Raconteur

Didn't the same apply to Giles Barnes, though...?

I'd agree with that - he certainly didn't have that "zest" second time around, and I genuinely think his experience with Ashley put him through the mill. Simply cannot see him managing again...

It's a Real Madrid fanzine - as far as I know the Daily Sport isn't a propaganda machine for one club...

We just buy people who won't be worthless when/if we sell them. It's not a profit-making strategy, it's just a business tactic to make sure you don't invest a lot in worthless assets. That's valid - but there was a fair bit of rhetoric about not buying over a certain age and a player having to have a resale value. And perhaps it is incorrect to link buy low with sell high; but the purchases of Gosling and Amalfitano suggest that price over value is a consideration. One might argue that the whole "Can't resist huge offers" that we heard last summer and this is tantamount to saying we're open to big offers (as opposed to keeping mum about outgoings until the situation arises...)

Hmmm... tough call: Greatest Club In The World or Biggest Victims In The World

Thay will, of course, indulge in some world-class revisionism. Probably something like "Cost King Kenny his job", or "Don't want a maggot like that associated with our club" and my favourite "good player but not world class" to appear on RAWK the day after he leaves...

I'd say that acceptance of Pardew's continued status as manager leading to some posters suggesting getting rid our most exciting players on the grounds that he doesn't fit into Pardew's "tactics" is pretty much brainwashing. It means that the Ashley model has become so ingrained that fans' expectations are so low and twisted that selling off a flair player who doesn't "fit" is anything other than a horrible idea. That's not accepting the way modern transfers work. That's accepting the reality of the Ashley model of buy low, sell high for players; and hire and persist with cheap managers. And THAT'S brainwashing.

Yep, totally

So, Alan Pardew (30.1%) and Alan Pardew's tactics (15.5%) are separate items? EDIT: Nine Goddamned seconds

That's great and all (and I think Dave's right btw), but if we're rooted in the relegation zone in November, who are we going to attract then? Especially if we really do adhere to the "no compensation fee" rule that some people think we have for managers? Joe Fucking Kinnear is still available, I hear, and apparently there's a contract waiting for his signature too...

Yeah, I'd agree with this too - I worry far less about Ben Arfa leaving than the likes of Colo, Cabaye and Krul...

Um... Benteke. I don't want to come over all "we're not good enough", but he's getting a lot of interest and we're not as attractive as we should be...

Well, we are in desperate need for a fifth-choice left back, so it seems feasible...

That's what Di Canio was talking about when describing hungover players as being "blurry for three or four days" in that press conference. You'd think in this day and age, with all of our access to medical and sports science, that in-season drinking bans would be almost universal for professional athletes. I mean, I don't get drinking myself, but it boggles my mind that people being paid squillions of dollars are willing to degrade their ability to perform at peak ability for the sake of... whatever drinking does for you.

Very well, but I disagree. His first response was gratuitously condescending and was certainly intended to wind up AND belittle. As I said in the megapost above, I felt his following argument was unsound and the use of pie graphs a fig leaf to cover his trolling. But that's okay, because I can disagree civilly with you

