inckley fox

I would trade Bobby and Ayew for a prospect or two that might help us next season when, god willing, we actually intend to compete seriously again at some or other level. I have a feeling I'm going to have to shut my eyes and pretend the club don't exist until Top either sods off, or gives some sort of indication that things need to change radically. As it stands, he's doing a great job of indicating that KP's role in our success pales into insignificance in comparison with that of the managers that overcame financial constraints to achieve the apparently unachievable.

Oh, don't worry. You can have a go if you want, you'll be needing to vent spleen with someone if you have a wee one... Rest up!

It all depends on the extent to which they're giving up on this season. If they're expecting crippling sanctions and are cutting their cloth accordingly, we'll end up looking at this as a waste of money. If players, manager and board believe there are serious prospects of staying up, maybe it makes sense.

If people are seriously calling for a manager's head before he's been in charge of a game, especially given how utterly unmanageable our current predicament is, then there's a problem. I suspect people are again failing to direct their frustrations in the right direction. It's Rudkin. It's the FFP conspiracy. It's Rodgers. It's Maresca. It's Cooper. At some point we have to question the person who actually is responsible for most of the problems we're facing.

I didn't see much of that confidence after the halfway point last season. Not until we stopped obsessing over possession and dispatched Southampton. And how can we realistically expect confidence to be high when we've sold our best player and only splashed out a significant sum on a CB who doesn't appear to be up to it? Add to that the spectre of a possible record points deduction which may well relegate us before things properly get started, and you can understand why there'd be a malaise which any boss might struggle to overcome. I doubt Potter would have been thriving either, and Maresca-ball was already hitting a brick wall in the FLC.

People would be very understanding if they held their hands up and said mistakes have been made. If we saw evidence of restructuring in the boardroom (I'm afraid I don't know enough to be sure that Rudkin is the cause of all our ills, but I also suspect he'd be one of the first to go) then that would be a big step. Obviously lots would love to see someone appointed whose team-building qualities gave us some faith - e.g. Pearson, Walsh, Puel etc. - which would in turn generate some optimism that lessons are being learned. Also, it would be wonderful if they could establish a longer term footballing project by saying 'look, this year could be hard both on and off the pitch, so our recruitment and our financial management has to give priority to the idea that, beyond this year, we can be a force again. This is a first step towards that'. Targeting 10m loans for Zaha and the likes would go against that, naturally. But speaking along those lines may help to attract younger, less proven prospects who are drawn by the idea of PL exposure, and longer term ambition. It's not as if we haven't made that sort of approach work in the past. And it would also relieve some of the pressure on a manager who currently looks bewildered by the state of things. On a final note, if they publicly disavowed the idea that a style of play is dictated to the manager in advance, and that some of our ideas about playing style might not have been as sustainable as we believed 6-7 years back, that would go a long way towards reassuring people that there wasn't such a breach between what fans and board members wanted to see on the pitch. The alternative is to get humiliated on and off the pitch, with fans up in arms about the style, and the lack of business, communication, plan, competence or ability to learn from past errors. Nobody wanting to sign up for our total absence of a project. And us getting to the end of the season and wondering whether it was wise to waste money on so many short-term investments when we're left with little to build on next season. That scenario (the likely one, sadly) would get very messy, and Top's legacy irreparably shattered.

By far the most foolish thing to do would be to surmise that all was rosy with Maresca, and that Cooper has turned up and ruined everything. That smacks of the days when we thought McGhee had us on track, and O'Neill buggered it all up in early 1996. Maresca had been thoroughly sussed, and only the departure from his death-by-possession fixation (that we saw as of the Southampton game) got us over the finish line. This is on the board. I suppose that's the only sensible conclusion. The financial chaos, the broken promises, the PSR problems, Top's obsession with having his own personal mini Man City and the awful close season business. That's how we got here. While Cooper may not be blameless, FFP may be unfair, Maresca may have gelled the team better, and the board's misguided gamble back in 2021 might have been understandable, the truth is that it must be hell to motivate a set of players who can see that those upstairs haven't given them a cat in hell's chance. And, as well moneyed as they may be, they're also human beings. It can't be easy to believe in our project.

