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.

An interesting read, which suggests that the FA actually have copped out: http://anotherarsenalblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/fas-own-guidance-contradicts-fa.html

A damn site less than 3 months it seems.

So what's the solution, make every manager submit a team selection to the FA for approval before each match? The FA can't do a damn thing about this because the fact is that they've been letting the big boys get away with it for years. Let's just be clear here. You either play by the rules or you don't, you can't make it up as you go along when it suits. The rule states that you have to play your strongest side. It doesn't state that you have to play your strongest side...unless you happen to be Manchester United. It doesn't state that you have to play your strongest side...unless you think the reserves have a good chance of winning. It simply states that you have to play your strongest side. The top four have been flouting this rule for donkey's years (and to be fair the other teams in European competition too) What Manchester United did against Hull at the end of last season was just as bad. It gets glossed over because ManU won, and the game didn't end up mattering anyway, but that's not the point. It might have mattered to us, and ManU might have lost. Does anyone seriously think that had they gone in to that match needing three points that that would have been Fergusson's team sheet? They broke the same rule, clear and simple. Of course it's a rule that's realistically unenforceable anyway. Who's to say exactly what the 'strongest team' is? The only one who can do that is the manager surely? There's no alternative, unless you take up the option I pointed to earlier. I agree that this seems to be the first time that a team have appeared to deliberately 'thrown' a competitive match, but if you have a rule that is designed to prevent such a thing...and then spend years blatantly ignoring said rule, it's what's known as 'painting yourself in to a corner' Which is exactly why the FA won't be abl to do a thing, and if they do then it's blatant hypocracy.

The trouble with talking about loyaly regarding players, and managers in the Premiership (and to a certain extent the championship) is that you're talking about men who have reached the top of their professions. I don't know of too many people, in any walk of life, who have reached the top of their respective fields by being nice and loyal. In fact "Self serving C**t" seems to be a term that applies to most of them as far as I can see. Another thing to consider is that football is a job to these people, a career. How many people on this forum can honestly say, hand on heart, that they'd stay loyal to their current employer if another one came in for them offering a better job for more money? My only surprise is that football fans seem to be constantly surprised and/or upset about this.

I totally disagree. I think people here have very short memories. Go back to the 1980s and early 90s before the big money of the premiership and plenty of the top English players played abroad. Gascoigne, Platt, Lineker, Hoddle, Waddle. It didn't hurt their chances of getting in to the England team either, in fact, possibly the opposite. I think there's only one real reason we don't see so much English talent abroad now and that's quite simply because they can earn more money in the premiership.

Sir John Hall has said that Ashley bought the club in order to use it as a vehicle to promote his sports stores, particularly abroad. Not sure how much truth there is in that but that's what he said.

i know what you're saying but unless fans can see tangible evidence of ANY money being invested in the squad then it's all pie in the sky bollocks no-one has seen any evidence of that from ashley really have they? Exactly. I'm really surprised that there are any people at all who still believe anything Ashley says. He's a proven liar and yet we're supposed to take this statement as some sort of truth from the heart. All he's done is try to get sympathy for himself and is blaming everybody for the current problems, except where most of the blame actually lies....Himself.

