Parky

At this point it needs to be made clear that Parky Industries decline to comment in matters concering Mr Allardyce. We will release a statement pertaining to the media speculation regarding our corporate footprint and its perceived stance on Mr Allardyce in due course.

Berbs?! He'll probably leave cos of his rubbish nickname

Success definitely requires both ..... as I'm sure Mourinho would testify (Parky - Interesting choice of homo-erotic Hockney picture by the way) Mourinho is the most def minded manager in the PL, closely followed by Allardyce, they both play a core holding diamond or variations of that. The only differance is that Mourinho gives license for a CD or DM to break forward in certain situations (Carvalho is the obvious example)...It is why he only buys def who can play with the ball at their feet ie very good quality. The 'ghost' defender often creates havoc on the counter in the old Sacchi style also used by Trappatoni and later variations by Mourinho. A simple attacking and def style in the PL is no longer viable if you want to be challenging...hence the need for utter quality in the def who can think and pass, something none of our boys (bar Solano when he plays RB) can do.

Newcastle fans are in exactly the same position as Spurs'. We too have been hit with a season ticket price increase, which is all the more galling after the most successful on field season in quite a few years, £5m coming in from the Puma sponsorship deal and £8.5m coming from Mansion. And in spite of all that, the season ticket still goes up. The reason, in Spurs' case ( and probably in for Newcastle too) is simple. The share issue guaranteed by Enic expires in September, any shares not bought will be purchased by Enic for 16p per share. The current share price is over £1. Buying those shares will takes Enic's shareholding to approximately 52%. No doubt in my mind that after September (maybe soon after) Levy will be selling up and moving to the States. Before he bought Chelsea, Abramovich was interested, before he bought Villa, Lerner was interested. What I found interesting in the Telegraph article was the talk of associations between USA moguls and Easter Europeans. In the past few months there has been mention of a couple of Americans but the last year/18 months, the most regular name that keeps cropping up is Vagit Alekperov. Been to matches at WHL on a number of occasions and also has extensive business interests in USA as well. But what if he bought Spurs and Belgravia (for example) bought Newcastle? All that would happen is that all the top clubs would all be owned by moguls and not every team can be the winners. It may sound good in the short term but I'm depressed by the long term outlook for the game in general here. Very true. The other side of the coin is that you dont want to be left behind if it means additional funds overall for investment. But surely the problem comes when only a handful of clubs are mega-rich, doesn't it? If everyone's got a billionaire owner wouldn't that mean increased competition and therefore a more interesting league? At the moment no-one other than Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool have a chance of winning the league and they've even got the cups sewn up as well this year. That's a really boring situation for the rest of us, but if Villa, Spurs and us were added to that group, surely that's got to make it better, not worse. If 3 or 4 teams were added to the big 4, then yes, I'd agree the league would be more competitive and be better for it. I think the problem arises when most clubs (or all) are owned by billionaires and, unlike American sport such as the NFL, one of them misses out on the gravy train by getting relegated. That's when I can see owners possibly cutting their losses and pulling out, leaving the club potentially in a crisis situation. I know that is an extreme scenario but I wouldn't say it was impossible. Diminishing returns.

you should write a book with insights like that Back of fag packet will be enough for punters like you.

I'm not surprised tbh. There have been persistent noises about SA having taken Bolton as far as he could. Bolton have been reluctant to spend a lot more because better and more expensive payers won't convert into more bums on seats, more sponsorship or a better position in the league. Allardyce will go to Citeh if Ranson's consortium is successful from what journos are saying, if not, who knows? The fact that, with Bolton's agreement, Spurs have had talks with Anelka ( >) says quite a bit really. Anelka to replace Berbatov? Juve have offerred ?14.6m Euro for Anelka which Bolton were considering 2 weeks ago, that was the start of the end for SA. I can understand his frustration. IMO they are 2 big players short of challenging for top 4. Anelka would be a huge asset to any PL club. :parky: Isn't that what Bolton payed for him though? So they aren't even looking to make a profit on Anelka? Gartside is an idiot ... That is £10m pounds a £2m profit. £2 million? Gartside is still an idiot ... Agreed. I wouldn't take £15m for Anelka.

grameh how long has Roeder been at the club?

