Kitman

Christ, what a choice. I think I'd rather stick with Hughton. I can't see why Curbishley would want the job by the way - he left West Ham for the same apparent reasons that Keegan left, the club's imploding, the fans are in revolt, cockneys are persona non grata especially short or fat ones, plus I don't expect he's ever worked out of the London area. The only thing that seems to link him with us is that he's out of work.

He's the footballing equivalent of fool's gold. And I doubt he'd be a temporary appointment

O'Leary disgusts me. Jokes aside i would rather have Souness. I would rather have Denns Wise take over temporarily. O'Leary is repulsive. O'Leary, Bruce, Souness. All names to make you vomit. It's like asking if you'd prefer to be shot, stabbed or electrocuted.

He's Llambias' mate so in all probability we'd be stuck with him long term, his whining bullshit, pug ugly face and shite football to boot. Please God no.

A little part of my soul would die if O'Leary's appointed

Eh? Tandoori pies from an Arab?

As if anyone cares what Shola thinks at this time. "No comment" would have been enough

I'd love to hear Alex Ferguson's take on that. "Sorry Alex, you're only the manager, we're not obliged to buy who you want." "Bye." Pretty sure he threatened to walk when they didn't want to buy Dwight Yorke. Ferguson's forte has always been building young sides and buying players before their transfer value has peaked. KK usually goes for established stars (the list in the Times might be bullshit, but it does sound like a Keegan list). Bottom line: I don't think Ashley wanted to spend the sort of money it would take to get the players Keegan wanted. In which case it was probably a mistake to make him manager. Can't be arsed to look it up but my sense is Ferguson usually spends shitloads on young AND established stars - you can do that when you're big 4. I'd call Rooney an established star for instance when Man Utd went for him but he was also young

Lions led by donkeys. Or Ron Atkinson failing to piss in each corner of the ground to break a gypsy's curse. Fairly sure it's one of those two.

I don't think there was a problem with Keegan's on field coaching and motivating. The conflict arose because KK wanted more say on transfer matters, and it's a fair point that he had little knowledge of emerging talent or the world transfer market. Deep down everyone knows that. Isn't that what scouts are for? Seems like, as usual on here, there's black and white and nothing in the middle. a) Keegan has players signed for him and likes it or b) Keegan has to have an in-depth knowledge of every player in the world and spend his spare days jetting off to watch a Bolivian second division game. Can't I have c) he's a normal manager who has scouts like every other manager in the world (apart from these really successful continental ones who keep getting their arses handed to them by English clubs with English systems)? For c) Keegan would have to be happy with what his scouts were reporting and recommending. If that was the case why would there have been a problem in the first place? Keegan wanted players from his own list to be bought, and i doubt they included Xisco, Jonas, Nacho whats-is-face etc. That's not what Keegan said, is it? He said he didn't want players forced on him ie he'd had no input into their signing I think he had his ideas of who to sign, and Wise and Jiminez had theirs. Obviously KK's wish list wasn't given priority, so that's why he resigned. We'll have to disagree on that, I think it wasn't about lists but about control

I think he'll be off to Man City in January personally, unless he's on a promise to one of the top 4

I don't think there was a problem with Keegan's on field coaching and motivating. The conflict arose because KK wanted more say on transfer matters, and it's a fair point that he had little knowledge of emerging talent or the world transfer market. Deep down everyone knows that. Isn't that what scouts are for? Seems like, as usual on here, there's black and white and nothing in the middle. a) Keegan has players signed for him and likes it or b) Keegan has to have an in-depth knowledge of every player in the world and spend his spare days jetting off to watch a Bolivian second division game. Can't I have c) he's a normal manager who has scouts like every other manager in the world (apart from these really successful continental ones who keep getting their arses handed to them by English clubs with English systems)? For c) Keegan would have to be happy with what his scouts were reporting and recommending. If that was the case why would there have been a problem in the first place? Keegan wanted players from his own list to be bought, and i doubt they included Xisco, Jonas, Nacho whats-is-face etc. That's not what Keegan said, is it? He said he didn't want players forced on him ie he'd had no input into their signing

he had little knowledge of emerging talent or the world transfer market. Deep down everyone knows that. You could probably say that about most of the managers in the league. That's what the back up teams are for, to identify targets

Owen is a superstar though. He may not have been value for money but he would attract players to the club. I wonder how much they made of that to the likes of Coloccini and Jonas. They won't have sold it off the back of Nicky fucking Butt

I don't believe it at all

If Owen was planning to walk away anyway he's got the perfect excuse now

And who's going to look after Terry Mac now KK's gone?

