Abacus

You could argue that we do have the players to be an attacking team and so maybe an experiment with Howe wouldn't be a bad thing. Wilson, ASM, Almiron, Willock (played right, when fit), all have pace enough to scare most opponents, but only if they get the ball in the right areas. It's just that we punt it high to them in the wrong areas, as our selected defenders in the last couple of games just can't pass, so we're constantly under the cosh when dropping deep as the ball comes straight back. Drop Darlow for Dubravka, and suddenly you have a keeper with distribution, for one thing. Swap Clark for Fernandez, and there's a more intelligent upgrade in the centre of defence. Maybe put Schar in ahead of them as DM, and then you have someone who can tackle and pass out from defence onto some willing runners, like the front 3 / 4 above. And that's before we even get onto playing your actual full backs instead of slotting square pegs into round holes using midfielders. Maybe I'm dreaming with all that, or that it would take too long to coach a different style of play. All I do know is the current sit back approach isn't working and only invites pressure onto an inadequate defence, so why not try and turn the tables and ask a few questions of the opposition for a change? If Howe is the man for that and it works, great. If not and we're relegated, then hopefully we come back playing with an actual blueprint and also with the time to get the right players in who can implement it.

Not to sound bitter, but I hope Emery had a shit birthday and his mam burnt his tea and got him a pencil case for his main present.

If this has seriously been derailed by a press leak, from anyone at our club, whoever has leaked it needs to be identified and be gone immediately. I'm still hoping this is just Emery / Villarreal trying to go for damage limitation in the press. But, we'll see.

The only reason I am not furiously agreeing with this is that Emery still hasn't been announced. So if he says no and we end up getting Howe, I'll have to end up coming up with a whole load of reasons in my own head as to why it was probably all for the best.

This really does feel like night and day, compared to the last manager search. I.e. scrabbling about in the bargain bin without a plan, being rejected by anyone with a brain, and then massively overpaying for a complete and utter idiot

Fingers crossed for this. One minor point here is about the consortium. Jones was told he'd be in charge for Palace and Chelsea, so they clearly already had a timeframe in mind for making the decision and then they stuck to it. A bit of professionalism finally.

Everton really don't seem to be playing for their manager. Hands on hips all over.

Then go on to the Sunderland Vs Newcastle rivalry origins thread, and all your needs will be met. To be honest, he's clearly tongue in cheek, and quite funny in being deliberately OTT.

I just find it funny how they carry on!

At the moment, they are claiming the moral high ground over the English civil war on RTG.

He's a real puzzle - one of the few bright sparks of talent and creativity, and I've loved watching him, but it's not altogether clear whether he's good enough to build a system around, and if so what that system should be. You could say the same about a number of our players, albeit not about whether they're good enough to build a team around. Just about what they actually are. See Almiron, Willock, even Fraser. They all have flashes of talent, but they're hard to describe in terms of where you'd actually play them, or in fact what system suits them best.

Tactics and team selection don't seem to be Jones' strengths. But realistically, those are for the new man anyway, so between now and then I think he needs to set some short term goals to give the new boss a chance when he walks in the door. Firstly, work on the squad's fitness and secondly, work on their attitude - particularly if any have lost confidence or are even sulking. The new manager needs to have the best possible chance of getting the most out of the squad we already have up until January, and that is the basic starting point. If he does that, and hopefully flukes a point or three against Brighton, he'll have done a good job as a caretaker in my opinion.

Although, yes, he was part of the coaching team that got us here, albeit as an outsider. So I don't expect him to last long, if maybe a bit longer than some of the others as a bridging coach to the new team.

And that's fair enough. But ultimately, it's the manager that makes the final calls and sets the tone. I think any new manager will indeed bring in his own coaching and back room team, so it may be a bit of a moot point. But I thought it was interesting hearing Jones say something along the lines of how he could make suggestions rather than decisions before now. I find it hard to believe that someone who had the players in every day because training is good was the same person making the decision about players having 7 days in 11 off. And no, I don't think he's absolved of all blame, or would be a good manager. I just don't think he warrants criticism for trying to steady the ship, both under Bruce.and now.

We'd all have different opinions on team selection and tactics no matter who was in charge, though none of us see how the players train. At least I was impressed with Jones' words in his press conference, and with him seemingly getting the players in for actual training. So I'm treating the last couple of games as a mini pre-season, where the results don't matter all that much, but basic fitness does. Especially when Chelsea was a bit of a free shot anyway. There's nothing in his career so far that suggests he would be a good manager, true. But he was appointed as a coach, not a leading man, so I'm not going to be too critical of him for being asked to step in and try to repair some of Bruce's damage.

