deep blue

This the most concise (at the same time accurate and damning) description of possession football I have seen.

I think it's Davie Gibson, Ian King (or Tony Knapp), Gordon Banks and Frank McLintock.

A few here are taking that view, but nobody has pointed out that he didn't have to accept that responsibility and would have shown better judgement (and more concern for the good of the club) if he'd said "no".

It would be more progressive on your part if you actually gave your critique of the key points he made rather than just a throwaway dismissive comment which is meaningless.

Is your real name "Top"?

Why don't you look up Challinor's managerial history first ... to see how wrong you are.

But we're not a top tier football club any more!

If it's a consortium then maybe the other members of it have the nous to be able to continue it successfully.

Stockport's owner is a good example of this, but you're talking lower levels of investment ... but that's maybe the level we're at now.

I disagree and I think Finnegan's take is spot on, It's true that Rodgers gave us some fantastic football for a couple of years but with the squad that Puel had built I think we were poised for that level of performance with any less cautious manager in respect of on-field style, and I'm sure there were quite a few managers who could have done as well ... without ruining the club strategy in the process. As for not supporting Rodgers in the later years, our dismal failure to achieve Euro champs league qualification for 2 successive years probably made extra funding out of the question.

I've been similarly waiting for Restore to get their act together and split the mad populist vote, but they seem to have gone very quiet. Do you have any idea whether they're in a state that enables them to make a significant challenge in elections?

That's a misleading take on the situation. Through pure football ignorance they put Pearson into a position where he had to leave because they wanted to appoint a football celebrity. Said celebrity failed spectacularly and had to be sacked very quickly (danger of relegation). They then appointed another celebrity, Sven, who spent loads but didn't progress the squad. According to many people on here, they were strongly advised by Birchy and others within the club to reappoint Pearson. So KP had no connection with the initial appointment of Pearson, foolishly got rid of him, and only reappointed because they were prepared to take the advice of "people who knew" within the club.

Your last sentence is nonsense. It's because he's played for us in the past that we have good insight into his character and can be fairly sure that he has the strength to be his own man that our recent managers have all lacked (Enzo excepted), and we need that almost more than anything else in our next manager.

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.