Happy Face

It's just like that film where the young lad travels many miles on his own much to the chagrin of the folks back home so that he can end up at Newcastle and score a goal. We'll make a mint when we sell him to Madrid.

Serenity is canny in a wants to be Star Wars but a bit more grown up and cynical way. I'm not a huge sci-fi fan really. I was a bigger fan of Children of Men than The Prestige. COM was brilliant I thought. Prestige was canny.

Well, I supose you can use "World Trade Center" as a paperweight or something I'll be getting a load of HD quality films for coppers while the blu-ray owners continue to pay through the nose though. So swings and roundabouts. Honestly the negative spin you put on things. Real glass half empty kinda guy aren't you. No not at all really, I just thought World Trade Center was one of the worst films I'd ever seen, and I was surpised to see a film buff like yourself buying it Ah right, thought you were referring to the death of HD dvd which was confirmed this morning... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dc409afa-bd75-11dc...;nclick_check=1 EDIT: WTC was good, but I was never fussed enough to get the dvd. Being free though, I thought it'd be an excellent choice for testing out the sound quality. When the building drops the sound is immense.

Well, I supose you can use "World Trade Center" as a paperweight or something I'll be getting a load of HD quality films for coppers while the blu-ray owners continue to pay through the nose though. So swings and roundabouts. Honestly the negative spin you put on things. Real glass half empty kinda guy aren't you.

you see, the problem I have with that argument is why would better players come to Newcastle while we are playing Bolton-type football? Even if Sam achieved success that way, the whole team would have to be re-built to compete at a higher level. Within the context of the rest of my post which you've selectively quoted, it's the only option for me. Still, even taken out of context, I think it's fair to believe a team in Europe is going to be more attractive to players and managers than one which isn't, whatever style of football they're playing. The whole team would has to be re-built to compete at a higher level at the moment anyway. How would sacking him in this position be more beneficial? At this point in time it wouldn't. A lot depends on the players he will bring in. The signings he's made so far have not been as bad as some have made out and it was sensible to get some better quality defenders. What he does with the midfield is the key area. I wouldn't want to see Kevin Nolan types coming in personally. What Wenger did to transform Arsenal would be the ideal, gradually improving the side with each signing, all of them capable of playing 'carpet football' as SBR would say. You're hoping Allardyce's the next Arsene Wenger and it's wishful thinking for me to hope we can get to europe and attract a better manager once we are?

you see, the problem I have with that argument is why would better players come to Newcastle while we are playing Bolton-type football? Even if Sam achieved success that way, the whole team would have to be re-built to compete at a higher level. Within the context of the rest of my post which you've selectively quoted, it's the only option for me. Still, even taken out of context, I think it's fair to believe a team in Europe is going to be more attractive to players and managers than one which isn't, whatever style of football they're playing. The whole team would has to be re-built to compete at a higher level at the moment anyway. How would sacking him in this position be more beneficial?

Also, does anyone know of a web page that will look at all the other web pages and return a list of any that contain certain keywords, and prioritise them by relevance?

Well mainly because I'm a supporter. I support the manager and the players until I find it impossible not to. That would normally be when we flirt with relegation which we've not done since Souness was here. I never thought he'd play attractive football and never wanted him here. However, now he is, I think he can get us where he got Bolton for a few years, maybe start attracting better players for some (fingers crossed) european football and leave the job more attractive to a quality manager than it was when he started. Or we could sack him and get another shit manager in his place. I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' it-self, down through the generations, westward the wagons, across the sands a time until-- aw, look at me, I'm ramblin' again.

Chelsea have probably had as many premier league managers as us. But then they're no comparison either what with their billionaire owner. Yes, let's wait for Mourinho and then buy every player available. Success here we come! FA cups, league cups and cup winners cup in the decade before he even arrived. I'm not saying we should get rid of Allardyce by the way. Just that i'm sick of comparisons with Fergie and the cliche of managers needing time. We're not Man U and most Premier league managers are either a relative success in their first year or they get sacked so there's not really any valid example of badly performing managers that turn it around to prove it.

