deep blue

The problem with looking at Challinor as potential new manager is that he has very close association with Stockport. Even more importantly, in comparison to ourselves, he is working for an excellent owner - a local guy who loves the club and has resurrected it (phoenix from the ashes situation), who appears to have a lot of footballing nous, who is astute in his choice of manager to whom he then gives 100% support, and has so far made no missteps in his top level decision-making. Hard to see Challinor wanting to have any part in the shit-show of our high level (lack of) decision-making. The only possible way I see us having a chance is if Stockport fail again to get promoted and he thinks he's taken them as far as he can, but they've made a good start so far in the play-offs.

Absolutely. Social fairness was more accepted pre-Thatcher and many people had belief in such things. It was Thatcher that really changed the agenda, appealing to the greedy and selfish (I will never forget Thatcher's proclamation that "there's no such thing as Society", nor her callous edict to councils to sell off council houses but forbidding them to use the money accrued to replace them with affordable housing to buy or let).. I, like many many people born just after WW2 , have always espoused more socialist/Liberal ideas and continue to do so , exhibiting kindness and respect for others, but it feels like a lost cause now given the populist takeover of the more recent years.

Thanks for the info. We definitely need someone with drive in the midfield, but are also lacking someone with a strong tackle and a desire to win the ball and pick up second balls.

Absolutely!

Evidence of the penalty miss isn't anecdotal, but factual, and without a doubt it made the difference between us staying up and going down. Izzet might have been in relegation squads but he never gave up but always fought (and tackled) hard, and I seem to remember that his effectiveness was hampered by injuries. Speaking of tackling, did Maddison or Tielemans even understand the meaning of the word?

You've got that spot on. I think, also, the lack of interest in politics (people who will say they won't bother to vote but being v quick to complain about parties, being topo lazy or unaware to understand the importance of the right to vote and their responsibility to try to effect change where they see things they disagree with).

Izzet was a much better all round midfielder than any of those of the Rodgers era, and he also had fight, grit and commitment.

What kind of player is Bardeli? What qualities would he bring?

They will.

One of the problems is the lack of political interest and awareness with people in this country. For example, I see you make no reference to the Liberal Democrats, the third largest party in the Commons and with a much more rounded policy position than newbies Reform and Green.

When you say there's little time to get our players understanding his tactics and getting to the right level of fitness, that assumes that our squad will be essentially the same. But hopefully we will be rid of the bulk of them and will be promoting a lot of the youngsters and bringing in a few cheap additions. So maybe it's not as hopeless a scenario as you are painting

I definitely think Fuchs would be a good man-manager, he would be strong on improving standards and fitness, and would have the balls to take on Top & co. He is shrewd and successful on many fronts, I suspect a much more rounded man than most managers, very intelligent, and likely to look at the long term. Having said all that, he is obviously a risk in terms of his limited experience. But to all those on here who are using that to dismiss any prospect of his being good enough, JUST LOOK WHERE ENGAGING EXPERIENCED MANAGERS HAS GOT US IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. The least experienced of the lot was Maresca.

He can be a bit quirky, but that's the fun side of him coming through. That was important for squad solidarity during our Prem win. In fact, he has a very strong character and I'm sure he would impart standards in the club again and command respect from the players. That's not to say I'm certain it would be a good appointment. It certainly would involve some risk. The possibility of a previous player coming back and tarnishing his reputation, his inexperience etc. But him being an avid City fan means he would be really motivated to succeed and to turn the club round, and his ambition surely would be for the long term, viewing us as a club that belongs in the Prem rather than accepting our current position. I can see him being his own man, managing the team on his own terms. On balance I think I'd like to see him have a go. At this stage, given our current position and our unattractiveness to proven managers, I think any choice will be a risk ... I'd rather go for a bold one.

Only my opinion, but I don't see Fuchs as a yes man. I think he has far too much strength of character.

Exactly!!

Fantastic quote and, unfortunately, so true.

In what way was it "awfully drafted"?

Apologies for my rant. Touched a raw nerve.

Some of you can't resist these cheap ageist comments. Will you please stop as it insults the diehard fans who have actually been stauch supporters of the club a hell of a lot longer than the likes of you. I've been a strong, lifelong supporter since the mid 50s. I was one of the first on here to call out Rodgers and sent several emails to the board imploring them to sack him, starting from after the first few games of his relegation season.

It's been widely suspected on here that all our recent managers have been following instructions from above as to the style of the team and the selections. I get it up to a point, but surely our current manager had so little to lose by being brave, ignoring Top/Rudkin, and playing what HE thought was best. Has anyone an explanation for this? If every manager we employ follows the same track as the last few then we are never going to get out of this mess.

Is there any credible evidence for this view? I am very old but have always believed in the science on this issue, as do almost all of my similarly-aged friends.

Of course the youngsters aren't going to bail us out of this. You have to be on the pitch to have any chance of affecting things.

Those who say that the players take all the blame and the manager none should consider that there are managers of strong character who would be able to take difficult decisions and to instill confidence, effort and standards into the players. Rowett isn't of that ilk, whereas MON, Pearson, and more recently Maresca, would be able to do that. So Rowett has failed in his time here. I guess the problem is that Top won't appoint a manager who has the balls to take his own decisions; therein lies our dilemma.

Interesting topic. I've been aware for sometime how many of our recent players seem to improve when they move to other clubs, or new recruits not so effective as with their former clubs. The recent period of decline in so many of our players coincides roughly with 3 things - the end of Rodgers' first year with us, after he was given a huge contract and more freedom to boss all aspects of our football philosophy, notably our transfer policy - the death of our owner and his son taking over - the new super training ground. Thinking of Pearson's standards and his focus on character of recruits, I suppose by this time there were also so few of the Pearson-recruited Premiership winners still with us who could encourage the same standards.