manorpark

You know, John Trewick was our "Record Buy" (£375,000 I think?) for many many years! He was sh*te!

Why don't you stop beating about the bush ('pussy-footing' around) and say what you mean!!! Certainly agree about the atmosphere at matches - dire.

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . . don't you think it has gone just a bit too far though? once sky started, to all intents and purposes, dictating the fixture lists for the season i think some control was lost and now there's likely no turning back plus the point has been made elsewhere about bias coverage, if man u and chel$ki were limited to one game between them per week and it'd make a huge difference i reckon It is not perfect. Neither the coverage itself (preference for some teams / over-hyping at times) or the impact of it (a knackered Fixture List / players mad wages) but it is just SO MUCH better than before. We, the supporter, are just so much better off than we would be without it. Not having it now, would be like turning off the light and not even having a candle to see by . . . in my opinion. oh aye, i'm in agreement with you - look at my earlier post a prime example to refer to is the champions league when they changed to 2 group stages;it was overkill and people lost interest so they soon changed it back what we need is a similar reeling in of the amount of coverage back to something like when it started, or at least something in between then and now I am a great believer in 'supply and demand' enabling things to find their right (sustainable) level. Again, that method (philosophy) is not perfect, but I think that Sky coverage of football will find its natural level.

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . . don't you think it has gone just a bit too far though? once sky started, to all intents and purposes, dictating the fixture lists for the season i think some control was lost and now there's likely no turning back plus the point has been made elsewhere about bias coverage, if man u and chel$ki were limited to one game between them per week and it'd make a huge difference i reckon It is not perfect. Neither the coverage itself (preference for some teams / over-hyping at times) or the impact of it (a knackered Fixture List / players mad wages) but it is just SO MUCH better than before. We, the supporter, are just so much better off than we would be without it. Not having it now, would be like turning off the light and not even having a candle to see by . . . in my opinion.

The way some people talk, they must be either very young (ie - never knew what football coverage was like pre-Sky) or (simply) are not football fans. I remember my first introduction to Sky Super Sunday. I couldn't believe it! I was suddenly faced with a 'two hour' build-up to every match, followed by much better coverage of the actual match - then in-depth analysis afterward. The way I described it then (to others who did not have Sky) was - "every match is treated like the FA Cup Final!!!" In those days the only "really long" coverage you got on TV of a match, was on actual Cup Final day (the build up, analysis, live match, etc). How can any football fan not just "Love It" (as KK once said). And that (sort of thing) is another reason (among many) to like Sky Football . . . . .

EDIT - Duplicate Post, sorry.

Michael Owen, perhaps? Alan Shearer made a good captain, leading from the front, so why not Owen?

"Top 8" eh? WOW! Not long ago our usual objective was "Top 6" Not long before that it was "Champions League Qualification" (ie - Top 4) Not long before that (as recently as under SBR) the expectation was "challenging for the title". AMAZING. Now, at this very moment that our aready rich club has been purchased by an ambitious English Billionaire and we have acquired the services of someone regarded as "the best English Manager" of his time - people STILL keep downgrading our ambitions. Down and down and down. Amazing. When will reality bite?? Previous ambitions were based on our previous squads. Right now we're threadbare with a locker room full of players who don't want to be here. We're a different squad. I think you underestimate the damage done by previous bad management. Reality has bitten, just waiting for it to bite you. I appreciate and understand the points you (and others) are making on this - but I think that some of us may be finding it hard (impossible even) to adjust to the 'new reality' at our club.

"Top 8" eh? WOW! Not long ago our usual objective was "Top 6" Not long before that it was "Champions League Qualification" (ie - Top 4) Not long before that (as recently as under SBR) the expectation was "challenging for the title". AMAZING. Now, at this very moment that our aready rich club has been purchased by an ambitious English Billionaire and we have acquired the services of someone regarded as "the best English Manager" of his time - people STILL keep downgrading our ambitions. Down and down and down. Amazing. When will reality bite??

