brummie

Incidentally, there was an article in the Mirror today about Lerner's fuckwittedness, and it mentioned a top manager who was very interested in the job without naming him. That was Benitez.

I remember the summer of 2011 when we were looking for a new manager. We were agog with speculation that Ancelotti (who I believe was sat at home in his underpants watching Homes Under The Hammer all week) was going to get the job. That came to nothing (unsurprisingly). Then we heard (from the son of a director of the club who posted it on a forum) that Lerner had met with Rafa Benitez, Benitez wasn't just interested in the job, he'd actually *applied* for it. I remember that summer he was talking about how he wanted to get back into the game in England with "a project". It sounded ideal. Only, when Benitez told Lerner how much money he'd need to spend on the squad, Lerner cut the interview short. Then we heard that Steve McClaren had been approached, and were a bit concerned, only for him to get ruled out. Much relief ensued. Then we heard that Roberto Martinez had said he didn't want to interview, he wanted to stay at Wigan another year. And we all breathed a collective sigh of relief, musing as to how he couldn't understand how to make a defence work, and having just dodged relegation a lot wasn't really much of an achievement with a manger. Then I remember a mate of mine saying "you're not going to believe this, but I've been told we're speaking to ..." now, at this point, I absolutely guarantee you, you could have said to me "if you had to bet every single thing you own on one particular manager currently in a job not being the one I am going to complete this sentence with, who would it be?", I would have lumped it all on Alex McLeish. Every penny of it. Every last pfennig. Then he finished the sentence ... "Alex McLeish" I still, three years later, can not believe that a responsible adult like Lerner would think something like that could possibly work out. Anyway, my point is, you're really still at the start of your manager search. Yeah, names will come and go, and yes, I'm saying that things can really work out cretinously badly if your owner is a big enough tool, but by the same token, you have a very long way to go yet until you arrive at the level of "insane appointment". I reckon he'll get someone decent in.

It'll also be embarrassing because of the media spin.... 'they got the Geordie they wanted and it's done them no favors' The media will want you to get a British manager in, preferably one off the usual Yo Sushi style conveyor belt of undistinguished, not-won-anything, relic British managers that go from club to club. I suppose Carver might not be one of those names, but it is pretty much bang-on certain that he'd be one if he got your job. You just can't be a modern football manager without a range of skills, many of which don't involve football, these days. Which is something Martin O'Neill eventually discovered, I think. Even the man management bit alone is totally different. You have to deal with a range of players from all over the world and the tiny nuances in how you deal with them are massively important. The reason Ferguson got away with being relatively old school was that it was his empire, he built it in the first place, and also because he had a range of different coaches working under him, and wasn't afraid to move them on and replace them as the times changed. These days you just can't have the likes of Carver running things. It won't work.

Stone, but how old is he? *thigh slap*

I think, since the PL has come along, and then the Champions League and the financial divisions that causes, the premier league is divided into different types of clubs. There are those who can compete for the title realistically, or to get to, and stay in, the Champions League. There are those who traditionally are considered to be doing well to even be in the top flight (West Ham, Stoke, Albion, Swansea etc) There are those who have recently been promoted, for whom it is all a big adventure (Leicester, Burnley, Palace) Then there are those who are pretty much always in the top flight, who have - in the past competed for league titles - but now find themselves in a situation where it is impossible to even think of doing that any more - Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Spurs (no matter how they'd like to think otherwise) It is the fans of clubs like those four for whom the Premier League is the biggest killer. Just staying up is right at the bottom of expectations, haven't just been promoted so it isn't all a big adventure any more, can't hope to compete (unless they get insanely rich owners who fancy a go at it) - basically, stuck in a "it will never be like it used to be" rut, and in some cases run by people with sinking ambition. Not cool. the sad thing even this can't happen anymore not with FFP rules and you can bet UEFA would come down like a ton of bricks on any "upstart" club trying to pull it off now and premier league has those rules too so the guys already at the top would probably demand points deductions on any side who tried that trick to kick them out of their cozy little club. Of coarse the media would think we should all just be happy bathing in the reflected glory of the true elite All FFP did was pull up the ladder. Limits on how much, in percentage terms, you can increase your wage bill by year on year favour clubs who already have massive wage bills, for example.

I think, since the PL has come along, and then the Champions League and the financial divisions that causes, the premier league is divided into different types of clubs. There are those who can compete for the title realistically, or to get to, and stay in, the Champions League. There are those who traditionally are considered to be doing well to even be in the top flight (West Ham, Stoke, Albion, Swansea etc) There are those who have recently been promoted, for whom it is all a big adventure (Leicester, Burnley, Palace) Then there are those who are pretty much always in the top flight, who have - in the past competed for league titles - but now find themselves in a situation where it is impossible to even think of doing that any more - Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Spurs (no matter how they'd like to think otherwise) It is the fans of clubs like those four for whom the Premier League is the biggest killer. Just staying up is right at the bottom of expectations, haven't just been promoted so it isn't all a big adventure any more, can't hope to compete (unless they get insanely rich owners who fancy a go at it) - basically, stuck in a "it will never be like it used to be" rut, and in some cases run by people with sinking ambition. Not cool.

