Interpolic

Goodness me.

Seems ridiculous that the window shuts tomorrow, almost nothing's happned.

Not really, I think they bought him from Italian minnows AC Milan.

The thing is that if he'd had a good World Cup and ended up being a good player that we got for just £3.5m then it would have looked like a masterstroke.

Actually yeah, he wasn't that great during the World Cup. Guess that was a bad example then. Pretty sure we'd agreed a deal to sign him before a ball was kicked in that World Cup. Can remember watching helplessly as he scored no goals for the best national side on the planet.

bollocks man, had they avoided relgation on goal diff but found a benefactor that would do what roman done,,,,you don't think mourinho would be interested ? I don't think he'd go anywhere near it. You're over-simplifying it. Money's been one of the factors with the jobs he's taken, not the sole factor.

I'm willing to concede that Mourinho would manage Wigan but not before they'd been built up to be a consistent top 6 club over a number of years. Which kind of makes my "Man City = fairly big club" argument a bit redundant, but not really as they'd have a huge head start over Wigan in attracting that kind of manager.

You honestly think Mourinho would ever go to Wigan?

I couldn't work out whether you were serious about Senegal the other day, not any more. Is it serious though? Haven't read the Senegal stuff I think. Surely he can't be serious. He's taking the piss, or at least I think he is.

Agree, plus Man City's history and standing is streets ahead of Wigan's.

Nobody has said they were a no mark club, they had just finished 4 places higher up the league than we currently are. But Wigan are a no mark club which is sort of the point.

Think that's a canny outrageous statement. how ? imagine him going to chelsea pre abramovic. Chelsea weren't the smallest club in the Premiership before Abramovic. Wigan are. He's got his pick of clubs man.

Think that's a canny outrageous statement.

I honestly think we'd have a good chance of getting him as any but maybe 2 or 3 clubs because of his links to Bobby. The only downside for him would be the people he'd have to work with. That could be balanced out by him having already worked on the continent and possibly not having a great deal of input into transfers. The financial fair play will also mean that wherever he goes he's going to have to work within these guidelines so can't expect massive transfer budgets. Would Ashley and Llambias have the intelligence to go after him or talk him into the job? Somehow I couldn't see it. Mourinho wouldn't stand for having his best players sold without his input and not having gaps in the squad plugged at the soonest opportunity. As you say it would take a lot of ambition from the board for a start to create the set of circumstances required. It'll never happen.

I honestly think him managing us would work well for both parties if he was backed financially. If he could lead us to a trophy then it would add massively to his prestige. Will never happen though.

Giving him a new contract was an appalling decision, it's not like I'm even saying that only because of hindsight.

Feel much the same.

And is that due to us showing resolve and picking up scrappy wins for the most part? Strangely enough I think I expected better performances and worse results.

Joe Kinnear.

I couldn't work out whether you were serious about Senegal the other day, not any more.

Would be interested to hear your opinion Mick, do you think Pardew's the favourite for the England job if Redknapp's not in the running for one reason or another?

Would be huge if we could win this like, could really see us pushing on if we did so.

What does stability bring? I ask the question because I don't think it matters as much when a club has a scouting system which identifies the transfers. I agree stability doesn't mean being tactically inflexible but the tactics we've seen this season haven't been anything out of the ordinary anyway and we've had as many tactics that have back-fired as those that have worked well. The tactics worked well against Stoke, they failed against Brighton. I can't to this day work out what our tactics were against Norwich and I doubt many people can either yet they worked against Man U. Tactics versus Man Utd were hoof the ball up but play it on the deck when in their half imo. Ironically the tactics Allardyce always claims to play. The hoofing against Man U made a bit of sense with the strong wind firmly in our favour. I don't like it generally though. When it works, it works. Obviously easier to accept against superior teams as well.

What does stability bring? I ask the question because I don't think it matters as much when a club has a scouting system which identifies the transfers. I agree stability doesn't mean being tactically inflexible but the tactics we've seen this season haven't been anything out of the ordinary anyway and we've had as many tactics that have back-fired as those that have worked well. The tactics worked well against Stoke, they failed against Brighton. I can't to this day work out what our tactics were against Norwich and I doubt many people can either yet they worked against Man U. Tactics versus Man Utd were hoof the ball up but play it on the deck when in their half imo. Ironically the tactics Allardyce always claims to play.