:lol: Even since Ambramovich took over they're not anywhere close to being the biggest club in the world, and they never will be. Chelsea may (however) now be the biggest JOKE (formerly a football club) in the world. They become bankrupt EVERY year, by millions and millions of pounds, until someone gives them a cheque. One year (soon) that cheque will not appear . . . could almost have happened this year, the signs are there . . then they will simply disappear. The things some footballers say (or are quoted as saying) are 'amazing' at times - NOBODY could believe what he has just said, so why say it!! "Embarrassing".

ok. One day we may get the chance to find out if Mourinho is a brilliant manager or not, compared to others in the Premier League who have had to "manage" without endless supplies of money. He has not been tested in the Premier League yet. He hasn't really even been "in" the Premier League yet. He has been on "Planet Roman"!! True? How do you think he would cope at (say) Charlton or Villa?

Are you responding to MY earlier point? If the Russian lives to be 500 years old, he will not see a personal profit! He has not turned them around, they are STILL making incredible annual losses and show no signs of ever making a profit. Do not believe Kenyons words on this. The Russians money is not part of a 'Business Investment' by any definition of that term that I understand - other than "Chelsea Football Club is a Business" and "Abramovich gives them an annual amount of money, varying only by the 'size' of their annual loss" The SIZE of their annual losses, is the "deformity" that I detest. The annual payoff allows them to behave like the real world does not touch them It indeed does not. They are a deformity.

source??? From what I have heard on a West Ham board, he has turned them (WH) down. Nothing about agreeing to join Spurs.

With OUR money - and only 'some' from Ashley! I couldn't give a s*** how we do it tbh. Points to credibility - do we want to spend (primarily, with an occasional Ashley-'top up') earned-money like Manchester United, and thus earn grudging respect (bordering on hatred/jealousy!) or do we want to spend unearned-donations like Chelsea, and have our achievements ignored and treated with the contempt they would deserve?? I know what I would prefer.

With OUR money - and only 'some' from Ashley!

No accounting for taste. Why Gateshead (South Newcastle . . )?

allardyce aswell ? bad enough they get players they don't need but managers is going too far I (almost) read it that way at first!!!

Where is this reported?

There are still a lot of us who cannot quite grasp the enormity of what the Ashley takeover means, for both 'now' and for 'the future'. My opinion though is that appointing Allardyce alone has taken us to the top 10 again, that's before his transfer dealings. I have confidence that he'll get the right men in and we'll finish close to Spurs & Everton at the very least. Yes, that is what I also felt, when Allerdyce was appointed - pre takeover. Now, though, it will logically be far better than that! (?)

To be honest, I am having a lot of trouble getting my head around (as I have just said on another hread) the 'enormity' of it all. The enormity-factor is caused by our new billionaire owner, but I so totally agree with you about building the 'spine' of the team. That is what Allerdyce brings to the table, that he is what he is good at. The "Allerdyce Factor".

There are still a lot of us who cannot quite grasp the enormity of what the Ashley takeover means, for both 'now' and for 'the future'.

I do not think that either Asley or Allerdyce would regard even their first seasons ultimate objective as "top 10". It could be (maybe) that that is all we end up getting - but it CANNOT be an 'objective' - and certainly not an objective that they will be telling potential new players about! i was thinking that,reckon top 6 will be the objective Yeah, possibly, but I think we will get more of an idea about this, after Ashley completes the takeover, and his 'player spending' policy becomes more clear. Mid-July?

I do not think that either Ashley or Allerdyce would regard even their first seasons ultimate objective as "top 10". It could be (maybe) that that is all we end up getting - but it CANNOT be an 'objective' - and certainly not an objective that they will be telling potential new players about (though, I know you are not saying that they would actually do that)!

I really like August though, a definite "specific challenge" in each game - if any extra motivation is needed. Should ensure even Dyer TRIES!

I can almost 'hear' him!!!!