Uh-oh, the local press have finally, finally turned on Lambert. Bit of a savaging for him from the Birmingham Mail today (although not from the bloke who covers Villa for them, tellingly, as he'll not want to get barred from matches).

You have to wonder about his motivation, too. Is he going to Sunderland because they're the best option in footballing terms, or because they're the only people steeeeeyyyuuupid enough to agree to pay him £70,000 a week until he is 35? Maybe they wouldn't have been had Redknapp not got a performing striker already, but hey ho. Truly mindbendingly awful signing at that money.

Awful anti-aliasing on that hashtag #smoothyourtextbitches

A £14m package on a 32 year old is beyond fucking stupid. it's all very well that Sunderland fan quoted above tweeting "turned down club a, club b and club c for us", the reason is almost certainly that none of the others thought it'd be worth £14m to have a 32 year old play for you for three years. It reminds me of when Paul Merson was asked why he went to Boro, and he replied "the same reason anyone went to Boro back then - the money".

Can he score goals? That's not our problem. The goal scorers, I mean. The problem is we have absolutely no idea how to get them the ball.

yet you won't pay £2.5m for Scott Sinclair? In that case, good. Although, disappointingly, I believe we're signing him too.

We are apparently signing Carles Gil from Valencia for €4m

A new low from us today. Just awful. Fans singing "you don't know what you're doing" at Lambert. Properly turned now.

yet the CCTV footage from the hotel showing her not looking pissed and walking around fine enough should just be ignored, even though time-wise it is closer to the incident in question than when she was looking more pissed You've just totally ignored the point about the cctv footage and decided "she looks alright to me" and on the basis of that, Evans has been unfairly treated? Christ, no wonder rape is such a sensitive subject.

No, as i said above, that is not what he is saying at all. Of course opinion gets involved. It almost always does in legal cases. It is an opinion formed after seeing all the evidence, listening to questioning, and applying the law as exists. That's how juries work, too. That is how the legal system works. There is a massive difference between a few people discussing a legal case on a football forum, and a court of law with a judge and jury. A high court judge, a jury, having sat through the trial, having seen all the evidence, decided that Evans was guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". As did the second judge who rejected the appeal. His comments also don't suggest it has "all come down to his personal opinion", either. He was found guilty by a jury. The judge expressing his opinion - that he agrees with the jury - and mentioning the CCTV do not in anyway suggest that he was the one to decide (he wasn't) or that it was on the basis of just the cctv coverage (it wasn't).

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? What on earth do you mean by that? He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted. That's why Evans was found guilty. if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy. he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise He is saying he believes she was too intoxicated, and that the cctv footage shows how intoxicated she was. That's not the same as saying "I think she was intoxicated because she looks pissed on the cctv footage". He is an experienced judge making his comments in the closing of the trial having heard all the evidence and cross examinations. The second judge who considered the request for an appeal agreed with him. The jury, having been guided as to the law, agreed with him. You're suggestion that you "believe" an expert suggested otherwise and that it is just the judge's opinion. And that is exactly what I mean by pointing out that the grey area people talk about here doesn't exist legally, it is just people throwing suggestions around, rather than anything based on actual fact. And therein lies the problem with some of the reaction to this case. While all this is going on, his victim is finding herself persecuted, forced to keep changing address, and having her identity revealed online. How fucking depressing. You'd think she was the one in the wrong.

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? What on earth do you mean by that? He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted. That's why Evans was found guilty. if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.

I think there are two arguments here. Of course some rapes are "worse" than others, but it wasn't that that caused the ruckus when whoever it was (I can't remember) (remembered - Judy Finnigan). It was the implication that that meant that there was some forms of rape which "aren't really too bad". That's the dodgy ground. Rape is a hideous crime, whichever format it takes. In that sense, rape is rape, the media are correct on that.

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

He's not even toilet. He's a rusting shit bolt at the bottom of a toilet pan.

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It hasn't finished yet, no. Although I'm not really sure what difference it makes, given that we don't know what it'll say.

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of. Until evidence surfaces to change that, he is going to remain one. It is retinue's refusal to stop acting like this is not true which has made the situation worse. That is why he is struggling to get back into football, because people don't really want to be associating with the likes of Ched Evans. How can a football club do things like community activism, do good work outside the actual football (and a lot of them do) if people can point at them and say "look at the sort of person you employ"?

I find it hard to see it as persecution - the only reason he's getting any coverage in the media, old or new, is that he's either trying to get back into football, or his retinue are spending money on stating his case. He's a convicted rapist. Pointing this out isn't persecution, it is a statement of fact. I agree he should have been unequivocal, but he hasn't, he's been the exact opposite, and that is a large part of the problem.