manc-mag

Is anyone surprised like? The man has been Fish's personal tour guide for 24 hours, you don't come out of that experience without deep emotional scars.

Incendiary stuff.

Nah it was just some lass he was s'posed to know trying to French kiss his cranium. Can't wait for Tindall to pull some drunken rugby stuff around Kate though as she's right in the line of fire iyam. It'll be too much for him to take one time, lagered up to the eyeballs with Zara howling some horse-faced shit at him.

Only in Mike Tindall's jockstrap.

I s'pose it was too much to ask.

It's something we didnt do very well only last week. Anyway really hope the boys can gel together and find that elusive thing that imho has served us well since our return to the Prem-the actual desire to play for this football club. I'm inclined to think well of those we've bought until there's evidence to suggest otherwise, so it'd be nice if we could show them patience, particularly the likes of Obertan.

Everyone watch with the sound off so the lawyers can't hear it.

Another person steps forward to cover for Deano's thieving ways.

Nah, fair do's that's pretty much the way I feel too. I wasn't suggesting retaining Barton, Nolan and Enrique would have seen us bust either, I just think it was never realistically going to happen in the context of the pay re-structuring we've rolled out. More tellingly I think not bringing a striker in last window was a massive let down and the sort of thing that really distinguishes us from Spurs. Totally incidental point, but I'd be interested to know just how much better our full house matchday revenues are than Spurs like. No doubt slightly more, but then surely most tickets at Spuds cost more than most at SJP? Better than the likes of Everton and Villa though, obviously.

Quality editing/audio, mate.

They were certainly looking for a yes man but if that was their prime reason for appointing Pardew then it was a ridiculous one. We've already seen that Pardew has vented his frustration in public about the club's attempts to sign a striker this summer, I can't remember Hughton making such comments. Hughton was already doing a good job of holding the team together in the face of a lack of investment, though I have a feeling that he did so by creating a siege mentality against the board, something Ashley obviously wasn't happy with. My point is that whether Pardew is a good football manager was a secondary consideration in his appointment and should it turn out that he actually does have the team playing good, winning football then that'll be a stroke of luck rather than a stroke of genius from the board. Have to disagree, Pardew has seen his established big earners sold from under him and seen £35 million flow into the club in one go without being able to spend it and not made a peep in relative terms. At least in respect of the first point, Nolan, Barton and Enrique going will have been foreseen/desired by the powers that be. Colo will also go in about a year. That's 2x club captains. As a board, if you know that's what you're about to embark upon, while at the same time adopting the player acquisition process we have, it makes absolute sense to have a manager that comes in and face-to-face when putting pen to paper has to say "yes, I'm on board with that". Let me get this straight, you think that given our situation, a yes man was more important than a genuinely good football manager? No, I made that point in the post before.

Can you give an example of Hughton's reluctance to toe the party line? He played hell when Carroll was sold and not replaced and was sacked soon after. Pardew has had Barton, Enrique and Nolan flogged and has barely grumbled. Let's not pretend Pardew wasn't solely employed as a YES man just because Joey Barton said something nice about him. Neither could hold a candle to Keegan or Robson either btw. Like either of those would have stood for MA changing the name of the ground, plastering huge signs everywhere or buying and selling players behind the managers backs. That happened to Robson, and he stood for it. Can you give an example of this during Sir Bob's time here? Robson also wanted to sell Shearer to Liverpool after they offered £5 million for him, but Shepherd wouldn't let him do so. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...es-decline.html All true. Speed was on his way out as a player and we'd bought (expensively and on paper, quite well iyam) his replacement/s in Jenas and Viana. Bowyer was apparently disliked by Shepherd and seeing as how he was brought in on free Shep may have seen a profit to be made and a wage off the bill. And I thiink you've read the Shearer thing wrong. They got an offer and it was turned down. Shearer was bigger than the club and Shepherd both knew it and allowed it to happen when he shouldve been replaced before he retired. Sir Bob's book (your source for the other two examples) doesnt state that he wanted to sell him, it says he wanted to bring in Emile M'penza and ease Shearer out of the first team picture. I didnt state that it hadnt happened. I gave a plausible reason why things like that do happen at football clubs. There are others as you've stated. What about the rest of my post though?....any manager of KK or Sir Bob's vintage wouldnt put up with whats going on at SJP in 2011. Things are changing in football in this country, things are going a lot more "continental"...we've got that set up here. I just can't see where its going to go with a manager not being given the profits made on players to reinvest in the squad, like the financial support Redknapp has received at Spurs. We're not going to progress as a football club with the policy we have here at the moment. Without making excuses for Ashley (because it isn't that), what actual sense is there in saying that profits on player transactions should be ringfenced for player acquisitions? It actually bears no relationship to the overall budget of the club. Also, in a way it endorses the practice of buying and then selling at a profit-the very thing that everyone is up in arms about. I think you have to dissociate the two things tbh. Obviously it's easy for players to come out and say that's what should happen, but then they're only interested in that money ending up in their pockets at the end of the day and wouldn't have the first inkling as to the economy of running a football club-even if they are disposed to imply that they do

Needs to be told to fuck off if he keeps that up tbh. No place for it as an impartial pundit. That or his constant "my word!"