Do you think recalling parliament would put the fire out? It's hard to imagine, considering some of the inflammatory language that's been used by certain MPs recently. And, like I say, what - practically - do you think they'd be able to thrash out in a parliamentary session?

If you recall Parliament, or sit down to talk with Tommy Robinson and co., then you're demonstrating that destruction is the way to the negotiating table. The PM is trying to demonstrate that people aren't going to spring to action just because you bully minorities and smash up a few town centres. If he did, it would be a spectacular show of weakness. Anyone vaguely informed on the issue must be aware that dealing with this problem is going to require a long-term strategy rather than panicky populist gestures. And a few years in power, let alone a month, isn't long enough to implement anything. But what about the Muslim riots that might follow if we did sit down with these people? When Muslim protesters brick a few church windows and blow up another concert hall, will that be time to sit down and have a sensible head-to-head with their extremists? Was it the last time? As a general rule, sensible politicians don't readily negotiate with terrorists until they are ready to stop being terrorists. And what do you think might be a set of constructive, practical measures that we could take to deal with these people's concerns? If you want to sit down and talk things over, you need some ideas that might actually work. But I doubt there'll be many of them among the shards of glass and burning buildings tomorrow night.

If you're not defending or justifying their actions then we agree on the most important thing. I doubt we'd end up throttling one another about our thoughts on whether or not this is different to other occasions when people resort to destructive and violent behaviour. Not least because it's absolutely true that people with different political motives have caused plenty of destruction and violence, or in some cases had their protests hijacked by idiots. I don't think the motivation behind those protests tends to be as inherently unpleasant, but it does happen, and I gave the example of the Duggan riots a decade or so ago as something which was similarly vague in its objectives, and in many cases equally destructive. Where I'd differ is your (and perhaps Otis's) definition of it being 'equal on both sides' in regard to these specific protests. I'm not sure how travellers are on the 'opposite' side to these protesters. I'm not really clear about who 'the other side' is at all in this case. It's certainly not just Muslims, because I've heard first hand from a black Christian, a white European immigrant and my Hindu ex-neighbours that they've had abuse in recent days. I'm not sure what any of these people have done to deserve being attacked or abused. It seems to me that the protests were triggered by a misunderstanding and then descended into a kind of generalised complaint about Britain not being British enough, undertaken by people who largely don't seem to be clear themselves about what being British means. And I do think they're exceptional in all sorts of ways. I'm not trying to wind you up, and for my part there's no problem at all with you saying what you think. Of course lots of people have totally valid concerns about immigration, and it's important to talk them through. And I'm not easily offended either. I do, however, think I might get a ban though for helping to hijack this thread. So, in the spirit of its intended purpose, I'm going to try to think of something controversial to say just for the sake of it. Afua Hirsch and Owen Jones aren't at all annoying. How about that?

The violence isn't equal on both sides, though.

I think I also said pretty clearly that (a) the protests weren't clearly associated with the event that triggered them (hence the Duggan riots comparison) and (b) that immigration policy was going to be important because people do have some valid concerns. If you live in a community that you barely recognise because the powers-that-be have dolloped a load of immigrants into it and expect you to deal with the obvious social consequences of that, then no doubt you'll feel a sense of loss or even insecurity somewhere along the line. But I don't believe that a sensible, empathetic person with those concerns would have been going along to evidently extreme right-wing riots designed to intimidate swathes of people.

