mrfahaji

Anyone can edit Wikipedia though, can't they? I'd be surprised if Les made that his first port of call Overall I'm a little wary of Pellegrino's appointment, but the more I read the more optimistic I'm becoming about it.

You could well be right. Would just be good to get confirmation (I assume once the time has passed there's no problem with revealing ITK stuff), as at the time these comments get chins wagging but then are later forgotten. Even if it's now irrelevant, I'm still curious to know such snippets!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3340596/mauricio-pochettino-and-i-chatted-tactics-for-hours-using-just-salt-and-pepper-pots-says-alaves-chief-mauricio-pellegrino/ Apologies for posting an article from the Sun, but if Les has read this then surely the job is Pellegrino's to turn down!

Just out of interest, if ericb is loitering, can you reveal who the "exciting name" was you had been told about, or are they still in the frame for the position?

This. The paradox of football is that no-one likes the way the Premier League operates, they detest that top table of teams, and some don't even like being part of it. Yet as soon as they drop further down the pyramid, the aim is to win as much as possible and get back there.

Exactly, bizarre way of looking at it. It might be that there are "horses for courses" and Howe is just the perfect fit with Bournemouth, but the job he has done there (over his two stints as boss) is simply remarkable, not sure anyone comes close to it in the last 30 years or so.

Yes please, if only to boost my bank account!

As adriansfc alluded to on the previous page, when it comes to the enjoyment of watching your team play each week, it's actually only the points total that matters, since the higher that is, the more you've seen your team win (or draw). Your league position also depends on how others do. Sure, I'm happy to see teams around us slip up knowing that will boost our chances of finishing higher, but West Ham or Stoke losing doesn't make my weekend in the same way that a Saints victory does. Of course league position is often a good measure of progress, or objective achievement, but in the purist form of "how happy is MY TEAM making me?" then it has to be the points tally on the board.

True, it is rather subjective. Perhaps I'm thinking more about their support base in the country and in the world. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate, and also because it saddens me that City are only where they are because of money and over time that will be forgotten, if it hasn't been already! I actually agree that he should be aiming higher than Liverpool.

It's a shame the appearance fee wasn't invalidated every time he had to be subbed after an hour.

Just to play devil's advocate, Liverpool are a bigger club than Man City. City have bought a few titles here and there recently but I wouldn't put them on the same level. Of course they may, sadly, get there soon enough with continued success but United, Liverpool and Arsenal are probably the biggest English clubs, with Chelsea not far behind now. I would also much prefer van Dijk to go to City than Liverpool, mainly because of the latter's antics. But not sure it is somehow more morally understandable to want to join Liverpool over Man City. You could probably argue (and I have no doubt the Scousers will) the opposite, that City is all about money whereas Liverpool is more about potential and history.

Especially if said Italian or Spanish club then immediately sold him to Liverpool for £50m... The gall of the scousers in the press really is remarkable. I know they tend to have a high opinion of themselves but their levels of condenscension are embarrassing.

Not Oriol, he's different. In the same way Jose was. And Morgan was. And Virgil is.

ITK? Haha, just imagine it.

I was a supporter of Puel for a long time OldNick, but as the season neared its end I was having increasing doubts. In the end, I asked myself whether Les Reed would really sack a manager and admit he had got an appointment wrong when "on paper" we had had a decent enough season. In the end, I came to the conclusion that even performances alone might not have been enough to get Puel the axe, but a level of discontent from the playing staff would surely be disastrous going into next season. Given that he was sacked, that suggests to me that there were some problems behind the scenes, and if that was the case, clearly it was for the best.

Thanks, that's an interesting and encouraging read!

I'm still hoping that there are other names in the frame, one being lined up we don't know much about (someone like Weinzierl, or even Sousa). As much as I will be optimistic about Pellegrino, it doesn't strike me as the perfect appointment. Seems odd to replace a manager for being too defensive with one who has derived success from a defensive set up.

Do you think he regrets not taking the Reading job?

I've just realised that I was at the Bernabeu for Pellegrino's first ever match as a manager (I knew he was the boss then, didn't realise it was his first role). Valencia drew 1-1, thought they played pretty well. I don't really want him as boss, but I quite like this fact!

I've just read somewhere that Newcastle are going to have red numbers. Would have thought they'd either have black or white numbers if they were having a plain back, so maybe red numbers does suggest stripes after all?

Not that well, evidently

I said "Ok I see your point". Hardly evidence of "not liking" your example, in fact I was acknowledging I understood where you were coming from. My initial posts were more to do with thinking about what is likely (or merely just 'possible') to happen in the future rather than using examples to "prove I'm right".

An example of what? Increased recruitment? Muslim communities having more apathy towards terror attacks if they are themselves victims of hatred and attacks? Where would I find such examples, shall I contact ISIS head of HR and see if they have any official figures? It's pretty obvious to any clear thinking person that this would be a natural effect of our society ostracising Muslims, don't think any statistics are required to 'prove' such a thing. No doubt in future such figures will come to light if we are to go down such a path though. I am berating myself for even entering a discussion on this... there are 109 pages of evidence here why such an attempt would be futile!

Ok I see your point - but just because that example wasn't a response to right-wing extremism doesn't mean that the extremes don't fuel each other. It might not necessarily cause more terrorism directly (i.e. revenge attacks, though it could), but rather indirectly through increased recruitment, more support for extremists, or at the very least more apathy in muslim communities towards attacks. Obviously we would be better off living in a world with no organised religion whatsoever, but can't see that ever happening...

Well I'm sure some would argue it was borne out of actions of the west, meddling in the middle east. But regardless of that, I'm saying that if we see an increase in both, or all, types of terrorism, it's worse for everyone. Sounds like you're more in favour of point scoring and "eye for an eye". Hardly the way forward for a supposedly civilised society.