Not heard a thing from our club captain through all of this. I can't see him sticking around any longer than he has to now - the only question is whether he goes in January or at the end of the season on a free. Agree/disagree?

It's all about the search for the guilty

This. Another season down the gurgler, I'm loving this new found stability.

Personally I don't think there's any comparison between Keegan and Souness. And aren't the problems you describe the same problems faced by all bar a handful of fashionable clubs? Incidentally I quite like the idea of the current set-up, but it has to work on all sides. If Keegan has the final say on who goes and comes, because he has to pick and prepare the team, would that be so bad? And if you don't trust the manager's judgement on players, maybe you should have picked a different manager? The comparison with Souness is only in regards to the stance both managers have taken. Souness wanted his own players and in the end Shepherd reluctantly caved in, and it cost us millions. Obviously Keegan is a lot better judge of a player, but the bottom line is if it goes wrong, Keegan won't be picking up the bill. Should he then be in a position to dictate incomings and outgoings? Turning down offers for Smith, £12m for Milner and handing Owen a massive contract....while these moves might make him popular in the dressing room, I'm not sure it's healthy from a financial perspective. I don't think any system is foolproof aginst bad signings tbh. You can just as easily say the same about Wise & co, what credentials do they have to dictate transfers? Wise especially. And the bottom line is, if it goes wrong on the pitch, they won't get the sack, Keegan will. If you're worried about a Souness type situation, don't give him 50m to spunk on players willy-nilly. As I said, I quite like the set-up. Wise & co scout, find players, make recommendations etc, all this seems sensible. Keegan has the final say on purchases and sales. That also seems sensible imo, as it's his team and he'll get the sack if they don't perform. I honestly believe Smith would be out as quick as flash if the squad was adequate, but it's not. I can also understand why he wanted to keep Milner, Barton and in particular Owen. We only got 2 players in at the end of the day. If you want a new style coach, you don't appoint an old style manager like Keegan imo. They have failed to properly man manage and communicate with Keegan and he must have felt he wasn't properly engaged in the only job he has ever been interested in. Can't help but think the wheels have come off since Mort left.

I agree with the sentiment. I avoid Louise Taylor as a rule.

Personally I don't think there's any comparison between Keegan and Souness. And aren't the problems you describe the same problems faced by all bar a handful of fashionable clubs? Incidentally I quite like the idea of the current set-up, but it has to work on all sides. If Keegan has the final say on who goes and comes, because he has to pick and prepare the team, would that be so bad? And if you don't trust the manager's judgement on players, maybe you should have picked a different manager? The comparison with Souness is only in regards to the stance both managers have taken. Souness wanted his own players and in the end Shepherd reluctantly caved in, and it cost us millions. Obviously Keegan is a lot better judge of a player, but the bottom line is if it goes wrong, Keegan won't be picking up the bill. Should he then be in a position to dictate incomings and outgoings? Turning down offers for Smith, £12m for Milner and handing Owen a massive contract....while these moves might make him popular in the dressing room, I'm not sure it's healthy from a financial perspective. I don't think any system is foolproof aginst bad signings tbh. You can just as easily say the same about Wise & co, what credentials do they have to dictate transfers? Wise especially. And the bottom line is, if it goes wrong on the pitch, they won't get the sack, Keegan will. If you're worried about a Souness type situation, don't give him 50m to spunk on players willy-nilly. As I said, I quite like the set-up. Wise & co scout, find players, make recommendations etc, all this seems sensible. Keegan has the final say on purchases and sales. That also seems sensible imo, as it's his team and he'll get the sack if they don't perform. I honestly believe Smith would be out as quick as flash if the squad was adequate, but it's not. I can also understand why he wanted to keep Milner, Barton and in particular Owen. We only got 2 players in at the end of the day. If you want a new style coach, you don't appoint an old style manager like Keegan imo.

Would've been interesting to see if KK was quite so loyal in January if the squad had been in any way adequate

Personally I don't think there's any comparison between Keegan and Souness. And aren't the problems you describe the same problems faced by all bar a handful of fashionable clubs? Incidentally I quite like the idea of the current set-up, but it has to work on all sides. If Keegan has the final say on who goes and comes, because he has to pick and prepare the team, would that be so bad? And if you don't trust the manager's judgement on players, maybe you should have picked a different manager?