They were certainly looking for a yes man but if that was their prime reason for appointing Pardew then it was a ridiculous one. We've already seen that Pardew has vented his frustration in public about the club's attempts to sign a striker this summer, I can't remember Hughton making such comments. Hughton was already doing a good job of holding the team together in the face of a lack of investment, though I have a feeling that he did so by creating a siege mentality against the board, something Ashley obviously wasn't happy with. My point is that whether Pardew is a good football manager was a secondary consideration in his appointment and should it turn out that he actually does have the team playing good, winning football then that'll be a stroke of luck rather than a stroke of genius from the board. Have to disagree, Pardew has seen his established big earners sold from under him and seen £35 million flow into the club in one go without being able to spend it and not made a peep in relative terms. At least in respect of the first point, Nolan, Barton and Enrique going will have been foreseen/desired by the powers that be. Colo will also go in about a year. That's 2x club captains. As a board, if you know that's what you're about to embark upon, while at the same time adopting the player acquisition process we have, it makes absolute sense to have a manager that comes in and face-to-face when putting pen to paper has to say "yes, I'm on board with that".

They just try harder than any other team and always have for the last 20 years. It's Ferguson and the standards he/the club demands. Chelsea played a good half there but for nothing. Yeah I guess.. and also, ramirez missing on those chances etc. If you are to beat Man United, you need to be able to finish properly. They have themselves to thank tbh, could have been 1-0 or 2-0 up easily.... You need to not try to play football against them for one-unless you are actually Barcelona. Chelsea played the better football but Man U just went direct in the areas that matter and the result couldn't be more demoralising. It's no co-incidence that virtually every player who goes to Man U becomes 'great' when they get there and then fade to average once they leave, it's purely because of the ethic involved in playing for Ferguson/Man U. It's something we've always needed and lacked.

They just try harder than any other team and always have for the last 20 years. It's Ferguson and the standards he/the club demands. Chelsea played a good half there but for nothing.

If he does well for us then it is because Ashley got lucky once again with his appointment, as he did with Hughton. Do you honestly believe that Ashley and Llambias sat down and took a good look at Hughton's strengths and weaknesses, then looked at Pardew and saw something in him that no other PL club has? Pardew was appointed for the wrong reasons, I hope he succeeds but if he does I still won't give the board any credit for it. I dunno about that like. My point wasn't that I thought it was a masterstroke that I'd hail them from the rooftops for, just that it wasn't a luck based decision. I think they had a clear view of how the budget was going to go down and they wanted a yes man on board for that and Pardew fit that bill. That's the 'holding together' aspect of it, because he will continue to toe the party line and create the conditions for unity far more so than a manager who could reasonably claim they'd been misled about the clubs plans. If he turns out to be a competent manager against that backdrop (and it presents management issues of itself, perhaps even the most challenging single issue), then in that respect it will have been a 'good' decision from the board. It might very easily not turn out that way however and even if it does, it's not to say it's necessarily in the best interests of the club in the broader sense of the debate. I s'pose I just see Pardew for what he is. You have to accept he'll come out with mealy mouthed shit when we lose a player/fail to sign a player and that he'll be the last to point the finger where it ought to be pointed (the stuff that gets on everyone's tits), but that in terms of keeping stability within the playing squad amidst the inevitable upheaval of player sales, that is a quality that is very much required. If it's at the expense of basic footballing/tactical nous however (what you're getting at I think) then you start to ascribe how much weight you give to each. If he turns out to be utter shit re: the latter then it won't matter in the slightest how good he is at 'keeping the peace'.

I don't know about 'lucky' to have him. He was a very deliberate choice to perform a very clear function, at the expense of an encumbent, good manager. If he does well for us you'd therefore have to concede that it was a good administrative decision, if he does badly then the reverse will apply. But luck won't enter into it one way or another. In terms of what Barton's getting at ie holding the place together because the players want more cash-well yes that will probably be the case to a large degree, but that's very clearly part of his remit. Ie he's the public mouthpiece for the current spending and remuneration policy and he knows he will lose existing players to it/lose transfer targets to it and then have to spin that positively to the media. But again that's the deal he's signed up for. He had the benefit of knowing all this when he took the job on, so it's not like a rug has been pulled from under him, and therefore not as adverse as Barton would imply. Basically Barton should just be honest and say money is his and other players priority and that's an equal cause of the tensions.

How is he reminiscent of Deschamps? They play nothing alike. Good performance yesterday against an extremely ordinary Villa side. I echo what has been said, we look a striker short of being a decent side. Got to see one of my heroes on at half-time as well. Which is what really bites about the last window tbh.

it annoyed me when le tissier said he didn't agree with pardew saying we were unlucky not to come away with all three points on soccer saturday. more so now i've seen those stats. he reckoned most of the game was played in our half. was he even watching? Probably not, he sounded like a flippant dick when he was put on the spot about it. Anyway it makes no odds really, we should have been tonked at Loftus Road having created nothing so no hardship in just getting a point when we've had the lions share of the chances ourselves.

Villa are unbeaten so they're not a shit side though. They're just not great. It was good show of superiority over another mid level team away from home and we could have had more. It was also positive in that the QPR mistakes were not repeated. We came from behind too so that should be confidence building.

It's true like, he's even worse when we've had a half decent result. At least give it til tomorrow Leazes, enjoy the performance and then get back onto all this shite tomorrow if you must. Bit sad getting straight on it now only 2 hours after the final whistle.

blah blah...Tyneside Dick gets to work on the backlog