shurlock

Interesting thanks. Does support the hunch that it was Adkins, not Cortese who had reservations over Lambert (hence all the transfer rumours). While I can understand why Adkins would rotate Lambert away from home (let's see how Lambert adapts to MP's style of pressing all the over the park), it made less sense when the alternatives (Jrod for whom NA seemed to have a thing) were clearly not the same quality. Chaplow is an odd one. Was surprised to see him at Stamford Bridge as I assumed that JWP was the clear 4th CM in the midfield hierarchy (another player I don't think was quite ready). But NA stuck with him and was willing to throw him into some big matches. So to see Chaplow again was a surprise but if your source is correct (my understanding is that the team/squad were given a day off after the Chelsea game) to be made to train with the youth is plain bizarre. I can understand the situation over the keepers - Adkins was a chronic tinkerer (mind you, often with good effect). Still remember how confused and annoyed some players were at Donny last season after NA had changed the formation 3 or 4 times during the game. Adkins decision to add 4-3-3 and another wrinkle into our gameplan would fit with this behavior. Ultimately, whatever the merits and demerits of NA's firing and Cortese's indifference to the rest of the world, he does seem to be much closer to the player -and presumably would have taken their likely reaction into account before making any decision.

[video=youtube;BWf-eARnf6U]

Not saying everyone but a few people I sit around still think Guly helped get Pardew the sack and that Guly is played because of some 'special relationship' -and is the clearest reflection of Nick Nack's meddling in the team.

My theory is that for some Guly-bashing is a way of getting at Nick Nack and the direction the club's going in. Im not saying all those who knock Guly have issues with the chairman; or that all those who have issues with the chairman knock Guly. But a fair few do -and Guly is seen as Cortese's representative on earth and gets undue flack for that.

His stock is the highest it's going to be. He won't get a prem job but wolves, leeds, ipswich, forest are decent shouts. Huddersfield are basically a L1 club that are punching above their weight, bankrolled by a rich fan/local businessman who's also made it clear that the spending has to be reined in. Back to back promotions are worth more than that -and while anyone could have taken us out of L1, very few thought we were flush with prem players last season. Indeed we were tipped to go down.

United hadn't won the league since the mid-70s -and while they finished twice a few times in the 80s, the playing field was more level back then (just look at us) -and they had also regularly bumped along in midtable. What they've done under Fergy blows their record out of the water -and no doubt the growth in their support mirrors this shift. Regards City and Chelsea, they're not huge clubs IMO: true Chelsea has always benefitted from exiles in the home counties and a mystique from the 60s but a top 10 finish was beyond them before Harding and Abramovic's money (again I'd been keen to know their support before/after) while City have always struck me as a slightly bigger than average, top tier, provincial club: in my time watching football: Villa, Forest, Wednesday, Leeds, even perhaps Wham/Sunderland have all been bigger clubs.

Agree that having a history does matter to an extent, though it matters less to a 9 year old when he's choosing a club. While United might trot out it's legends, it's post 90s success marked a break with its history, not a continuation of it. United's scale today dwarfs anything seen in the 70s and 80s. Support follows success not the other way around. You talk about regional football clubs -the skates, blackburn etc- flopping. True but arguably their fate had less to do with being provincial clubs than them not sustaining success for long enough period that would have allowed them to go national (Leeds did sustain success but did so in a pre-Sky era). Man City provides the best and interesting litmus test - IMO, it's a provincial club though much bigger than us. It looks like it will be successful for quite a while: will that be enough for it to go national/global?

Wouldn't even say its a chicken-and-egg. I can think you can kickstart a virtuous circle of success and growing support with sufficient initial finance (though I don't believe we have the amounts necessary and don't really care either).

Which means discussions of catchment areas, history and size aren't that relevant. Success can bypass all that. And there's no greater determinant of success than money invested wisely.

Q&A sessions - got to love them (already been posted).

I've still got an old pair of quasar boots for him to sign.

Agree with Ramirez, he had actually flown over to Soton and met the players.

All while you were spouting off on here. Sure you got Cortese's notice.

Accept Man U and Liverpool's support dates back years, though worth asking how much that support has expanded since the mid-90s. Pretty sure United's support is several times greater than it was in the 70s and 80s -and while that new support is necessarily the type that goes home and away (though some is), it does generate revenue which is frankly what clubs care about and ultimately funds its ambitions. Was looking at old photos of a school trip to HMS Victory (early 90s) the other day and everyone was in their football shirts still surprised by how few united shirts there were - the majority were Liverpool (and they weren't 'plastics' in today's Sky era sense). Doubt that would still be the case today. Even hearing a 17 year old AOC spout off about how he's a Chelsea fan and wanted play against his idol Drogba -far from Abramovic's first signing- reminds you how contingent support is. So granted some clubs have foundations built over years that we can never hope to reproduce; but I wouldnt overstate their importance either.

Ultimately there was a lot of snobbery towards Nige: the unconventional football background, the goofy personality, the Birkenhead accent, tango tan and M&S suit. If that 'look' was seen as progressive at the turn of the century -when managers dressed and behaved like Micky Adams, it's not today where you have to be more 'cosmopolitan'. A similar snobbery cost Warnock.

And they play the 'Stoke Way' (spent a **** load doing so mind you). Appetising stuff...

Nationwide/international support isn't passed on through DNA - its fickle, its easily won (and lost). Don't need to be a sherlock to realise that success and having 'sexy' players are the best guarantee of support which is a virtuous circle. Obviously it won't happen if you do a Blackburn or Skates -and are flash in the pans -successful one season and gone the next (which assumes sound financial planning and risk management). And you have to ask yourself whether you want to support a club followed by plastics. But that's not your argument here - its whether it can be done. I've watched Chelsea go from nobodies in China (which was the case in the late 90s) to everyone's favourite team today, cemented by annual tours It can be done if you have the finances and that's down to brute luck -not history, catchment areas or anything else.

Player or position?

TBF Nixon appears to be speculating rather than reporting info in this case (which has often proven correct). "Unlikely to fancy" seems like his two pence. Maybe I'm wrong.

Watching that, you can see why we crumbled at Liverpool.

Arent they away tomorrow at Malaga in the second leg of the cup?

Edit

Bit tinpot -we're a premiership club, not a bunch of starry-eyed jap tourists. There's healthy respect and then there's being patronised. Long gone are the days where Bally and Cruyff would be talking behind closed doors and we'd be picking up a bargain.

Always thought Morgan thrived under Adkins and became one of his favourite and most important players. Without hindsight, still don't think Adkins made too many bad decisions: dropping Lambert made sense away from home where we needed to counterattack and have a bit of pace to keep defensive highlines honest. The rotation of keepers had some logic: Boruc was no way near match fit when he started - anyone who went to Upton Park for his debut would have seen that -and the Gazza thing was an extension of NA's philosophy that you have to give young players space to learn and mistakes. If Cortese has aspirations of bringing through academy, he'll realise that you can't have your cake and eat it and need to give younger players a longer leash. Finally, the subbing of players was a way of bringing on fresh legs. Old manager or new manager, we've shown we can't maintain a high-tempo game for 90mins. And Ramirez largely moved to the wing (or out of position) AFTER Lallana got injured. That said, if it's true that the players were having misgivings, it does put Cortese's behavior in context, though you would also have to believe that those misgivings have existed for a while as Cortese's been plotting for months and months. But, ultimately, its hard to have someone managing a football team where key players are not totally sold on where things are going. I guess we'll never really know.