Cheers. I was surprised Dave seemed to be suggesting it it because I thought he would know from my previous form on here that I'm not any sort of WUM at all. I know from posting here before that good posters like him and Wullie can easily understand the basic points I'm making, while not necessarily having to agree at all. Can't see anything in those diagrams or the description of them that could be construed as trolling. You are trolling because your initial response to my post was a textbook straw man. In fact, I reproduce the wikipedia example, because it so closely parallels your post: You then punctuated said straw man with a gratuitous, trolling smiley face. Next, you ignored the entirety of my argument with a one line, logically dubious "Our players played significantly fewer than players at other clubs due to injury" and attempted to support this hypothesis with the explosion of colour that in no way countered my argument nor added to your own. Therefore, another textbook fallacy; this time the red herring. (Further, when ignoring my argument, you skipped over the grounds on which I consider injury to be an invalid defense of our poor form, which still stands unchallenged). Your explanations were based on sandy foundations at best, and can be countered on a number of grounds. For instance, the addition of five first team players in January. The impact of this, for instance, sees Debuchy starting 14 games and Simpson 12 (accoring to your figures), which theoretically adds weight to your position of "wider spread of core players." In fact, it has nothing at all to do with injuries yet seemingly adds credence to your argument. Your argument also ignores the ridiculous team selections of the manager, which has seen starts given to players such as Perch and Bigirimana that a better manager might have given to Anita. (And while that may be wildly hypothetical, is there a single Toon fan who would have chosen Perch or Bigirimana over Anita, ever? Anita could easily have as many starts as Jonas, which would have narrowed the spread of core players, to use your parlance.) Again, while seemingly adding to your theory, it in fact has nothing to do with injuries. Therefore, sir, I suggest that your arguments are specious, your logic flawed and your manner of debate fallacious. And given your well-established preference of piling blame on Ashley while absolving Pardew, I stand by my labelling of you a troll. And given my lengthy response to a troll, you probably got that thrilling tingle just from seeing a wall of text. That's okay, I only replied because I was sad that decent posters like Ian W and Inochi felt the need to stick up for you. Those two are principled debaters who defend their positions well. You, sir, do not.

Then Brendan Rogers wins the passing, of course

I know you shouldn't take the word of a snake-oil merchant like Allardyce, but didn't he say something like them not being able to afford him and comply with the FFP rules?

Who the hell calculates those kinds of things?!?

Those are really pretty graphs, but your logic is flawed on a number of grounds. However, I've looked around at some of your other posts, and I'm not playing with trolls. You think what you like, and spread whatever gospel you choose...

KK right again. Last season literally didn't happen did it. Has to be a question Ashley asks: How did a team that finished fifth and had five first-team players added in January finish in fifth place? (And if you mention Europa League or injuries I will stab you in the face) That's like asking for two positive integers that add up to make 2, but forbidding the use of 1 in the answer. Wrong. That ignores the fact that our players played significantly fewer ganes than many at more successful clubs. It ignores the woeful domestic cup runs, and the fact that in the EL group matches, we sent out virtual reserve teams on occasion. Nor does it acknowledge that some injuries were the direct result of managerial mismanagement (such as Ben Arfa being played when clearly unfit) or through institutional mismanagement (the failure of the club to investigate the occurance of muscle injuries borders on negligence, while the lack of fitness which potentially leads to injuries is, again, directly under the control of the manager.) But don't let that stop you pushing your barrow. You'd make a good advocate for Pardew in his "showdown" talks, except that he doesn't need one because he's so good at PR Go and troll someone else, Face EDIT: Just realised I made a typo, and that it should have read "...finish in fifth last place." So had you trolled me by pointing out my error, there would have been no response. But in your rush to push your ridiculous agenda, you ignored the tap-in in favour of a speculative scissor kick that ended in the stands...

Any mackem will tell you they were "Roman" salutes, not Nazi salutes And fascists, almost by definition, will criticise ANYONE who doesn't fit into their world view. Part of fascism is uniformity of thought!!! I do not endorse fascism in any way, shape or form. I do not endorse football hooliganism, or ultranationalism, or militarism, or any of the other fucked up things that sit under the "fascist" umbrella. And it appears that Di Canio is going to install a fascistic regime with inflexible, arbitrary and high-handed rules at Sunderland. Having said all of that, I think he's right in that there are limits to what is acceptable behaviour from professional athletes, and that he as manager has the right to set those limits as long as his chairman approves.

Yeah, at Forest... But his career wasn't limited to Forest.

Some absolute legends of the game on that list. And half of them should have retired years ago...

KK right again. Last season literally didn't happen did it. Has to be a question Ashley asks: How did a team that finished fifth and had five first-team players added in January finish in fifth place? (And if you mention Europa League or injuries I will stab you in the face)