Ant1815

Top class managers demand the chance to be able to actually compete and have a decent stab at winning something. That's not what Ashley wants. He wants us to keep just ticking along, being extremely average and surviving in the premier league. It's what Keegan found out, and we know how that ended. All of our management appointments since have fitted the mould of 'just about good enough' to fulfil that.

Rumour I heard was that Dalglish wasn't originally going to be sacked, but that he was told that Suarez had to be sold in the summer. Dalglish didn't want to sell him and issued a 'Back me or sack me' ulimatum, the result of which we can see. How much truth there is to that I've no idea.

There's a decent 5-Live podcast about moneyball in Football that's available to download: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5lspecials There's a very interesting interview on there with Comolli where he admits the stats got it wrong on one player, because they didn't take personality in to account. He didn't say who it was but sounds like it could very well be Carroll

One of the comments on that article really sums it up best: "If we aren't a big club they why can you lot never seem to shut up about us?"

< how many times man? Seriously...>

should never risk anything untill were mathematicaly certain to stay up. Plus we should still be trying to finish as high as we can in the league, it would hekp keep gate attendances up and make us a more attractive proposition to players we go in for in the summer. Not saying I agree with not strengthening, just saying they probably looked at the situation and figured we probably had enough in us to stay up without having to panic buy and pay over the odds. Regardless of what we want Ashley has two priorities this year, avoid relegation and keep costs down. He's going to try and balance those two out. I honestly don't think he's interested in us pushing for Europe, or anything except staying in the PL

Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen.

Not sure if it's been posted or mentioned before, but what do people think about the supposed texts from Carrol saying he didn't want to leave? http://www.fansonline.net/newcastleunited/article.php?id=599

That's certainly not the case as far as I could see. The Liverpool fans that I know, and all that I was reading on the internet, suggests that they saw the appointment of Hodgson in much the same way we saw the appointment of Souness. The Liverpool fans wanted a top quality proven manager to replace Benitez and they didn't see Hodgson as being that at all. He's faced fan indifference at best from the word go.

The Yanks aren't too happy with the voting so they might start to look closer at FIFA and the 22 who had a vote. Everyone will start looking more closely. What England have just found out will no doubt soon dawn on Spain. Italy, France, Germany etc. To use a retailing analogy: It's all very well looking for new customers, but you can't p!ss off your existing ones.

That rules Europe and South America out of ever having another WC as it would be pointless. The way things are going that's looking more likely. I think that FIFA will be reigned in a bit one way or another in the next few years though.

If that was true then why go to a country which is smaller than Wales and has a population which may or may not be a little bigger than the poulation of Tyne & wear? Because their target isn't just qatar itself, it's the middle East. Just like their target in the last world cup wasn't solely South Africa but the whole continent of Africa. The influence of the world cup extends further than just the national boundaries of the host country.

I doubt that hosting a tournament is going to change anything, at least not long term. Maybe, maybe not, but what we think doesn't matter. FIFA clearly thinks it will, otherwise they wouldn't have world cups in these places, they'd just stick to the traditional footballing strongholds in Europe and South America.

I'm sure football is the best supported sport in Russia. Yes, but it's a bit like being the best looking lass in Sunderland... there isn't much competition. Trust me, I've been to Russia a few times and, although football is fairly popular, it's nowhere near the level it could be.

The thing about Sepp Blatter and FIFA is that they now consider themselves to be footballing missionaries, bringing the religeon of football to the unbelievers. As such England was never going to be picked. We're already football mad, what new converts to the football brand could be made by having the world cup in England? There's nothing inherantly wrong with FIFA's approach; every brand seeks to expand it's market in to new areas. What was definitely wrong with FIFA's approach is that they weren't a lot more open and honest about it. If they were then nations like Spain and England would have known in advance that there was no point bidding because they simply weren't fertile enough ground for the expansion of the cult of football. There would have been a lot of time, effort, and more importantly money (£15 million spent for the England bid) saved if FIFA had simply been more frank about the bidding process, and what they considered important, which quite obviously wasn't much to do with the technical ability to actually hold the competition itself.