shurlock

From a (limited) domestic pool, Poyet would be my choice.

Very true though I think it's more than the pot luck of the cup in the case of Japan - they've recently gone to Belgium, Holland, France and got results. To use a domestic analogy, they're closer to a lower mid prem side that's used to playing top prem sides week-in week-out than a good championship side hoping for a result in a one off game.

Japan and South Korea could probably beat England.

How about resigning after 10 games. Only quitters and losers do that, don't they small fry? As ever, you are a model of consistency.

Because he holds all the cards -and can play the waiting game, knowing the board don't have the credibility to call his bluff. The more players who come out and say that it would be a massive blow to lose MP, the stronger his hand. Am pretty sure that if Cortese was around, he would have been applying more pressure. Never mind the simple fact that MP was committed to Cortese in a way he isn't with KL and Ralphy. Of course, KL and RK too might be doing the same -they are not naive and won’t want to be hardballed. But there's a big difference between their bargaining position and that of Cortese. Cortese would be in a much more credible position to sell change –say a replacement for MP- to players who might be sceptical. After all, he has a successful trackrecord of managing change - KL and RK simply don't. They need to prove themselves in the same Cortese was required in 2009. This serves only to weaken their hand. Nothing can paper over this essential difference, no matter how competent and well-intentioned KL and RK are.

Players speaking out in public that they don't know what's going on is not a strong look either. The usual dinlos will beg to differ

Totally agree - I guess its thanks to Cortese's seamless ability in recruiting one good after manager that so many can be afford to be complacent. That and a lobotomy. After all, pre-2009, we had such a stunning track record in recruiting managers....

Interesting. Would also suggest we hold all the cards versus Spurs -as long as we can make the funds available? Of course, MP's demands might be wholly unrealistic.

Inclined to agree to an extent. But would be very surprised if we kept hold of Lallana. Either way, there's a greater chance that he goes. The question therefore is how far we can limit the fallout.

Was pretty poor at Forest despite being 'bankrolled'. Oh yeh, he quit -good managers and executives never quit, do they? Classic mongboard muddled thinking.

Many presume it was.

Because they are bigger morons than I thought if they believe they had a chance of getting Van Gal, Ancelotti and to some extent Benitez. There was even mention of Simeone I disagree - they've actually taken a few risks on younger and/or less glitzy managers -AVB, Ramos etc- but none of them had really proved it in England. Same goes for FDB and the flat track bully exploits in the Dutch mickey mouse league. MP has shown that his philosophy and style more than translate to the Prem and that must be tempting for a club with better players and a deeper squad -alot of which was assembled to play a high press game (i.e.AVB's philosophy). My only doubt is that MP is a disciplinarian and demands unquestioning buy-in from players -he probably has more credibility than AVB to pull it off but it could still grate with some of their older prima donnas.

Patron's harmless. Those two posts were utterly innocuous. He can be an annoying and grating knob but the tone or intent is never vindictive or meanspirited unlike some. Am all for culls -rights come with responsibilities and all that; but this was a poor decision IMO.

Agree - and even if they manage to fill a 60K stadium which I doubt, its not going to give them the resources required to compete at the level their delusions of grandeur justify. Football isn't played in the past either.

Just can't see it under this current board.

Perhaps they don't.

Watch out for the snitches with agendas.

Keep banging away on the racism drum. Of course, it would help if you knew what the term meant to begin with. Yep it's Saturday evening, got to call time on your unconvincing contortions. It's past sunset and need to shoot off and meet some yid mates.

And that's where I fundamentally disagreed with you - you can and should get offended by any abuse as a point of principle. I simply agreed that genuinely hateful comments might cause offense - the tone of the thread was suggesting that maliciously motivated comments about the holocaust or whatever were fair game at the football. But well done for conflating that with a nickname whose meaning is well-understood in a football context along with a post that had no malicious intent at all. The discrepancy just underlines your cynical hatchet job.

Genuine racial abuse doesn't offend you yet you flag up an innocuous if mildly idiotic nickname rather than let people themselves decide what's permissible or not. No? Don't wrap up petty point scoring in the garb of a just cause that you yourself have admitted you couldn't give a s**t about. You come across as a disingenuous weasel.

No pal it doesn't. For someone who has clearly stated in the past that even genuinely hateful abuse might not offend or concern them as they themselves aren't Jewish, it's odd that they should then flag up and get flustered by a nickname that is commonly used without any malice and on a completely different scale. Nice hypocritical, cheap shot.

All water under the bridge snitch.

Sunshine, even you can do better than that.

Throwing it out there - it's a bit of mongboard conjecture ffs. Even the Spurs fans can't agree that it's definitively the training ground.

Who knows - not claiming to be king detective mong - just throwing it out there. On Matchday uncovered, not uncommon for away players to come through at different times.