Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Flynny Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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. Hullfox, a joke thread's alright, but breaking into someone's account is a bit far.
Bluefoxtim Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 After reading the post 3 times... I still don't know what is going on.
Hullfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 Hullfox, a joke thread's alright, but breaking into someone's account is a bit far. Sorry, it's the medication.
THEBIGJOHNSTEADER; Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 After reading the post 3 times... I still don't know what is going on. I was thinking exactly the same thing, doesn't quite match up. I think the moral of this thread is 'Give the manager time'
The Stig Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 Oh my god the Martin Allen Out threads are starting already.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 Oh my god the Martin Allen Out threads are starting already. In what way?
filbertway Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 Thracian is your post filled with a lot of irony or something I keep thinking I understand, but then I don't.
mancunianfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 In what way? Well you are advocating that he only be given eighteen months or less in which to prove himself...hardly optimistic.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
I8AM Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
mancunianfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 Me I loved his rhetoric and his amusing words of inspiration but then other things since haven't pleased me one bit. What 'other things since'? He hasn't even started in the job yet.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Bluefoxtim Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 So in this thread... We have had talk about Steve Walsh, Martin Allen, Craig Levein, Rob Kelly, Izale Mcleod and commentators. Some sort of free for all? Who watched the apprentice last night?
mancunianfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
mancunianfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 That's the figure being touted around Doesn't mean its true though does it.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Scow Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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.
Hullfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 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...............
Thracian Posted 31 May 2007 Author Posted 31 May 2007 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?
Manwell Pablo Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 That reminds while you're mocking Rochdale, didn't they beat MA's Dons 5-0 during their belatted surge up the table? They also beat Paul Inces Macclesfield 5-0 as well.
Hullfox Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 That reminds while you're mocking Rochdale, didn't they beat MA's Dons 5-0 during their belatted surge up the table? I wasn't mocking Rochdale.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.