Obviously the extent and violence of the two sets of protests was quite different. You're right that people went out to cause harm in those protests too. I understand that while I might say that nearly everyone in a BLM protest is motivated by compassion (whereas it's clear to me that it's not the case here), others will come back with totally the opposite point of view. I also understand that if, as I saw suggested somewhere, we created an Extremists Register of people who resort to violence and vandalism in these events - in the way there's the name-and-shame element of the Sex Offenders Register - then you'd have to include the Just Stop Oil people on it too, for example. Even so, I think these protests have more in common with the 1950s riots against black communities than with the protests you're mentioning. Maybe the Duggan riots were a better example of something which is close in character to this and yet with a very different political motivation. For two reasons: one, they were most notable for looting and violence which had little to do with what happened. Two, because most protesters weren't sure whether they were protesting against the police, poverty or the government in general. That climate of not really knowing why you're there obviously makes it easier for things to fly off the tracks. In the case of BLM it's pretty clear what people were marching about. 99% of people would have been able to answer the question 'why are you here?' with answers that closely resembled one another. In this case, some think they're protesting about illegal immigrants and the dangers they pose. Others about the oversights that led to three little kids being killed. Or just the culprit. Others about people arriving on small boats. Others about all asylum seekers. Others about government policy on immigration in general. Others about Muslims. Others about too many non-whites knocking around. When you get that 'enough is enough' atmosphere, without being able to put your finger on what you've had enough of exactly, it encourages anyone who's a bit peeved, and perhaps harbours a few racist sentiments, to join in without particularly feeling out of place. But I'm not sure, even setting aside the sentiments and whether they're right or wrong, that you can easily compare the nature of these protests with most of those we've seen in the past decade, even if there are snapshots which make them seem comparable. As for solutions, I honestly don't know. I suspect they lie in better schools rather than bigger prisons. Or perhaps in how we try to educate (without indoctrinating) the hordes of people who'll be passing through those 24 hour courts. Immigration policy, over time, is bound to be key. And people can complain about how soon COBRA or Parliament meets, or how soon we can process prosecutions, but to me it seems that the real big, bright ideas that have to come won't be as emphatic or immediate as most hope.

Surely much of our success, including the much-lauded financial model, was based on longer-term investments. We lured up-and-coming young players with game time which other clubs wouldn't, and sold them on - often enough, at least - at a massive profit. The last time we came up and stayed up we had plenty of longer-term investments on board (signed both in the Championship, and immediately after going up). We subsequently won the league and the FA Cup, and bankrolled the project, by having made sure we had a constant conveyor belt of incoming and outgoing players who'd been signed with that long-term project in mind. And, even relatively-speaking, many of those players were less costly than our recruitment has been in the past few seasons. All of our successful teams have been based on a blend of shorter-term, ready-made signings and longer-term investments. The most short-term approach to investment that I've seen at Leicester was with the Adams bargain-basement sides that misfired in 2003 and 2004, or the one which spectacularly failed to deliver instant success in the 2007-08 campaign, and then again after Sven's arrival a few years later. The issue isn't that longer-term investments are a bad idea. They're essential. And it isn't that shorter-term impact players are a bad idea either. On far too many occasions we've overpaid for unsuitable players, regardless of their age group. You always have hits and misses, we've just had a few too many costly misses. I'd say that, if anything, we're in no position to be buying a great players without a longer-term project in mind.

It's the fastest growing economy in the G7, apparently. And Spain, supposedly the fastest growing in the EU, needs way more immigrants according to its own Home Secretary. But maybe you're right.

