Anyone still want Shearer?

[Guest The Libertine]

they've been running stories about shearer coming in as a coach or manager for years, saying that he's the one all the fans want. the "fairy tale" lines they often throw in are also clever.

 

its the same technique that will drum up support for gerrard, terry etc to manage their teams in the future. watch for it.

[Guest BooBoo]

The players all seem to speak warmly about Hughton and it looks as if team spirit is good. I'm unsure whether Shearer's supposed cage rattling approach would go down well if he was appointed. I'm sure a lot of the squad might be disappointed if Hughton was to be moved aside.

 

Not that it's likely to happen, mind.

[indi]

His desire to be our manager?

 

Yeah, that's about the level of it.

 

I know, before the next home game they should have an announcement over the tannoy saying: "Who wants to be our next manager?" first person to put their hand up gets the job.

[Guest PJ87]

Long term I think he probably will be the answer. However, for the here and now, we're on a good run, have some rhythm going and another managerial change could well backfire. We're doing well atm, time to leave it alone for a bit.

[Guest Phil K]

I think this season is what I would call a 'Roeder season'. When Roeder was caretaker manager we finished 7th, players were calling him to be given the full time job, we were happy when he was appointed

 

Speak for yourself there...

 

Ditto.

I thought it a ridiculous appointment, that would only end producing more problems than it solved. (and said so here at the time)

[Guest BooBoo]

"The fans want Glenn"- FFS.

 

What a heap. Nobody i know wanted Roeder as manager as we all could see it be yet another 12-18 month appointment.

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Long term I think he probably will be the answer. However, for the here and now, we're on a good run, have some rhythm going and another managerial change could well backfire. We're doing well atm, time to leave it alone for a bit.

 

So what do we do, get promotion with Hughton and give him a shot in the premier leagueand a whole transfer window.

We are not going to get rid of a manager who has just got us promotion. If we do go up, the next window needs to be a big one in terms of new personel and i dont trust Hughton to be able to deliver the results.

If we go up i make us one of the favourites to go down next year with the current managerial arrangement

[Teasy]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

[Guest thefishman]

I think this season is what I would call a 'Roeder season'. When Roeder was caretaker manager we finished 7th, players were calling him to be given the full time job, we were happy when he was appointed

 

Speak for yourself there...

 

Ditto.

I thought it a ridiculous appointment, that would only end producing more problems than it solved. (and said so here at the time)

 

Yes but 3 days before that matty pattison told me roedant was to become permanent and i lumped on a 33-1!!!!!

[cubaricho]

Ideally I would love to see out the season (and subsequent promotion) with Hughton and then get in someone who fancies a reclamation project that has a better pedigree than those mentioned in this thread (shearer, strachten, curbishley, etc).  Fantasy land though - it's never that easy or that good for NUFC.

[indi]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously. But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably. There can't be any other reason.

[fredbob]

Id love to see Rob Lee as manager. Is Sir Les still coaching at Spurs? He might be worth a look obviously has a bit of experience in a footbal set up.

[Ronaldo]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably.  There can't be any other reason.

 

there are other reasons, but right now I'd rather have Hughton

[Jaehyun]

I think this season is what I would call a 'Roeder season'. When Roeder was caretaker manager we finished 7th, players were calling him to be given the full time job, we were happy when he was appointed

 

Speak for yourself there...

 

Ditto.

I thought it a ridiculous appointment, that would only end producing more problems than it solved. (and said so here at the time)

 

Yes but 3 days before that matty pattison told me roedant was to become permanent and i lumped on a 33-1!!!!!

Lovely how you cut out the rest of my post, go have a look in the thread that opened up when Roeder was first appointed, (if it's still there) there were only a few posters who were outraged against the decision, most fans were perhaps slightly disappointed as they wanted someone of a higher clibre but they did not disagree to the level of protest.

[Jaehyun]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably.  There can't be any other reason.

 

there are other reasons, but right now I'd rather have Hughton

I'm guessing it's because right now the team are settled and organised under Hughton, a manager change might be nothing more but a distraction/disruption in our promotion push, however once we do get promoted it's hard to see that Hughton has the ability to keep us up.

[TRon]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably.  There can't be any other reason.

 

He does look the part in that he's quite clearly the man in charge whereas Hughton seems to be more of a yes man. I've been quite impressed with Hughton's transfer dealings btw, but in the longer term I think you need a more decisive leader so I would prefer Shearer. He might rattle a few cages early on but we'd end up with more direction in the long run.

[indi]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably.  There can't be any other reason.