Sorry for the long post. I'm off work and a bit bored at the moment. Please feel free to ignore That's the crux of the entire matter: Did Keegan know from the beginning exactly what his role was? There are a lot of unknowns in this matter, and people are filling in the blanks with speculation, naturally enough. It's been especially difficult considering that a great many statements from both Keegan and the club have been contradicted by other statements that each have made. I think that in this situation we need to vigorously apply occam's razor: Make as few assumptions as possible and ensure that the assumptions we do have to make are the simplest and most logical possible. With this in mind I'm firmly putting the blame on Ashley for this. Not because Keegan is the messiah, or because Ashley is a southern t***er, or because Wise is a dwarf, but because it's the only simple and logical conclusion I can come up with. Did Keegan know from the start exactly what his role was? We know for a fact that he had a meeting with Ashley prior to his taking the job. We know that he discussed what plans Ashley had for the club. We know these as facts because both parties have said this, and because it would be virually unthinkable for it not to happen prior to taking on a job like this. This meeting must have spelled out Keegan's exact role. If it didn't then there's blame on both parties: Keegan for not asking and Ashley for not telling. In this potential situation I think that slightly more of the blame goes to Ashley: He's the top man and he needs to get his team in place with the right people. If he's put a man like Keegan in this position without spelling out exactly what he needs then it's his fault if it all goes pear shaped later. However, I do think that Keegan's role was spelled out. I simply can't accept that two men like Ashley and Keegan had a meeting about this and neither one of them thought to bring this up. I firmly believe that both parties were aware of exactly what Keegan was here to do and how to do it. That still leaves the big question of course, essentially: What exactly was Keegan's role? Was it to bring players in himself, leave the player acquisitions to others, or a combination of the two? We don't know 100% for sure about this. It's one of the big speculations, and surely the linchpin of the entire argument, both for and against the two parties. Of the three above possibilities I think we can eliminate one entirely: Leaving player acquisition to others. I think the vast majority here would agree that Keegan would never agree to that. Keegan's detractors may claim that he might have agreed to this hoping to get his foot in the door and then putting pressure on to do things his way later, similar to his first walk out under Sir John Hall. However, statements made by both parties that Keegan had final say on players would seem to dismiss that argument. So we're left with two remaining possibilities: Keegan was entirely responsible for new signings, or partially responsible with final say on Players. Many statements from both parties, as well as the events that transpired; such as the appointment of Wise, would point to the second option: Keegan was only partially responsible for bringing in players, but had the final word. I'm utterly convinced that that was the scenario both parties understood and worked to. What Is undeniable is the fact that it all went pear shaped along the line somewhere. In hindsight it was the worst scenario possible of the three. If Keegan had no say whatsoever then he likely would never have taken the job in the first place. If Keegan had total authority on transfers then there wouldn't have been a conflict of this nature. The very setup that was agreed was flawed because it had so much potential, from both parties, for misunderstanding and, what the media like to call 'Mission creep' The only real question left is this: Who overstepped the boundaries, who decided to push the limits of what their understood role was? Any answer to that is going to be speculative, but I think that a very logical and simple explanation seems to fit. Ashley is a man who likely knows as little about football as there is to know, but he isn't stupid. He'll have people who are knowledgeable about football talking to him; mainly Keegan, Wise and Kemsley. these three people...and maybe a couple of others will be letting him know their ideas of taking a football club forward...and I'd seriously doubt that they'd all be saying the same thing. Somewhere at some point I think that Ashley liked what he was hearing from Wise and Kemsley rather than Keegan. Probably, but not exclusively, because it was by far the cheaper option. Even if you cite Ashley's hands off approach to running the club we could just put Llambias into the position of decision maker instead of Ashley and get the same conclusion. We therefore now have conflicting interests. Keegan's method of building a team, and Wise's methods. Under the agreement in place...Keegan having final say, there shouldn't have been this big a problem, but clearly there was. Keegan on the face of it seems to be the injured party here. He claims that transfers were done without his say so and he resigned because of it. I can't see any reason he'd say that unless that was the case, and I certainly can't see any real evidence to contradict what Keegan says. And given that I'm convinced that the original agreement was that Keegan had final say...and that he clearly wasn't being given that toward the end of the transfer window, then there's little option other than to conclude that Ashley was in the wrong. He made an agreement with Keegan and then altered that agreement when Keegan's ideas of taking the team forward didn't coincide with what he finally decided to do, based on advice from others. I'm not saying that Keegan's Ideas on taking the team forward were the best, or that Ashley is out to screw us. I don't even think that Wise is doing anything other than what he thinks is the best way forward, but I do think that this whole situation has to land at Ashleys door as the blame taker. I simply can't see any other simple and logical explanation without going off on more exotic and tangential speculations.

The thing that concerns me that nobody has yet mentioned is this: If, as many say, you could see this coming and we always knew what Keegan was like, and that there was a certain inevitability about it all.....Why couldn't Ashley see it too? To me it just seems indicative of Ashley's lack of any real understanding of football, and NUFC in particular. Many here blame Keegan for what's happened over the last week, but it's directly down to Ashley's complete ignorance of football that we've ended up here. If he was going to run the club in a continental style, DOF et al, then it's pretty obvious to most that Keegan wasn't the right manager to bring in to this setup. Either way, however you look at it, this has been a monumental screw up by Ashley. He's obviously lost most of the fans and I seriously doubt that he'll get them back again. He can kiss goodbye to his away games with the toon army, and I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with a man who can make such catastrophic errors of judgement in charge of this club.

Unfortunately for Ashley the events of the past day or so may have demonstrated that he's got a manager that's effectively unsackable. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the near future.