I'm not sure the money is already there, and that it's just a matter of juggling priorities. I remember Blair talking up how the cutting of red tape would be key to the NHS, but in the end that saved millions rather than billions. In the end they had to pump money in and I suspect, whether it comes under Starmer or not, that'll be the case this time too. Education - which I can talk about more easily - will be similar. If class sizes are touching 40, you'll need more teachers, and that's expensive, even if we can cut costs elsewhere. And if we don't want teachers bringing their own pens or washing kids' clothes, that won't come for free either. None of this is to say that you're wrong, because the money does have to go in the right places, but I suspect nothing is going to be cheap for the taxpayer. Not if we're going to see serious improvement. You might also be right about Labour's term coming to an end in 2010. Back in 1997, in a weird encounter that makes me (misleadingly) sound like I have connections in high places, I met one of the Law Lords, who said 'the Tories lost because they wanted to lose'. He went on to explain that they knew there were internal issues, especially over Europe, which needed addressing before they could comfortably govern, so many Tories in safe seats found little appetite for the fight. People forget what a sound job Hague did in simply keeping that party together for a parliament. A lot of people in Labour in 2010 will also have seen the writing on the wall, and perhaps sensed that it was time to reassess where 'New' Labour were headed. It may be the case with the Tories now. Just to mention a couple of points from your other posts... You mention 'societal decline', especially among younger people, and ask whether that can simply be blamed on the Tories. Obviously not. A lot of people in my profession talk about how populist ideas like 'parent power' crept in under Blair and Brown, and that the erosion of the teacher's authority was already under way. Many things which people didn't like under the Tories, like academies / the abolition of LEAs, already looked to be in the pipeline. However I'm not sure that youth delinquency to this extent is a new thing, even if the reluctance to deal with it head on is. I know you and I wouldn't ruin a class for everyone else, or smash up a town centre, but it did happen, and at times in history it's provoked the same sort of despair among older generations. And if you look across Europe, there are lots of people asking similar questions to you right now. Is it tied in with mobile phone and social network addiction? Is it because we don't have the money to deal with low-level crime? Is it because we've pandered to parents' and students' whims for too long? Are these just symptoms of poverty and social unrest exacerbated by divisive and economically irresponsible governments? Or are we just getting older and complaining about the young 'uns? I don't know, but it's clear that Tory rule hasn't found solutions, even if it isn't wholly to blame. You also mention at times people telling you how to vote. I'd do my best never to do that to anyone, and I squirm at people who dismiss all Reform or, further afield, Trump or Le Pen voters as idiots, as opposed to addressing their more valid concerns. That smacks of too long spent in the 'echo chambers' of social media that we keep hearing about. However, I think it's also hard for people to justify their opposition to right-wing or left-wing populists without appearing to, at the same time, be telling you who not to vote for. I just think it comes across very differently over a beer in the pub, when I tell you how the Tories have screwed things up, and you or whoever tells me that I should spend less time reading the Guardian. The only thing I would say is that we're worried about whether Labour or the Tories can deliver on their promises, but to me it seems like Reform's ideas are as pie in the sky as ideas tend to be when they're from people who don't expect to win. For balance, Michael Foot's manifesto in 1983 might be another example!

It's going to cost money to staff all those those wards, though. I have zero expertise on the matter despite various family members working in the NHS, but suspect they need dosh plus the recruitment campaigns and budget management you mention. It's also improving from a very low starting point, which we got to under Tory rule. It's a bit like setting a place ablaze then standing proudly in one corner of the building with a watering can proclaiming 'this bit's almost okay though'.

He said there were exceptions and clearly was talking about his life up to now, which hasn't been as PM. Even if he was, I'd fully expect any normal human to need to put some time aside if they're going to do their job properly. And if it's conditional, all the better. There are so many serious issues at play, and all sorts of reasonable doubts as to whether Labour have the answers to them. I don't think the fact that someone occasionally has, up to now, tended to make sure they have a little time for their family should count against them in any way. It just detracts from any of the serious question marks.

If we're to return to our previously-successful financial model, we're going to need to get back to developing talent. Some of them won't work out - and I know nothing whatsoever about this chap - but it's the right profile.

That's my impression too. And, bearing in mind his destination, there's every chance that if we sort ourselves out he might end up crossing paths with us again someday. I can think of at least one example of someone we sold to Chelsea who had cause to regret his decision.

Unless I'm wrong, you're basically saying 'play young talent, or it won't be fulfilled... And a flash training complex won't make up the ground'. I think that's right, though the OP also makes a few other important points which I'd go along with. I'd debate one point. Maresca arguably was the best in decades in terms of blooding young players, but I'd question how promising some of them were. The best young promise I've ever seen blooded at Leicester came between January 2012 and January 2014, when the likes of James, Drinkwater and Mahrez came through. I'm not convinced that Maresca has introduced home-grown talent that's superior in quality to Moore or Schlupp, who also came through during that period, nor introduced any signings equatable with the aforementioned. It felt a little bit like he was paying mind to people by playing, say, Raikhy, Madavidua, Maswanhise, perhaps even Kasey at times. As if it was an issue which had cropped up at interview which he'd vowed to address, but didn't actually address because there wasn't much point in picking these guys in the first place. It's nothing new. Managers often try to prove that they value an academy by blooding a few players here and there. Pearson did it first time round. So did Ranieri with Dodoo. I just don't think we've uncovered much top-level talent, either via recruitment or development, in recent years. It's not that we're failing to give them the chances. But no, Seagrave isn't going to turn Kasey into an elite talent.

