CanadaSaint

I'm just questioning whether the strengthening will happen while Pardew's there if it hasn't started already. And that's just for problem positions - it doesn't even touch on the lost width and pace, or or derry's valid point about squad depth. My biggest fear is that it won't happen while AP is there because NC still has big doubts about him - and, as usual, NC is convinced he's right and intends to prove it. I hope like hell that I'm wrong, and I'd love to see a couple of big signings within the next week or so, but until then you can put me in the "very concerned" camp.

From darned near everything I've read on these boards, the two problem positions that prevented us from succeeding last year (RB and CM) have not seen any strengthening, and we appear to have lost two key components for vital width - Papa Waigo and Antonio. Without seeing the team play (I will in September) I'd say that without any strengthening we shouldn't expect much more than top eight. Don't forget how competitive this division was last year, and that's likely to still be the case this year.

I'm ready for the inbound, dune. I did say "If", and it's only an opinion, but it's been a fear of mine for months - that we'd live in a void with Cortese backing Pardew but not really backing him. The status quo, squad-wise, could produce an "okay" start to the season (comfortable top eight) but not a solid automatic promotion spot. Then what do we do? The only thing that makes me lean away from that view is the question "If NC is keeping a tight rein on AP's transfer activity, why would he let him sign yet another LB?"

Yes, I'm mildly concerned. I'm hoping that the lack of news/rumour is down to the number of column inches devoted to the World Cup. However, a fear I've expressed before is that if NC really wanted to ditch AP last season but backed off because of fan and media pressure, he might not fully back him at the start of this season. Instead, he'd hold back some - perhaps much - of the transfer budget because he expects to fire Pardew after a disappointing start and wants to save the budget for the new guy. I'm willing to be a little more patient, but the longer this goes on the more likely that scenario becomes.

This is starting to sound quite worrying. It seems to me that a number of Cortese's actions in past months are all about financial responsibility and sustainability - becoming and staying profitable. Not just "when we get back to the Prem" but right now as well. The decision not to fire AP (at significant cost), the season ticket changes, the Staplewood delay, the lengthy list of released players, the lack of progress on signings and several other things would all fit into that pattern. I wonder if he reached a lot of those decisions after seeing the interim finances. He's not doing this stuff to please or p*ss off the fans but he might be doing them to keep the finances strong. Now if that's the case I'm not going to knock him because I think this is what football in general needs to do, but it would mean that having a "minted" owner is kind of irrelevant at the moment. It would also mean that we'll go into this season without the big advantage we've been hoping for. If we sell any starters, the picture would be clear. God forbid. Just some thoughts.

Instead of sneering at people who don't share your view, and posting examples that - in your view - make your point, could you respond to the question I posed in Post 662? I'm interested to see how your viewpoint stands up in a drunk driving case.

How about having too many beers and driving a car? If you're caught, that will result in a driving ban and - depending on your work arrangements - the loss of your job. You caused no damage and didn't hurt anyone, but you were punished for what MIGHT have happened, given your stupidity and contempt for the law. The level of your punishment is based on society's revulsion for that particular offence. I can see the parallels. And I have no problem at all with any of that - even if, on the barest of facts - it might seem harsh.

As I recall it, he served 36 years with Brazilian football on his doorstep. That'll teach him not to rob trains!

If it's allowed under the pen(is)al code, I'm all for it. And if it's not, I'm all for changing the penal code. You might be on a loser with that example.

But when you think about it, the harsh approach is working, isn't it? After all, here we are, still discussing it 560 posts after it was first raised. Now there's even more reason for people to realize that even minor public order offences at games will not be tolerated.

Surely, though, the point is that this doesn't matter when there's a broader societal point to be made. That enables the authorities to be inconsistent and even unfair in their efforts to make that point. Every so often the pressure to punish severely - as a clear deterrent - will crop up in a new area, and apparently harsh punishments will be meted out. Tough on those found guilty but - after all these years of enforcement - they can't claim that they weren't aware of the risks.

I'm shocked and somewhat disgusted that this angle has not been pursued more relentlessly by the public or the media. This isn't about some relatively minor offenders (this time, anyway) being harshly treated; as far as I'm concerned, every clear signal that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated is welcome. It makes the message to the idiots very simple - stay the hell away from trouble. What it IS about, in my view, is the fact that police irresponsibility could have endangered innocents. A lot of normal people, including kids, could have been hurt by the ridiculous decision to release the fans simultaneously, and someone needs to account for it.

I haven't followed this thing too closely because there has been far too much needless sniping going on. However, when we were told that there was a five year plan to return to the Premier League, I don't think the "planners" were thinking just about boosting the playing and coaching resources, including the academy. I would be surprised if one thread of the plan wasn't concerned with starting the transition on the supporter side as well, which means a gradual and quite significant increase in attendance and average ticket prices/average spend at games. Expect more of this stuff. They're doing it as part of a bigger plan to reach the Premier League in good, sustainable financial shape - not to p*ss off the supporters. Have they announced the concession prices yet?

I tried to google the article, with no success, so I entered the following search term (with no inverted commas): sunday telegraph+perfectly nice club with decent fans Check it and see what comes up. Freaky and hilarious at the same time.

That is precisely my frustration with this discussion, as it was with the discussion when Cortese banned the Echo and, allegedly, Benali. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm very happy that we have Cortese but I can't just join in with the "songs of praise" chorus when he clearly has some of the same characteristics that caused many of the same posters to (rightly) savage Lowe. Some of those singing his praises will turn on him very quickly if frustrations develop - as a few already did, if the Wembley booing was aimed at him. Just because some of us keep mentioning that in order to counterbalance what we see as blind praise doesn't make us anti-Cortese by any means. I'm certainly not - far from it. It would just be nice to see lower highs and higher lows on this forum, but we know that's not going to happen!