I'm not surprised tbh. There have been persistent noises about SA having taken Bolton as far as he could. Bolton have been reluctant to spend a lot more because better and more expensive payers won't convert into more bums on seats, more sponsorship or a better position in the league. Allardyce will go to Citeh if Ranson's consortium is successful from what journos are saying, if not, who knows? The fact that, with Bolton's agreement, Spurs have had talks with Anelka ( >) says quite a bit really. Anelka to replace Berbatov? :lol: No, re-hash of the 4 strikers. Berbs, Keane plus 2 from Anelka, Cisse, Bent and a few other names doing the rounds. Citeh still want Mido ( ) and Villa are still the most active in showing interest in Defoe. Who we finally wind up with God knows, but Comolli signed Anelka for the scum and is keen to do so again. Jol isn't keen on the idea at all! I don't think Berbs will leave Spurs unless there is an insane offer.

I'm not surprised tbh. There have been persistent noises about SA having taken Bolton as far as he could. Bolton have been reluctant to spend a lot more because better and more expensive payers won't convert into more bums on seats, more sponsorship or a better position in the league. Allardyce will go to Citeh if Ranson's consortium is successful from what journos are saying, if not, who knows? The fact that, with Bolton's agreement, Spurs have had talks with Anelka ( >) says quite a bit really. Anelka to replace Berbatov? Juve have offerred ?14.6m Euro for Anelka which Bolton were considering 2 weeks ago, that was the start of the end for SA. I can understand his frustration. IMO they are 2 big players short of challenging for top 4. Anelka would be a huge asset to any PL club. :parky: Isn't that what Bolton payed for him though? So they aren't even looking to make a profit on Anelka? Gartside is an idiot ... That is £10m pounds a £2m profit.

It's not really about 'settled', it's about QUALITY. Next.

I'm not surprised tbh. There have been persistent noises about SA having taken Bolton as far as he could. Bolton have been reluctant to spend a lot more because better and more expensive payers won't convert into more bums on seats, more sponsorship or a better position in the league. Allardyce will go to Citeh if Ranson's consortium is successful from what journos are saying, if not, who knows? The fact that, with Bolton's agreement, Spurs have had talks with Anelka ( >) says quite a bit really. Anelka to replace Berbatov? Juve have offerred €14.6m Euro for Anelka which Bolton were considering 2 weeks ago, that was the start of the end for SA. I can understand his frustration. IMO they are 2 big players short of challenging for top 4. Anelka would be a huge asset to any PL club. :parky:

Good luck to them.

If a manager was making transfer decisions based on his own personal financial gain, rather than the good of his club, then the supporters of that club have every right to be very annoyed. It is widespread, but the allegations against him were pretty hefty. The fact he didn;t take any action is a bit worrying. But as you said, it doesn't really matter in the wider picture, if he keeps his club's fans happy. Booooooooomsoooooooooong.

There's hardly a club/manager/agent out there who hasn't taken a bung in all reality...No one gives a shit.

I think it is quite clear that they don't have the full picture for whatever reason. I mean Arsenal would be in trouble without CL money to an extent. PL is not a monopoly by any means although they are trying to make it one.

Newcastle fans are in exactly the same position as Spurs'. We too have been hit with a season ticket price increase, which is all the more galling after the most successful on field season in quite a few years, £5m coming in from the Puma sponsorship deal and £8.5m coming from Mansion. And in spite of all that, the season ticket still goes up. The reason, in Spurs' case ( and probably in for Newcastle too) is simple. The share issue guaranteed by Enic expires in September, any shares not bought will be purchased by Enic for 16p per share. The current share price is over £1. Buying those shares will takes Enic's shareholding to approximately 52%. No doubt in my mind that after September (maybe soon after) Levy will be selling up and moving to the States. Before he bought Chelsea, Abramovich was interested, before he bought Villa, Lerner was interested. What I found interesting in the Telegraph article was the talk of associations between USA moguls and Easter Europeans. In the past few months there has been mention of a couple of Americans but the last year/18 months, the most regular name that keeps cropping up is Vagit Alekperov. Been to matches at WHL on a number of occasions and also has extensive business interests in USA as well. But what if he bought Spurs and Belgravia (for example) bought Newcastle? All that would happen is that all the top clubs would all be owned by moguls and not every team can be the winners. It may sound good in the short term but I'm depressed by the long term outlook for the game in general here. I think people are living in wonderland if they think 'these investors' aren't going to start taking money out at some point. I still think the Glazier deal is against best practice vis a vie the loan primarily being carried by the club.

There are other factors we tend to have a worse time against holding teams (those quoted above) because we lack creativity in certain areas. We have been overperforming against the better sides cause the come at us/it is simpler for us to defend in groups and break out. Also often professional players will raise their game against clearly perceived superior sides....That's football.

