dmayne7

It definitely doesn't. It's all about interpretation. Moore and I think he didn't it like that, and you and others do. We'll see

I've just said this in his thread, but I'm not sure King meant it like that. He was listing the timeframe for players but just seemed to suggest James' injury was more long term than Somebody like Skipp who is back next match. He certainly didn't say he was out for the season and given he put a timeframe of March for Ramsey, pretty sure he would have said James is done for the season. Importantly, and I think this is definitely been misinterpreted (though accept that this is the way I myself am interpretating), he did not say James is out for a longer period of time compared to Ramsey. We'll have to just see how it pans out.

I didn't interpret like that. He didn't go through them in order and think the longer term was in reference to the fact that Skipp is just out for this game and then back. But maybe it is worse than Ramsey

And I think King's approach will all be out treating each other with respect. He'll set out clear standards but give the players the leeway/treat them like adults, to enact that. But if you don't treat that with respect, you'll be out of the team. That's how I imagine it. He'll be firmer than you expect but it's very much going to depend how the players buy into that as to whether he'll have authority or not.

But they weren't anywhere near as far up the food chain as we'd got. Recruitment was crap yes, but our how thing was more about how will bottled it

So King has said he's out until at least March. Should have cancelled the loan immediately. But we probably don't have a clause allowing us to do so knowing us.

Probably does given us a better chance of winning this weekend purely because the options are almost non existent in there. But when Skipp/James come back, he absolutely does not give us a better chance of winning games. His attitude on the pitch was pathetic at times when did he play this season; shirking challenges, strolling about etc.

This is probably why he'll either be a very good manager or destined to be a number 2. Obviously, it's just words, but there's such a subtle difference in the way he calls things. He's extremely measured in what he says, not too up or down (wonder where he picked that up from) and I expect that same approach could be the thing that holds him back if he can't get that ruthless streak. Same kind of humility that stopped him being a great player (physicality too). Positional play, sense of awareness, timing of run etc. Up there with the very best we've had. Just hope if things don't work out, he's given the support he needs to become a better manager (if that's what he still wants)

I'd do this but Daka () for Mavididi. His performances have been absolutely disgusting and don't trust him to have the brain to do any of the busy work up that. Totally get the idea but just don't see him doing it well. Not that Daka does the job of a striker well but it's his inability to kick a football that stops him, not his brain. Might as well put an actual striker in there who will at least run in the channels. Mavididi probably just want to get on the ball all the time. Seeing him play as a 10 has been so depressing. Not far off putting Hamza and Luke Thomas in that role

Hadn't loaded properly on my phone so thought it was Agamemnon from the Troy film based on the outfit

Thing is, we've seen his attitude both on the pitch and to the fans this season. It doesn't match up with the idea that he's got ultra high standards and is speaking out against the bad culture he's seen.

It's possible. But based on everything we know, and given Ruud did actually try and drive standards (only good thing he did), it's seems almost impossible that's it's anything other than him being an unprofessional ***"

What stands out is how bottom heavy that list is. Hardly any incomings in the second half of their tenure. That's not bad luck, it's simply poor planning/execution.

If he's brave Mavididi won't be anywhere near the starting XI

Neither will Spock

£80k a week

I was being slightly tongue in cheek in regards to how you'd feel about it. Still plenty of room to grow but at almost 26, £50m for a guy who has scored 1 in 20 odd PL games this season, highest career League tally of 14 goals and a 1 in 4 hit rate, is absolutely abysmal from Palace. Especially as they'll get less for Mateta and likely Strand-Larsen's value will drop in the summer as a championship player. Fantastic business from you, not that you'll probably invest all that back in the team and you lose a guy who could score you goals to give you any kind of a chance this season

£50m for Strand Larsen?! That might be the greatest sale in the history of football. @The Bear must be buzzing

Any manager can have shocking results against them, but conceding 9 goals twice clearly shows that players don't 'run through brick walls' for him

The insult is that we still don't properly know his role. But Top did allude to the things he's responsible for and it's absolutely mental. No human being alive could possibly do that remit because he made it sound like Rudkin is doing very operational things as well at the strategic stuff in a million areas of the business. Suspect Rudkin wouldn't be able to do them well if that was his only job but zero chance of being good at anything if statement from Top was true.

Hull's, actual points versus their expected points is absolutely crazy. Not the be all and end all, but when you're so far ahead of the curve, it'll eventually catch up a little bit so wouldn't be surprised to see them have a real sticky patch at some point

But your original question was players who aren't even the best in their family and this list has Frank Sinclair (100's of PL appearances) being worse than his son who plays in the National League? James Chambers had a much better career than Adam. Arguably the same with the Oakes brothers. One thing when people don't understand somebody else's question but another when you don't get your own!

Realised I missed the Birmingham one so my bad. But that still means he's been sacked in less than half of his jobs which is pretty impressive. And if you want to play on the context, one of those sackings was deeply unpopular and Birmingham have never improved since. Stoke was definitely a failure but again, done just as bad every year since he was sacked (bar this one). Even Oxford, he kept them up when they are punching above their weight so hardly like his reign there was unsuccessful. You want to bring in the 2 others where he wasn't sacked? Millwall is just about the longest/most sustained period of success in their history so he did a great job there. Then he was never the permanent manager at Birmingham as he was holding the fort whilst the manager was off sick for the rest of the season (pretty unique circumstances), so it was never Rowett's job to lose. Managed to get 11 points from 8 which is excellent when you're down there, so them being relegated is not on him is it? Still not a lower league team in sight... I don't particularly want him but I'm just not blind to the facts like you are. Apart from my 1 mistake where I missed out the Birmingham sacking (after initially including it), you're objectively wrong in your argument. Debate it if you want but you'll still be wrong. Reality is almost every manager gets sacked/let go so the fact he's been sacked in less than half of his jobs is pretty impressive. And I'm glad that my closing paragraph was good enough for you to want to copy it

He's been sacked 2 times out of 7 jobs? Lower league clubs? All in the same division we're in bar 1. And in case you forgot we were a strong PL club so obviously we wouldn't have been fishing for 'lower league' managers. Past few appointments have been great though eh? I get it you don't want him but not sure why you're ignoring facts/making your own up, trying to spin a certain narrative straight out of Top's playbook. Time to accept the new reality we're in I'm afraid.

Maybe true but why they decided to pull him out of a challenging environment where he was doing well, to move him to another team in the league, I do not get. Absolutely pointless. Just as it was loaning out Alves to the level below when he'd done pretty well (relatively speaking) at our level. Yet more evidence these people don't know what they're doing.