Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Thracian

Why the time fear for a "winner"

Recommended Posts

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/disp...;pNodeId=132401

I loved watching Steve Walsh - he was never the greatest player but was he some standard bearer.

However, as a commentator I cannot find much in what he says to justify any of it.

I'll concede Allen is a steely man - but to say he's a winner just yet, at least managerially, is stretching it?

Maybe he will be but the evidence so far is that he's nearly a winner - and rather more times than is comfortable.

As for time, Walsh doesn't specify how much but why is Walsh worrying anyway?

Levein and Kelly were given far more time than they ever justified or deserved.

They were given the benefit of doubts that were raised (from day one in Kelly's case) yet each lasted around a season and a half each. They got a perfectly fair crack and the fans were more than fair.

Eighteen months should be quite enough to learn about Martin Allen and by that time he'll probably be getting itchy feet himself so MM would be daft not to have his successor lined up. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the evidence so far is that he's nearly a winner - rather more times than is comfortable.

As for time, why is he worrying? Levein and Kelly were given far more time than they ever justified or deserved.

Theye were given the benefit of doubts that were raised (from day one in Kelly's case) yet lasted around a season and a half each.

They got a perfectly fair crack.

And 18 months should be quite enough to learn about Martin Allen and by that time he'll probably be getting itchy feet himself so MM would be daft not to have his successor lined up. :D

Hullfox, a joke thread's alright, but breaking into someone's account is a bit far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are advocating that he only be given eighteen months or less in which to prove himself...hardly optimistic.

Not quite. I said Kelly and Levein were given that long - even being bad as they were and that there's therefore an inbuilt history of City fans generally being more than fair and patient. Why Walsh should doubt it I don't know. I also said that 18 months would probably be quite sufficient to form an opinion on Allen.

If he's been good in that time the issue of his remaining won't arise, if he's bad it might well and if he's middling but making signs of steady progress I'm sure he would be safe enough. Even with Kelly and Levein I didn't think the Leicester fans were at all happy about having to have another change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thrac are you pissed at 10.38am, or just woke up in a bad mood ??

Hopefully whatever you do for a living..........your boss isn't lining up a "successor" before you have even taken up your post !!!

Enough said. If thats how you are already looking at things then don't support the Allen era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thrac are you pissed at 10.38am, or just woke up in a bad mood ??

Hopefully whatever you do for a living..........your boss isn't lining up a "successor" before you have even taken up your post !!!

Enough said. If thats how you are already looking at things then don't support the Allen era.

Even with your two-post stutter I cannot see where lining up a successor in 18 months equates to before he takes up his post.

As for "supporting" the Allen era or otherwise I've already bought my ticket and have a completely open mind.

If you feel ecstatic about his appointment I'm pleased for you - and even envy your ability to be so convinced.

Me I loved his rhetoric and his amusing words of inspiration but then other things since haven't pleased me one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What 'other things since'? He hasn't even started in the job yet.

Well that's one of the points. The others have been commented on too except for the suggestion that he'd offer £1.5m for McLeod which I think is far too much to risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's one of the points. The others have been commented on too except for the suggestion that he'd offer £1.5m for McLeod which I think is far too much to risk.

Well...we don't actually know that do we. You can't criticise someone on speculation on what they may pay for a player that they may want unless you really have it in for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...we don't actually know that do we. You can't criticise someone on speculation on what they may pay for a player that they may want unless you really have it in for them.

That's the figure being touted around and if it proves to be lower - like £250,000 - I'll be happy to say it's a worthwhile gamble instead of a potentially expensive and unnecessary risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean its true though does it.

No, but if we always waited for confirmation of the truth we'd hardly say a thing on here.

Had the figure mentioned been £400,000 that would have been one thing but £1.5 seems a long way over the top even if there's scope for adjustment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but if we always waited for confirmation of the truth we'd hardly say a thing on here.

Had the figure mentioned been £400,000 that would have been one thing but £1.5 seems a long way over the top even if there's scope for adjustment.

I think Wolves offered over a million when Hoddle was in charge.

Well, it was Hoddle, who spent over a million on Frankowski - a striker who's failed to score for Wolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wolves offered over a million when Hoddle was in charge.

Well, it was Hoddle, who spent over a million on Frankowski - a striker who's failed to score for Wolves.

Shows how wrong you can be. According to Soccerbase the bloke had scored 123 goals in 196 games or thereabouts before he joined Wolves and had won trophies galore if I recall correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shows how wrong you can be. According to Soccerbase the bloke had scored 123 goals in 196 games or thereabouts before he joined Wolves and had won trophies galore if I recall correctly.

That was in his reserve team games and whilst on loan at Rochdale though.

Just goes to show...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was in his reserve team games and whilst on loan at Rochdale though.

Just goes to show...............

That reminds while you're mocking Rochdale, didn't they beat MA's Dons 5-0 during their belatted surge up the table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...