They will make an offer of Crouch plus cash for Owen as sure as god made little apples.

So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. I think that's fair comment. In the world of football it actually is not a fair comment at all. I actually think it's a bit short-sighted tbh. The only thing a Board can do is appoint a manager they believe and hope will bring success and then give that person the resources to bring that success. In football that means backing the manager in his dealings for players coming in and going out. If the manager doesn't deliver despite having this level of support it is not the fault of the Board. Here is an example. During the 3 seasons Robson's team finished 4th, 3rd and 5th I'd argue that a team capable of performing to that level was good enough to win something, perhaps the FA Cup or the League cup. It is not down to the board that Robson elected to put out a weakened team for a home tie in the League Cup against WBA, for example. It is not the fault of the Board that we twice got to FA Cup finals but both times, not only did the players fail to turn up and do themselves any kind of justice, both times we also played the team that turned out to be the best team in the country that season. Some of that is down to the players bottling the situation and also not getting that bit of luck that you need along the way. There is only so much a Board can do and also only so much a manager can do in reality. Fair enough, having a shit Board in the past doesn't mean the present Board is great, but when you've lived through decades of selling your best players and only buying when relegation is a possibility you get to realise that it's vital the Board backs the manager. That's their main role and is all they can do in reality. The Board doesn't pick the team, doesn't set out the tactics and they don't take part in the training. To suggest they will take the flak for failure and the glory for success is nonsense really. The realiity in football is that when you win nobody gives a second thought to the Board, it's the manager and players who take all of the credit. As long as the manager is backed the Board is doing their part, after that it's down to the manager and the players. I was only referring to the sympathy factor.

Parky thats utter shite, compare Souness' CV to Allardyces and get back to me Allardyce is the new Bobby Gould / Joe Kinnear :parky: I don't bother with CV's as you well know. More importantly all this has interfered with my afternoon 'gentleman's relief'.

So if he replaces Roeder, is backed fully by the Board and fails, will he be yet another s*** appointment by Fred? Could we not ask the same hypothetical question if we appointed Hiddink or Hitzfeld? Errr.....why not? The answer is obvious, of course you can so I'm not sure why you asked. Yup the answer is obvious. Whoever they hire, the board are ultimately held to account by how that appointment does in his time here. If Alladyce were to be appointed and did well then the board can share the glory, otherwise they will share the failure. If he does fail though, the board might get a little more sypathy in their decision (as they get with Dalgleish and Gullit to an extent) than when they appoint recognisable dross like Souness or managers with records like Roeder. I think that's fair comment.

Absolutely Parky, now hoy a spanner in the works with some random unsubstantitated rumour, you Spud ITK you Shut it gay boy.

You can't guarantee success in football there are too many variables.... blueyes.gif

the fact that he played that style due to budget could be seen as a given, too obvious for words however bolton have been safe from relegation troubles for quite some time now yet they still base their game on the same style with a few minor additions such as you mention - their primary tactic is still the same however hence you being only able to name diouf and anelka as current first teamers that don't fit the "horrible" category how long do you give him to transition his style from one to the other before it defines him? the lad nappy mentioned allardyce has had time and i'd agree; he's hardly set up a production line of free, developed talent in his time has he? nor has he blown loads of cash in tripe, granted as mentioned previously steve coppell has brought reading up playing nice football on a budget so a budget is not an excuse... is allardyce a pragmatist who can adapt his style to club he's at or is he a one trick pony? this whole thing largely started today 'cause i said the later and people disagreed with me Coppell has done exactly what Pardew did last season, where are West Ham now? As people have said, Bolton have changed their style and do play good football now. Sometimes they resort to the old fashioned bully boy football against better teams because it gets them results. If you expect us to play like Arsenal every week then we will need more than a Coppell to manage it every season and not find ourselves in the shit. We will also need to spend quite a bit (again) on players who are capable of it. Allardyce plays "effective" football, he gets results, sometimes its not pretty but sometimes it is. We're at the point in this thread where people are beginning to lose perspective...Liverpool and Chelsea play efficent football neither have a killer creative player..Football has moved on it is more a percentage game now with player ofter multi-tasking (Chelsea). I don't see people saying we don't want Mourinho cause Chelsea play percentage balls to Drogba for knock downs...So why this is getting levelled at Allardyce I'm not clear. It is clear Sam has made strides with Bolton and that he is a better allround manager. Is he a whole class above? MAYBE.