perhaps he could do a caretaker job until the end of the season ala like he did at Boro they asked, so that we can then appoint either Bruce or Allardyce. This was eventually rebuffed due to uncertainty as to whether how the fans would react. Stuck they decided to sound out agents. Some bloke from ProActive Sports told them some juicy gossip about how Souness, a client of theirs, was very close to the sack at Blackburn, he'll be up for the challenge and so on. And the rest is history, with a few quid won at the bookies, sandwiched in between. I couldn't comment on all those details, but I'm sure that the overall picture is correct. Freddie badly screwed up the whole question of Sir Bob's retirement and the succession. IMO there was a further complication. For a long while, the dream was that Shearer would take over when Sir Bob retired, and the succession would be seamless. It came unstuck when Sir Bob decided that Shearer's successor as a player needed to be brought forward, but Shearer didn't feel it was the right time for him to retire or become a squad player. Freddie backed Shearer, Sir Bob's position became weaker on and off the field, and we went into a decline. When things came to a head with Sir Bob, Freddie ended up appointing a couple of lame duck managers to keep the seat warm for Shearer. No manager of any status was going to walk into a position where the Chairman's blue eyed boy was waiting in the wings, and where the Captain and senior player was exercising such an influence. Basically, Freddie was unprofessional about the whole business, and we paid the price.

Well I'd defy anyone to read Sir Bob's autobiography, and come away with the conclusion that he wasn't undermined by Shepherd. Sir Bob only started appearing at Freddie's side when the team was starting to flounder under Roeder, and the fans were starting to publicly turn on Freddie. At the same time, Freddie was starting to try and sell the idea that the Halls were undermining his work, and, by implication, that they were responsible for the position the club was in. Sir Bob is a forgiving soul, but in this case I think he was being used.

I agree. I felt that he was penalised unfairly for a number of challenges. In fact, I think the commentators remarked on it as well. This news doesn't surprise me at all.

Torres has looked better than I was expecting. He may be the player that's going to give them that bit extra to make that final step from contenders to Champions.

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager Arsenal have gone from 1st to 4th, within a highly competitive top four. We went from 2nd to the bottom half of the table. From unbeaten in the league to 4th ? What did you think of the mackems dropping from 7th to bottom ? 3 years ago, Charlton finished 7th, and Southampton finished 12th, what do you think of that ? What is your opinion on the 87 clubs that haven't qualified as much for europe as we have, do you agree that the vast majority of those club, especially the ones with a half decent fanbase, must also have shit and incompetent directors ? What about Leeds, dropping from 3rd to the 3rd division, or whatever its called now ? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone but our old ex directors eh ? The thickest and the only thick directors in the world ? How many clubs exactly, must have shit directors, do you accept that under the new manager we were about to go forwards again ? You totally miss the point anyway, the point is not just necessarily comparing the progress made under the ex board and their predecessor before 1992, its also highlighting that a board who were really shit would pretty much inflict the same ........ And my point is that you can draw all these comparisons with other clubs and other boards, but none of them are completely valid because the potential of each club, at various times, is different. You can expect Charlton and Southampton to be struggling against relegation, but not the Newcastle that Shepherd took over as Chairman, because by that time we were a big club in terms of resources. Ridsdale is in a class of his own as a failure, because he took a top four club into relegation. However, it's not as though, under Shepherd, that we were a million miles away from that happening to us. Ultimately it's all subjective, so you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't see how you can be so sure you're right that you have to leap to Shepherd's defence every time someone states a different view.

aye, I expect by the same criteria, you think Arsenal have gone monumentally backwards since they finished the season unbeaten, or do you think they should have stayed there - and they haven't even changed manager Arsenal have gone from 1st to 4th, within a highly competitive top four. We went from 2nd to the bottom half of the table.

I guess if you lump the Shepherd and Hall Chairmanships together, and compare the club's performance with our performance pre-1991, and with the performances of clubs outside the top four, then you'd be happy. If you look at the situation when Shepherd took over as Chairman, and compare where he took us with what we could reasonably have expected him to achieve, then he's been a failure. A monumental one, in fact. I think the first comparison is a bit contrived, and the second one is fair, but it's down to personal choice.

I don't really agree with all this negativity. Yes, the game in the EPL is getting faster, but I don't see any reduction in the skill levels of the players. Quite the opposite in fact, and I'm not just talking about the foreign players. The English players have improved their technique as well. You younger guys should count yourselves lucky. IMO the product has never been better than it is now. We were fed rubbish for years.

Thanks y'all. At the end of the season, I'll go through the entries, giving points for the gap between the predicted and the actual finishes for each club. It'll then go in a league table. (Hopefully not too much work, and it'll improve my mental arithmetic) Looks like Spectrum has volunteered to come last by giving himself a 15 - 19 point handicap. Thank you for that.