Chelsea have probably had as many premier league managers as us. But then they're no comparison either what with their billionaire owner. ...oh!

there is evidence that good managers still need time. Benitez, Ferguson were both slow to start. And while they're better managers than Sam, at bigger clubs with bigger players, it's evidence that chopping and changing managers isn't the way to go. Who know what the transfer window will bring (other than Tozer ) I want Sam to stay, but I really am getting sick of the "good managers need time" line and Ferguson comparisons being trotted out. In about 20 years Real Madrid haven't had a manager that's lasted more than 2 seasons. They get sacked for not winning enough trophies, rather than enough games. Hackneyed cliche. I can't believe RM get used as a template for chaning managers = success either. There are quite obvious reasons why changing managers doesn't do them any harm, which have nothing to do with NUFC. Raising Man U from obscurity to champions does though. Like Alex says, Fergie is a one off, so are Madrid, so why do people use Fergie as an example but not say "you need instability at a club for success, look at Real Madrid". Both equally shit, over simplified ideas. What is the manager history at the likes of Barca, Milan, Bayern etc etc? RM are not a one-off, there are sound reasons why their strategy works. So your agreeing that most succesful clubs change manager frequently? AC Milan too. Almost a manager a year for 20 years prior to 2000. I'm saying RM are not a one off, and that there are reasons why changing manager doesn't do them any harm, as opposed to being the reason for their success. ...but Ferguson is a one off and you're saying Man U should be used for a comparison with NUFC? Are you saying it makes sense to follow a rarely replicated design for success rather than a frequently replicated one. I am saying frequently changing managers is not the reason RM etc are successfull. The negative effect of changing a manager for the likes of RM is mitigated by other factors, which NUFC do not possess, so on balance they can afford to change a manager without pause if they think they are doing shit. Yeah, I got that. I didn't get how sticking with Allardyce would be like sticking with Fergie, seeing as how the reason for it's success down there is that Fergie is not shit, which makes it a non-comparison with Allardyce.

there is evidence that good managers still need time. Benitez, Ferguson were both slow to start. And while they're better managers than Sam, at bigger clubs with bigger players, it's evidence that chopping and changing managers isn't the way to go. Who know what the transfer window will bring (other than Tozer ) I want Sam to stay, but I really am getting sick of the "good managers need time" line and Ferguson comparisons being trotted out. In about 20 years Real Madrid haven't had a manager that's lasted more than 2 seasons. They get sacked for not winning enough trophies, rather than enough games. Hackneyed cliche. I can't believe RM get used as a template for chaning managers = success either. There are quite obvious reasons why changing managers doesn't do them any harm, which have nothing to do with NUFC. Raising Man U from obscurity to champions does though. Like Alex says, Fergie is a one off, so are Madrid, so why do people use Fergie as an example but not say "you need instability at a club for success, look at Real Madrid". Both equally shit, over simplified ideas. What is the manager history at the likes of Barca, Milan, Bayern etc etc? RM are not a one-off, there are sound reasons why their strategy works. So your agreeing that most succesful clubs change manager frequently? AC Milan too. Almost a manager a year for 20 years prior to 2000. I'm saying RM are not a one off, and that there are reasons why changing manager doesn't do them any harm, as opposed to being the reason for their success. ...but Ferguson is a one off and you're saying Man U should be used for a comparison with NUFC? Are you saying it makes sense to follow a rarely replicated design for success rather than a frequently replicated one.

there is evidence that good managers still need time. Benitez, Ferguson were both slow to start. And while they're better managers than Sam, at bigger clubs with bigger players, it's evidence that chopping and changing managers isn't the way to go. Who know what the transfer window will bring (other than Tozer ) I want Sam to stay, but I really am getting sick of the "good managers need time" line and Ferguson comparisons being trotted out. In about 20 years Real Madrid haven't had a manager that's lasted more than 2 seasons. They get sacked for not winning enough trophies, rather than enough games. Hackneyed cliche. I can't believe RM get used as a template for chaning managers = success either. There are quite obvious reasons why changing managers doesn't do them any harm, which have nothing to do with NUFC. Raising Man U from obscurity to champions does though. Like Alex says, Fergie is a one off, so are Madrid, so why do people use Fergie as an example but not say "you need instability at a club for success, look at Real Madrid". Both equally shit, over simplified ideas. What is the manager history at the likes of Barca, Milan, Bayern etc etc? RM are not a one-off, there are sound reasons why their strategy works. So you're agreeing that most succesful clubs change manager frequently? AC Milan too. Almost a manager a year for 20 years prior to 2000.