I can't wait to hear they've started because that's a fairly clear sign that Nicola and Markus are here for the longer term.

Not to mention fumbling through the pick-overs that no other teams wanted. I'm sure those days are well behind us and I reckon that things will start very soon, when players/managers have returned from their holidays.

I'm a little surprised as well but I think it's that drastic precisely because he (and his team) DO know what they're doing. They know who's out of contract at other clubs and have an idea of others in higher leagues who might not be retained or might become available for transfer. I suspect they have names (first choice and fallbacks) pencilled into most of those spots. What pleases me, though, is that he sees most of the same squad weaknesses that the more thoughtful posters on here see. And another thing. AP probably wouldn't be ditching some of these players unless he knew that significant Summer funds would be there.

Absolutely. We need them to cover these issues - not shy away because they fear Cortese's reaction. What the hell kind of journalism would that be? Using their own 'logic', the people telling the Echo to STFU shouldn't be responding to the controversy by posting pro-Pardew opinions on here, singing pro-Pardew songs, or booing Cortese at Wembley. All of these things are the checks and balances that help to keep things on the straight and narrow. And Cortese sees them and reads things into them just as we all do.

All the more so for the fact that the last thing the Echo needed to do was pour petrol on the fire of its relationship with Cortese. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing that.

I think ALL the key parties have been doing their spinning here. That includes Pardew - who, I'm sure, has friends in the media (as most managers do when they want someone to make a point publicly that they can't easily make themselves), and who has played his high standing among the fans to his advantage. It certainly includes Cortese, and the Echo - of course - is now at it after alienating a section of its readers with another major fallout with Cortese. The Echo may not be great but they're one of "the system's" vital checks and balances and the City would be worse off in many areas if they weren't there. I'm more of the opinion that all parties have been trying sincerely to do their job well rather than sew any mischief, but it hasn't always come across that way and hindsight can be a harsh judge. It's naive in the extreme to lay so much blame at the feet of the Echo (and others) and view Cortese as the white knight with flawless judgment and impeccable motives and tactics. I'm scared of losing him (and Marcus), too, but that doesn't mean I should blind myself to his mistakes. I'm glad as hell that we've got him but I think he needs to re-think his tactics and do his part in repairing the Echo relationship. The Echo, though, will have to make the first moves in that direction.

Giordano's and sadoldgit's posts hit most of my nails on the head. I see in Cortese a guy with many tremendous talents - someone with all the skills needed to get this club back where it belongs. We've never seen anyone of his calibre running our club, and I've never felt better about our future. Ever. In fact I think Cortese’s even talented enough to pull it off without a billionaire’s backing, and that's saying something. However, I also see someone with some clear faults of ego - someone who seems to react poorly if people don't fully "toe his line". It was evident when he banned the Echo some months back, it’s implied in the alleged comments of some SMS staffers, it's been evident in the events of the past few weeks, and it’s abundantly clear from the statement. Some of that mindset is needed in order to show that he won’t tolerate mediocrity, but it’s very easy to go too far. As others have said, the stresses around Pardew could have been easily removed by the guy who probably created them in the first place. It wasn’t just media gossip that said Pardew was under pressure and that there were relationship issues – Pardew gave that impression himself. Cortese could easily have nipped all of this recent speculation in the bud. He did it in the end, so why didn’t he do it earlier? My hunch is that he was indeed unhappy with Pardew’s performance or their relationship, and that his unhappiness may even have been enough to end up in a firing this week. However, I think Cortese has had an object lesson in two major differences between the banking world where he was raised and the one where he now operates. First, he’s had to perform in an unfamiliar media spotlight. Second, his customers can be a vocal, powerful and critical bunch, and they have clear ways of expressing collective frustration. Cortese’s not accustomed to either of those things, and he may have realized that the course of action he was considering – a managerial change – could not be the kind of quiet overnight coup of his old life, and would not be at all well received in either of those very public arenas. While I'm delighted with most of Cortese's statement, some of it struck me as more face-saving in nature. I think he lashed out at the Echo, former managers and former players more out of frustration that he’d encountered a situation he couldn’t fully control. It wasn’t the Echo’s fault that this speculation kept building - or McMenemy’s, or Keegan’s or Le Tissier’s. To imply that it was is ridiculous. I just find it troubling that some posters are so quick to heap praise on Cortese that they can’t see there are certain dangers. One of those dangers is that Pardew may have outfoxed Cortese by cleverly using his media contacts and his standing among the fan base. If that’s what Cortese has concluded, Pardew will be on a very short leash next year, no matter what Nicola’s media release implies. It's ironic that some of the chief admirers of Cortese are doubtless people who rightly criticized Lowe for pulling the same kind of stuff – attacking the media, former managers and former players. If Lowe was wrong to do it, and he was, then so is Cortese. I hope that all parties in this, especially Cortese and Pardew, have learned a lesson and that we’ll hit the ground running next season. Learning those lessons is crucial for everyone.

But the descriptions of his celebrations suggest that he may well have had a plateau bonus as well, don't you think?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was on a goal bonus in these incentive-focused days. That suggests that they fully intend to keep him at the club or else they would have pulled him and saved the bonus money. That sort of thing is not entirely unheard of at SFC.

That looks suspiciously like a response written by a lawyer or someone with a legal mind. It would have been easy to set the matter to rest with a simple answer or even a half-assed excuse like "we weren't happy with the quality", but that's not what this is. Fascinating.