 

He does look the part in that he's quite clearly the man in charge whereas Hughton seems to be more of a yes man. I've been quite impressed with Hughton's transfer dealings btw, but in the longer term I think you need a more decisive leader so I would prefer Shearer. He might rattle a few cages early on but we'd end up with more direction in the long run.

 

Surely that's not enough though, is it?

 

Why does it have to be an either/or question anyway, they're not the only options.

[Mick]

I'd rather have Shearer than Hughton if it was a straight choice between the two.

 

Hughton reminds me very much of Roeder but he's got an advantage that he's in a weaker league with a set of players who are better than anything else in the league.  Hughton would fail miserably in the Premier because he's not good enough.  We worry about bringing in our kids to cover injuries but they are probably better than a lot of the reserves at other clubs.  Hughton playing Nicky Butt for 90 minutes against Ipswich was pathetic and something which I think will be typical of him.  I hope he proves me wrong if given the change but I doubt that he will, I don’t think he’s got the bottle to stick up for himself either if he came up against a chairman or MD, I think he’d roll over.

 

Shearer on the other hand would be a massive gamble, he'll either fail miserably or he'll do spectacularly well because he's single minded.  If things work out for him then he'll go from strength to strength, if things turn bad then he'll fail terribly and could turn out to be Souness mark 2.  Shearer dropping Owen last season was a massive decision from him and the right one, I was surprised and delighted that he made it, I doubt Hughton would have done so.  It will be interesting to see how Hughtons team selection goes when the out of form Joey Barton, the knacker Nicky Butt and others are fit.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see both Barton and Butt are playing and both struggling.

 

If the club is taken over then getting in a manager should be the biggest priority so that the new manager has time to work with the players in a league which isn’t very good and the manager, whoever he is should be able to bring his own players in to build his own team.  If Hughton is still here next season as manager then I’d expect him to be sacked before the end of November because of poor results.

 

As I said, I think Shearer is a gamble, I think Hughton will fail at the highest level although I think he’s done enough to remain here no matter who comes in because we owe him for what he’s done.

 

 

[TRon]

It's the managers job to instill confidence in a squad.

You don't do that by sticking with your old buddies.

BTW have you noticed that some of those same players now show genuine committment to the club during matches?

The 'pile of crap' excuse is no excuse at all given what's happened since then

 

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.

 

Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.

 

So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.

 

Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).

 

It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.

 

Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.

 

To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.

 

Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.

 

Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously.  But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.

 

Why? Based upon what?

 

Because he's a geordie presumably.  There can't be any other reason.

 

He does look the part in that he's quite clearly the man in charge whereas Hughton seems to be more of a yes man. I've been quite impressed with Hughton's transfer dealings btw, but in the longer term I think you need a more decisive leader so I would prefer Shearer. He might rattle a few cages early on but we'd end up with more direction in the long run.

 

Surely that's not enough though, is it?

 

Why does it have to be an either/or question anyway, they're not the only options.

 

They're the only ones who have been put forward by current/prospective owners at this point.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I'd rather have Shearer than Hughton if it was a straight choice between the two.

 

Hughton reminds me very much of Roeder but he's got an advantage that he's in a weaker league with a set of players who are better than anything else in the league.  Hughton would fail miserably in the Premier because he's not good enough.  We worry about bringing in our kids to cover injuries but they are probably better than a lot of the reserves at other clubs.  Hughton playing Nicky Butt for 90 minutes against Ipswich was pathetic and something which I think will be typical of him.  I hope he proves me wrong if given the change but I doubt that he will, I dont think hes got the bottle to stick up for himself either if he came up against a chairman or MD, I think hed roll over.

 

Shearer on the other hand would be a massive gamble, he'll either fail miserably or he'll do spectacularly well because he's single minded.  If things work out for him then he'll go from strength to strength, if things turn bad then he'll fail terribly and could turn out to be Souness mark 2.  Shearer dropping Owen last season was a massive decision from him and the right one, I was surprised and delighted that he made it, I doubt Hughton would have done so.  It will be interesting to see how Hughtons team selection goes when the out of form Joey Barton, the knacker Nicky Butt and others are fit.  I wouldnt be surprised to see both Barton and Butt are playing and both struggling.

 

If the club is taken over then getting in a manager should be the biggest priority so that the new manager has time to work with the players in a league which isnt very good and the manager, whoever he is should be able to bring his own players in to build his own team.  If Hughton is still here next season as manager then Id expect him to be sacked before the end of November because of poor results.

 

As I said, I think Shearer is a gamble, I think Hughton will fail at the highest level although I think hes done enough to remain here no matter who comes in because we owe him for what hes done.

 

 

 

Given a proper choice, would you rather it was neither then?

[Mick]

 

Given a proper choice, would you rather it was neither then?

