shurlock

Fwiw, puddings and monkeys had posted this rumour before but I haven't bludgeoned people to death with it because I recognise it might not be 100% kosher. All rumours are just that rumours but some are more believable than others. Am more likely to believe low level rumours insofar as more people will have been privvy to information; rumours started by people with a track record of being ITK; rumours that are corroborated by multiple, independent sources; rumours that are closer to the norm etc etc. Nixon's word isn't gospel as he made a lot of wrong calls but he was darn sight more correct than ITKers on here and other hacks, so its worth a few more pinches of salt. Am intrigued that you always bring up Nixon's statement that we didn't know what CB we wanted. In simple English, it means we hadn't decided between our various options. It doesn't mean that we weren't serious about bringing a CB in or spending real money. It might be frustrating for a journo and it can carry risks but its not unreasonable for businesses to establish other parties interest in trading but then keep options open, going for the kill only late in the day.

But we're not talking about Reed's role -any Tom, **** or Harry can find that out from an organisational flow chart on the OS. We're talking specific allegations which are pretty damning i.e. Adkins transfer list was ignored and he got none of his targets due to Reed's Rasputin-like influence. That's pretty high level in my book. I never said it was easy to find out the details of transfers - rather it's more likely that vague snippets get leaked. Here with the alleged CB, we don't know the name or the club involved, though it does corroborate Nixon's fleeting statements that we were going big time for a CB.

Read my follow-up post where I clarified my point. I said that nobody knows jack about the club's dirtiest secrets, the high-level stuff which is what we've been discussing. I then went on to say that I wouldn't be surprised if vague snippets leaked out about signings and selections. Which appears to be the case here. No?

I said if true....And then pointed out, vague snippets on team selections, signings will always come out. Which is the case here.

Cheers for this. If true, does show that the club made genuine efforts to strengthen our defense and give NA what he needed -and came agonisingly close to pulling off another coup. Cant legislate for what other clubs do however much people want to play the blame game. Anyway had it gone through, things might now be looking very different. Shame.

When's part 3 coming?

Reread your absurd and attention-seeking comment about Jimmy Saville and Adkins' track record.

Relative to all the charges that have been made -from NA getting none of his transfer targets to Cortese/Reed picking the team- nobody knows jack. No doubt vague snippets -transfers, team selections- do come out; but it will be low-level stuff -not the club's dirtiest linen -and that's what we're talking about here. While I might be overestimating the powers of the local media, surely if there was mileage in any of this stuff, it would have been picked up already or investigated. No doubt, they're as well connected as any two-bit contributor to a m**gboard.

So if I say I've been reliably informed, I must be correct. Apart from VMAN, nobody knows jack - and what people do know is of little consequence. The inner sanctum of the club plays its cards close to its chest - the rest is guesswork peddled to gullible mugs as unimpeachable truth. I have no allegiance to the Cortese or the current regime but I deal in evidence -and that's been sorely missing. FACT

Most of the usual suspects -the Wire (the old man lives in Bodymore), Sopranos, BB etc. Homeland is OK but veers dangerously close to comic book 24 territory and Clare Danes gets on my wick -needy, patronising but always invariably vindicated Louie is amazing - most under-the-radar comedy and surprising that nobody here has picked up on it.

Obviously??? Whether true or not (and we now know that there was a lot of spinning from the Bologna side and by your own admission, you are a credulous type), the fact is that we had serious money lined up to buy a CB.

And if you believe the rumours -now that they are as good as FACT- we were on the verge of signing a CB only for the selling club to pull the plug at the 11th hour. Sh*t happens.

Did he? We hardly pulled out the stops for Sharp - it was pretty clear that, by Jan when we signed him, he had fallen down the pecking order. Our major target was Hooper - Sharp was reportedly keen to come here but we were chasing other targets. And once he joined, Adkins seemed to cool on Sharp - recall he hardly featured until the end of the season when he went on his goal run. I don't get the sense that Adkins particularly rated Sharp -at least, not in the terms you suggest. Whether NA would ship him out is another matter.

The poster obviously needed a muzzle because it made no sense - and now its binding, solid evidence...

Cork? Jrod is clearly an Adkins signing - NA has repeatedly said that he's been a long-time fan. Our very real interest in Hooper is further evidence that NA's influence is far from marginal.

Did I mention Ramirez? Reread the quote - the suggestion is that NA got NONE of his targets.

Jrod not an Adkins signing? dear oh dear.

Dont ever be surprised by the sh1t he chats.

Obviously good teams nick games (like we did) but I wouldn't be surprised if over the course of a season a mid-table side nicks more games than a top of a table side. Agree we should have hung on in some of the games you mention e.g. Ipswich (h). But over the second half of the season, what stood out more than anything was our resilience. We won ugly plenty of times, even in games that appeared to be walkovers e.g. Watford (a)

Coventry is there because we could have caved in after they pulled it back to 2-2. Grittiest performance was Hull away. But the point remains: statistically, the sample is skewed. There weren't many gritty games to choose from because the quality was so poor and we didn't need to battle to get points. Thats what happens if youre a half decent side -you dont nick games, you dominate them.

But by and large good teams don't need to grind out results because they are head and shoulders above the opposition. On your reasoning the Arsenal invincibles side would be flat track bullies because they d*cked loads of teams. Not saying that necessarily applies in our case -I also think we overachieved- but your benchmark is an odd. FWIW, there were plenty of gritty performances. Barnsley (a) Burnley (a) Millwall (a) Hull (a) Leeds (a) Reading (a) Wham (a) Brum (a) Coventry (a) Derby (a) Palace (a) Wham (h) Hull (h) Blackpool (h) And in many games we lost, we never capitulated but fought to the end e.g. Leicester (a), Cardiff (a), M'boro (a)

So we should have only won games by the odd goal or gifted teams possession to make a point? It's not our problem if the quality of the opposition was poor and teams are usually praised, not criticised for ending up easy winners. At the end of the day we had the third best defensive record and third best away record and managed to get points at some of the toughest grounds in the league (at least measured by their home records).

And nothing to do with overachieving? Open question whether a bolted together L1/championship side that had to strengthen root and branch in the space of a few months would have performed any better with a different, less muddied governance structure.

Sorry I meant what went on during the transfer window re. the defense.

Like they are in many clubs- sometimes for good reasons -otherwise known as integration and coordination, sometimes for bad reasons. It depends what waters are muddied and why. The fact that waters may be muddied is in itself neither good or bad.