If we would have stayed up without the deduction, it'll be - from a manger's perspective - a relegation with serious caveats. He'd have a case to argue.

If you get Pearson vibes from reading the Forest forum, then let's hope we don't become his Derby County.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is more or less 'it's easier for a fan to judge the merits of a manager than it is to say whether the appointment itself is any good, because we can see with our own eyes whether we like his football, but we don't know who the other candidates were, nor the criteria'. That's fair, but I think you can add several reasonable points to this. Firstly, that it's possible for us to look at the positives with this guy. His first-season impact is generally very good (I liked watching his Swansea side, for instance), and while things slip in his second year, it's still important to give some context: his second season saw him in the play-offs with Swansea, and stay up with a Forest side in a staggering degree of flux. While I'd understand people looking at his final days with Forest and saying 'I don't want that here', it's as hard to blame him for the chaos at that club as it is to say that Potter or Poch were fully responsible for their shaky starts at Chelsea. I'd also add that Maresca's inexperience and relative youth were often given as grounds for believing that he might get better, and yet Cooper was younger than him when he hit all of these troughs in his career. Secondly, I really don't think it's impossible for fans to imagine the sorts of candidates that might be interested in certain clubs in certain predicaments. It's not a huge leap to say 'I doubt Moyes would fancy that', nor 'given Leicester''s circumstances, Cooper seems like a fair pick'. No, it's not an informed analysis, but neither is it entirely the product of fertile imaginations. Thirdly, while I don't find most of it particularly offensive personally, the nature of the derision is obviously irrational when it's based on appearance, or where a guy came from. Some of the more sober arguments also smack of people trying to rustle up rational motives for irrational impulses, and when that spills over into people feeling sure that he'll fail, and seeming unwilling to accept any other possibility, that's not helping our chances. Finally, there's the small matter of how often we've got this sort of thing wrong. You can debate whether we're right to despise one of our most successful managers, in BR, and blame him for our downfall without holding a shambolic board to account, or even whether we were right to be so dubious about other moderately successful managers like Puel and Maresca. But if you go back further you get people being outraged by Ranieri. Before that, wanting Pearson out, in most cases because he simply wasn't Sven. Before that, protesting for O'Neill to go after only a few months in charge, and only two years after Little was getting spat at on his way to winning us promotion. Even with poor appointments like Megson, I'm not sure we gave arguably our most competent manager of that season a real chance, and we were subsequently relegated. On the other hand we were delighted by the appointments of Pleat, Taylor, Levein, Allen, Holloway and Sven etc. I hope we're all willing to accept the possibility that we as a fanbase might be wrong this time too, and that he won't become the scapegoat for a season which may be very hard to succeed in.

It's quite an extreme analogy though. Billy Sharp is past it and couldn't convince Derby - third tier promotion hopefuls - to take a punt on him in January. Cooper is, relative to his profession, young, and has worked at the highest level. It's very possible that he'd have been considered by other top level outfits when they found themselves managerless mid-season. His record would make him a passable appointment even if we weren't facing hefty deductions. On top of that your argument works the other way round too. What little evidence we have indicates that managers who'd normally consider us, like Potter, were turning their noses up. So in the absence of any proof that anyone wanted it, surely we should be quietly pleased about getting someone who is deemed competent. And you certainly can't go levelling criticism if you're saying that our lack of knowledge invalidates any praise of the appointment. Because by that measure he might have been literally the only person willing to do the job, and all criticism also goes out of the window.