 

Probably as I think safer alternatives are what's needed to give us stability and I don't think Hughton or Shearer offers anything close to a guarantee of that.

 

This club needs stability from top to bottom and the quicker we go for it the better.  We're in the right league now if we're going to go through change again.  We've had no stability since Bobby left the club and we're desperate for it, with the right people in the club obviously.

[TRon]

I'd rather have Shearer than Hughton if it was a straight choice between the two.

 

Hughton reminds me very much of Roeder but he's got an advantage that he's in a weaker league with a set of players who are better than anything else in the league.  Hughton would fail miserably in the Premier because he's not good enough.  We worry about bringing in our kids to cover injuries but they are probably better than a lot of the reserves at other clubs.  Hughton playing Nicky Butt for 90 minutes against Ipswich was pathetic and something which I think will be typical of him.  I hope he proves me wrong if given the change but I doubt that he will, I dont think hes got the bottle to stick up for himself either if he came up against a chairman or MD, I think hed roll over.

 

Shearer on the other hand would be a massive gamble, he'll either fail miserably or he'll do spectacularly well because he's single minded.  If things work out for him then he'll go from strength to strength, if things turn bad then he'll fail terribly and could turn out to be Souness mark 2.  Shearer dropping Owen last season was a massive decision from him and the right one, I was surprised and delighted that he made it, I doubt Hughton would have done so.  It will be interesting to see how Hughtons team selection goes when the out of form Joey Barton, the knacker Nicky Butt and others are fit.  I wouldnt be surprised to see both Barton and Butt are playing and both struggling.

 

If the club is taken over then getting in a manager should be the biggest priority so that the new manager has time to work with the players in a league which isnt very good and the manager, whoever he is should be able to bring his own players in to build his own team.  If Hughton is still here next season as manager then Id expect him to be sacked before the end of November because of poor results.

 

As I said, I think Shearer is a gamble, I think Hughton will fail at the highest level although I think hes done enough to remain here no matter who comes in because we owe him for what hes done.

 

 

 

Given a proper choice, would you rather it was neither then?

 

If there was a proper choice who would actually be available that would be make more sense?

[ohmelads]

ANY manager is going to be a gamble. We are not in a position to appoint a world class manager who has just demonstrated his ability to cut it with the best of them. A Mourinho, a Wenger, an Ancelotti.

 

Even the good up and coming managers won't come here under Mike Ashley. Not that Mike Ashley would even want them, he's made it pretty clear he wants a yes man, as shown by his contract offer to Kinnear, keeping Hughton and not appointing Shearer after saying it had been his best decision!

 

So what does that leave us with? We can go for has-beens or never-has-beens, but these managers are also a gamble because they often lack the drive of a younger manager. Take someone like Strachan for instance, who I quite like. What could he achieve with us? It'd take years for him to have a go at anything and he's already been around the block a few times. We don't have the resources for a title push or a CL push, we're looking to get back established in the top flight and take it from there and we probably need a younger manager with a long term vision for the club and most of all ambition.

 

The key will be getting rid of Ashley, if can succeed in that I expect to see much greater interest in the job.

[merlin]

ANY manager is going to be a gamble. We are not in a position to appoint a world class manager who has just demonstrated his ability to cut it with the best of them. A Mourinho, a Wenger, an Ancelotti.

 

Even the good up and coming managers won't come here under Mike Ashley. Not that Mike Ashley would even want them, he's made it pretty clear he wants a yes man, as shown by his contract offer to Kinnear, keeping Hughton and not appointing Shearer after saying it had been his best decision!

 

So what does that leave us with? We can go for has-beens or never-has-beens, but these managers are also a gamble because they often lack the drive of a younger manager. Take someone like Strachan for instance, who I quite like. What could he achieve with us? It'd take years for him to have a go at anything and he's already been around the block a few times. We don't have the resources for a title push or a CL push, we're looking to get back established in the top flight and take it from there and we probably need a younger manager with a long term vision for the club and most of all ambition.

 

The key will be getting rid of Ashley, if can succeed in that I expect to see much greater interest in the job.

 

Agree with much of this - as the side is currently doing the business in a difficult situation, Hughton is obviously doing a decent job ; the crunch will come when the side hits a bad patch - if he brings them out of it, all well & good but if not and they fall away, then maybe it would be time to think of other options.

 

If the side gets promoted, it would be hard not to wonder whether Hughton would be up to it in the much tougher world of the Prem, and whether he could get Ashley to strengthen the side if he is still the owner ;

failure in either direction would be fatal, but I'm not in the camp that thinks its Shearer or nobody - the best man available for the job should be sought.