The article doesn't really tackle the question of how a club like Chelsea gives an Academy player the kind of first-team experience that they need to become the finished article. Because Chelsea aim to be at the top all the time, they can't afford to do this. To a varying extent, it's a problem for all the big clubs, but I can't think of any club with a worse record for bringing younger players through than Abramovich's Chelsea. If I was a talented young player, they are the very last club I'd want to join.

Heskey has always been a better player than he's been given credit for. Since leaving Liverpool, he's had to struggle in crap teams, but he's useful. McClaren bothers me. Every England manager I've known has eventually crumbled under the pressure. They end up losing confidence in their own judgement and start picking players to please the media or the fans. That daft decision to bring back Beckham showed to me that it's happened to McClaren at a very, very early stage. Once the manager loses confidence in himself, the players soon follow.

Now that the transfer window has shut, and we've seen the early season form, anyone fancy putting their judgement on the line about how things will finish. I found the top three very hard to separate. Likewise positions 5 - 10 - 1. Chelsea 2. Man U. 3. Liverpool 4. Arsenal 5. West Ham 6. Newcastle 7. Everton 8. Tottenham 9. A Villa 10. Portsmouth 11. Blackburn 12. Man City 13. Middlesboro 14. Birmingham 15. Wigan 16. Reading 17. Sunderland 18. Fulham 19. Bolton 20. Derby

I think that's the key. He looked a very exciting player in pre-season, but against Hull, he couldn't cope with their physical approach. If he can get over that problem, then the sky's the limit.

I think he's done okay. Nothing spectacular, but he's done a decent job for us in centre mid. He has this image of a thug, but he can actually pass the ball well, and is quite a clever player.

It's been an amazing summer. In just a few weeks, Allardyce has completely re-moulded the squad and the whole character of the team has changed. I'm not too bothered about the lack of a Deco-type flair player in midfield. There's plenty of good passing ability there, and by the end of the season, I'd expect us to be at the top end of the table and able to attract that sort of player. Funnily enough, the one area of the squad which I think will need attention is striker. Apart from Shola, they don't look suited to the 4-3-3 that SA prefers. I also think we could do with a Bellamy-Beardsley type to link with the midfield and add a bit of variety. The four that we have are all out and out strikers.

I first saw him soon after he joined, in a training session. I couldn't believe that a player that small would survive in English football. He was always very composed on the ball, and somehow always seemed to make the correct decision. A very clever player.

We now look much more solid. And that's always been a bit of a weakness. We're not pushovers any more.

I can't believe I said that! You heard it here first!

By then we'll be so far ahead in the League that it won't matter.

A very good player, but would cost a fortune and the other big four clubs would be in for him.

Agree with this. If it wasn't for his temperamental problems, he'd be playing for one of the big four and be a regular in the England squad. He'll make a big difference to us when he returns. He's a good all-rounder.

Curbishleys plan to get rid of the bling boys and slackers working well then. Not for the first time, I get the impression that it's not Curbishley who's deciding the transfer targets at that club. In the pre-match interview tonight, Curbishley said, quite convincingly, that he knew nothing about a bid for Adriano. He said he thought it was probably an agent trying to drum up a move. Shortly before that, Sky had reported that West Ham had confirmed that they were in talks about Adriano. Go figure.

Curbishleys plan to get rid of the bling boys and slackers working well then. Not for the first time, I get the impression that it's not Curbishley who's deciding the transfer targets at that club.

if this is the case hen why is sam waiting so long to put him in? (not having a go, i just want an answer)... Help him get used to the country, probably learn a bit more of the language etc.. like sombody said earlier, Big Sams giving the guy chance to just settle. He's obviously moved from spain, (he's abit of a loner) so he needs time to get to know people and make friends... plus if he's a determind guy which ive heard he is.... then that can be only good for him... Coz he's just gonna want to get out there and play which holding him back slightly will make him more determined.... Then he can go all guns blasing against wigan if he performs well against barnsley... its all about your mental state....maybe he didnt feel right before... I'm not saying there's nothing in the idea of holding a foreign player back a bit - you don't want to rush a defender into a debut and then he has a mare because he has no understanding with his team mates. But I do wonder whether Sam is also influenced by the fact that Zoggy has had a record of agitating for a move, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for him to retain a first team place until the transfer window shuts. He may be thinking on similar lines in picking Martins over Owen at the moment. There's a case for holding Owen back as well, but ......you know.... if I were in Allardyce's shoes I'd be wanting to keep the restless ones quiet until the window shuts.