Cronky

I feel a bit annoyed by Pedersen's tackle on Emre. He knew what he was doing. He knew he wasn't going to get the ball, but carried on with the challenge. There were a lot of tackles by Blackburn that were a bit (cough) over-enthusiastic. The ref should have been a bit stricter. I liked the look of Huntingdon. He looked very calm and composed considering he was being shoved on in a very difficult situation - defending a lead away from home against a team who were throwing the kitchen sink at us. Impossible to judge his ability, but he looked to have the mental strength. We did look weak in the air in defence though. When Pedersen can beat your centre backs in the air, you've got problems. No way should we be getting rid of Bramble. The spirit of the team looked very good, which Roeder has to take some credit for.

No question for me, it's Dyer's return. Love him or loathe him, he's restored the team's confidence.

Looking at some of the names put forward makes you realise how much more dainty the game has become. For the real hard men, you have to look back a bit, to times when refs were far less strict. Burridge Maguire Boam Kilcline Pearce Batty McCreery Carney Ferguson Shearer Whitehurst

It's been a growing problem for a while now that the top clubs have difficulty in giving their younger players any decent playing experience. The standard is now so high, that they can't afford to give youngsters a decent run in the side without it costing them too much in terms of results. They end up having to loan them out, or let them leave at the age of 23 or so, without having gained much first team experience. I think the B team idea sounds better than reserve games, and if the League was being formed now, it would probably be part of the set up. Trouble is, it's not a blank sheet and like you say, who's going to make way for all these B sides? Of course the glorious exception has been Arsenal, who have been able to bring so many youngsters through. Even there, you have to take into account that they take the best young players on an international rather than a national scale, and it's not something every club could do. There are also signs now that it's starting to put them at a bit of a disadvantage compared to Man U and Chelsea.

He was facing the East Stand, wasn't he? ie towards Mecca. Probably not intentionally though. Mind you, if there is a God, I hope he's got more important things to do than worry about who gets the winning goal in a Premiership match.

How does he know? bluewink.gif

What the Leeds example showed is the folly of pumping money on the assumption that you'll be able to recoup that investment through success on the field. Not everyone can end up winners. However, it now seems that there's a lot of money to be made just by remaining in the Premiership. I've got my concerns about clubs falling into corporate hands, but this is the new reality. The Premiership is becoming a global brand, and the most widely popular sporting entertainment on the planet. Naturally it's going to attract the interest of the wealthiest people on a world scale. It's happening regardless of what we think or want, and we only have the choice of joining in or being left out. If we want to stay competitive, we have to join in. The biggest problem is when you have someone like Abramovich who's investing money that hasn't been generated by the game and that can't possibly be recouped. That just inflates wages and transfer fees, and threatens to kill off proper competition. Hopefully this restriction on wages as a proportion of turnover will help even things out.

Quite a funny article, but seeing as the Belgravia Group have said they're in talks, and their interest has been officially confirmed by the Club to shareholders, it hardly counts as a wild rumour dreamt up by Geordies. The idea that foreign takeovers are mostly moonshine is also completely wrong. Villa and West Ham have fallen into foriegn hands this season, with Liverpool about to follow. Man U and Chelsea have also gone recently. There's a lot of interest in England's major clubs from abroad.

I think in practice all managers adapt tactically. The reason Chelsea do better than Arsenal at Bolton is because they can handle them physically. Nothing to do with tactics. It's just Mourinho having a little dig at Wenger and getting himself a bit of attention at the same time.

..................Given Carr Bramble Taylor Babayaro ........Solano Butt Emre ...............Dyer Duff ...............Martins

Mick 'Zico' Martin. Playing crap never seemed to bother him.

I think Roeder needed to be specific about what was said, or else say nothing. This kind of comment only leads to speculation about how bad the abuse was. 'They were nasty but I'm going to rise above it' sounds like he's not really rising above it at all.

If Shepherd lets Bramble go, against his manager's wishes, then it's another sad comment on how our club is run.

Personally, I've never thought that standing on a terrace watching crap football was a privelege that needed to be preserved for future generations. I think we need to be careful to keep things competitive, and not let the League become a monopoly, but otherwise as a spectator sport I think the game has improved immeasurably over the last 25 years.

It's one of those denials which only fuel suspicion. Looking at the detail, he's only denying things that he's never been accused of in the first place - buying a player without the consent of the manager, taking part in team selection, getting involved on the training pitch.

It was a bad reflection on the Premiership Chairmen that they made this rule for the good of the game, and then made an exception the minute it suited their own short-term interests - Shepherd wanted to appoint Roeder, and the other Chairmen didn't want him poaching their managers. As a result, as Ferguson says, the whole principle has been blown out of the water.

Zoggy has a major flaw in this game ie he loses control of the ball when running forward in possession. It's something he needs to work hard on, and I'm not quite sure that his attitude is right at the moment.

I think he's already done that, BUT, myself I'm being slowly converted. I'd like to see him perform in a Premiership game where he's put under pressure though.

Zoggy just couldn't keep control of the ball going forward, and didn't any provide proper protection in defence. On that performance, I'd take Arsenal's money before they change their minds. Luque, as usual, not enough aggression. We weren't able to stop crosses coming in, and they produced some good ones. We were saved by some very poor finishing. Incidentally, am I right in assuming that the commentators were based in England and talking to a TV monitor? They seemed to have terrible trouble identifying the players.

It was done by a guy called the Serial Caller. I don't know if it's obtainable on the Web though.

From that article, it sounds like the decision about a new contract will rest with the Chairman, not the Manager. I know the Chairman is ultimately responsible for financial decisions, but when it comes to the playing staff, he's got to be guided by the manager. Freddie doesn't have a great reputation for taking advice, and I suspect that, like most fans, he doesn't like Bramble. Otherwise, the contract position would have been sorted out before now.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice. Sigh "Where we ought to be if the club is run properly" ........ Note the second bit I put in bold, which is something true only in your head, as the muppets like to say. Well let me put it another way. If you don't think another Board could do better, why is that? If you do think it's possible that another Board could do better, why are you so reluctant to consider a change?

I agree with Gejon, Bolton's style suits him down to the ground. He's playing better for them than he did for us in his final two years. I don't think the loss of Speed was the problem.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice.

The proper comparison to make isn't between the current situation and how things were pre-1992. It's between the current situation and where we ought to be if the club was run properly.