there is evidence that good managers still need time. Benitez, Ferguson were both slow to start. And while they're better managers than Sam, at bigger clubs with bigger players, it's evidence that chopping and changing managers isn't the way to go. Who know what the transfer window will bring (other than Tozer ) I want Sam to stay, but I really am getting sick of the "good managers need time" line and Ferguson comparisons being trotted out. In about 20 years Real Madrid haven't had a manager that's lasted more than 2 seasons. They get sacked for not winning enough trophies, rather than enough games. Hackneyed cliche. I can't believe RM get used as a template for chaning managers = success either. There are quite obvious reasons why changing managers doesn't do them any harm, which have nothing to do with NUFC. Raising Man U from obscurity to champions does though. Like Alex says, Fergie is a one off, so are Madrid, so why do people use Fergie as an example but not say "you need instability at a club for success, look at Real Madrid". Both equally shit, over simplified ideas.

there is evidence that good managers still need time. Benitez, Ferguson were both slow to start. And while they're better managers than Sam, at bigger clubs with bigger players, it's evidence that chopping and changing managers isn't the way to go. Who know what the transfer window will bring (other than Tozer ) I want Sam to stay, but I really am getting sick of the "good managers need time" line and Ferguson comparisons being trotted out. In about 20 years Real Madrid haven't had a manager that's lasted more than 2 seasons. They get sacked for not winning enough trophies, rather than enough games. Hackneyed cliche.

How many clubs would put up with performances as continually as shite as ours ? How many of those clubs or how clubs in total? also given that 10 of those years were under Keegan and Robson where we played football that many many teams would be jealous of. Other the KK and SBR we've had another 5 managers (not including caretakers), 7 in 15 years... that's fucking ridiculous when two held the position for ten years between them. 5 in 5 years... Take out all the long serving managers at many premier league clubs and you could come up with similar ridiculous stats.

Spurs must've had twice as many.

Billy Davies had one full season at Derby when he got them promoted. If I was a championship manager in the playoffs I'd throw the final for job security.

Sod it, I ain't got time for this kind of research. Sammy Lee, Chris Hutchings and Lawrie Sanchez couldn't have got more than 20 games. Mourinho and Jol weren't new, or Bruce. Who am I forgetting?

How many of those were appointed in the summer though? (Genuine question) I'll have to find out who the 7 were first hang on.

Throw the Stoke game. Save our legs.

Giant-killers Oldham and Huddersfield will discover their FA Cup fourth-round opponents when the draw takes place live on the BBC at 1330 GMT on Monday. League One club Oldham produced the biggest third round shock on Saturday, beating Everton 1-0 at Goodison Park. Huddersfield, who also play in League One, dumped top-flight Birmingham out of the world's oldest cup competition. Two other League One sides - Luton and Bristol Rovers - earned deserved draws against Liverpool and Fulham on Sunday. Havant & Waterlooville are the only non-league side left in the hat after holding Swansea in a feisty 1-1 draw. Bolton and Blackburn also paid the price for resting first-team regulars after being beaten by mid-table Championship clubs Sheffield United and Coventry respectively. But it was not only Premier League sides who rotated their squads with Crystal Palace manager Neil Warnock selecting five 17-year-olds for their 2-0 defeat at Watford. In the last 12 years the FA Cup has been won by just four clubs - Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. Manchester United, with 11 wins, hold the record for the most FA Cup final victories. No fewer than 12 replays need to be decided before the round of the last 32 takes place on 26 and 27 January. Teams in the hat for the FA Cup fourth round: 1 Preston North End 2 Cardiff City 3 Peterborough United 4 Sheffield United 5 Coventry City 6 Mansfield Town 7 Walsall or Millwall 8 Charlton Athletic or West Bromwich Albion 9 Watford 10 Luton Town or Liverpool 11 Plymouth Argyle 12 Manchester United 13 Tranmere Rovers or Hereford United 14 Tottenham Hotspur or Reading 15 Arsenal 16 Middlesbrough 17 Fulham or Bristol Rovers 18 Huddersfield Town 19 Swansea City or Havant & Waterlooville 20 Wigan Athletic 21 Southend United 22 Oldham Athletic 23 Derby County or Sheffield Wednesday 24 Southampton 25 West Ham United or Manchester City 26 Portsmouth 27 Wolverhampton Wanderers 28 Barnsley 29 Chelsea 30 Stoke City or Newcastle United 31 Swindon Town or Barnet 32 Norwich City or Bury

I think some have been taking a more measured approach these last few days, spouting the patience line so they can say how fickle we are. Still lots of shite though, suprised to see a suprisingly balanced piece from our Louise this morning...

Martin Samuel's take on it... http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/200...ebate-is-s.html Needs to replace "fans" with "papers" in that last sentence.

I know pet. Me too.