You've made your mind up about him, and that's OK. I happen to disagree because in Rafa's last season he was pivotal to how we played. He's gone backwards since then under Brucey. But then, so have a lot of players. I just think that of all the players to single out, that's a bit of an odd one. He might not make it in the PL after all, but I rated him under a competent coach and would like to see what he could do under a competent one again.

So Mr Fonzerelli, in words of no more than one syllable can you tell us why you want the job? "For the third time, Mr Charnley. I just work in the canteen and am bringing you your sandwich." Oh no Amanda! I done it again!

One of the things about Martinez is the wallopings his PL sides have taken, shipping goals, in particular at Wigan. It's a decent defence that will keep us up and he's shown no real ability so far to organise one. Taking Wigan down and sending Everton into a spiral don't inspire confidence. At Swansea, he did get a L1 side promoted to the championship, but is that really what we're happy with? Bruce got clubs promoted from the championship to the PL 4 times after all. I think international football is a completely different thing, but he's not achieved much at Belgium despite having had a once in a lifetime collection of players. Then again, look at Coleman to Sunderland - seemed like a coup for them at the time given his time at Wales, but he quickly reverted to his poor club form once back in club football. I'd be seriously underwhelmed and wondering; 1. Is he the interim manager to avoid relegation, if that's the aim? 2. If he is supposed to be the long term answer, just what exactly about his credentials would earn him that opportunity?

The world's cameras seem to be on us now, and our profile across the Middle East to name but one whole region, means that sponsorships will have far greater value to start with. You could make arguments all day long about this kind of thing and if challenged could drag it through the courts anyway, I'd guess. To be honest, if the proposal is that any sponsorship deal needs to be with x% of the highest in the league, I'm alright with that. At least it puts us on a more level playing field - so if it's fair, OK. But I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Liverpool and Man U for instance attempt to argue that they are higher profile and should automatically have a higher sponsorship banding, in a similar way to trying to pull up the drawing re the ESL and always get their Champions League money. At that point, other clubs with ambitions might start to object too. I see a new billionaire has started investing in West Ham as just one example. I can't imagine he'd be delighted that his investment is instantly worth less because there is an inbuilt disadvantage to ever growing his club's worth.

But anyway, I can't see any way to make this work or for it to be policed, even if it was in any way legal to start with.

Mike Ashley should be investigated for his open market valuation of Joelinton. And Steve Bruce, come to think of it.

Well, I do agree re the difference between the treatment of us and a so-called big 6 team. Though I think 14 other teams would probably feel a similar way about that disparity. And yes there are also lazy stereotypes about our fans in the press and also amongst some other fans too. But then again, the whole tone of that article, as I read it, was that we were somehow uniquely victimised and all the recent noise was just an extension of that. I myself have stereotypes about Sunderland fans, Everton fans, Man U fans, Arsenal fans, Villa fans, Leeds fans...I could go on. I've often seen these lazily expressed in the press too. They probably feel the same way as we do when they hear it themselves. It obviously doesn't help that our own recent head coach played up those stereotypes either for personal gain. But leaving that aside, I don't buy that the recent protests would have been unique to Newcastle, and that other clubs wouldn't have received similar protests had they been taken over by the same consortium. For example, I've heard very little about the usual 'deluded Geordies' stuff - it's all about money distorting sport, sportwashing etc etc. I'll be quite honest, if it had been Leeds in our position, say, I'd probably be saying very similar things and it would be largely out of jealousy.

Yes. And it's a good job he only worked for them for 26 years before they rapidly spotted how bad he was.

We may have campaigned for the takeover, but there's no evidence it made a blind bit of difference. Perhaps if we'd actively campaigned against it, they may have withdrawn, I suppose. Though, I think those 'campaigns' amounted to a vote in an online survey, and a few people writing to their MPs, who then got routinely ignored for 2 years. Watching the league collectively go into meltdown over it has been hilarious, however. And I'm in the same camp of having hoped for it to go through and having no regrets whatever that it has now - just being excited instead. My issue with the article was the idea that we've always been uniquely singled out and victimised as a fanbase and as a club even before this. That's complete nonsense, and I don't want others to speak on my behalf saying that kind of thing either. This reaction to the Saudi led takeover is not some continuation of a nationwide grudge against Newcastle. There are different concerns here, both sporting and otherwise. Whilst I think a lot of those concerns are hypocritical or misjudged, I certainly don't think it's all part of some long running paranoid anti-Newcastle agenda.

It's also quite refreshing that we're not just appointing someone Ashley has met in a pub. I'm as impatient as the next man to find out who it is, mind.