roversfan99

Mike Ashley would be considerably more preferable to the cunts that own us now. And obviously he isnt the only alternative. If you disagree, even armed with a fourfourtwo article of 10 reasons why Newcastle fans didnt like him, then you havent paid enough attention over the past 15 years. I feel like you still dont fully appreciate quite how bad Venkys are.

They all seem to fit the bill of playing in weak leagues where wages will be very low.

Most years though, any Championship owner will incur a loss. Its par for the course and many people/groups are clearly willing to do it as you can see across the league. We seem to be the only club whose fans cherish the fact that ours do something they have no choice in, and misinterpret or at least suggest its something they choose to do. A club run properly could definitely reduce those losses, we now seemingly have another rookie idiot in Yasir Sufi overseeing that area. Selling the club would naturally cause a spike in interest in terms of ticket sales anyway, which could then be improved further by a competent man overseeing the commercial side. Venkys have never found anyone.

Kapuadi, he plays in Poland but he is from DR Congo and is currently at AFCON. We wont spend what it would take to get him anyway but he is left footed, we need a right footer.

I understand to an extent the arguments around any boycott making no difference etc. I cannot fathom the argument that implies essentially better the devil you know. All other clubs in the league (beside Wednesday for a short period with Chansiri after which the club went into admin) rely on owners to offset losses. We arent in some unique situation whereby we rely on owner funding (and it certainly isnt £30m, maybe £20m without profit on player trading so usually lower) so there are people and groups clearly willing to invest in Championship clubs. I dont see why it will worry potential owners. Buying a Championship club means accepting yearly losses, its not just here.

Are you not annoyed that the clubs laziness and incompetence has left any uncertainty?

Its a seperate point surely. How is giving youngsters a game specifically a sign of good man management? Im not saying its a bad thing, far from it. Im just saying that it doesnt prove anything about his man management.

To be fair I find most managers boring to listen too. They all throw out the same mixture of cliches and excuses to varying degrees. Ismael comes across as particularly cold but Eustace was particularly monotonous publically yet results were very good which is what it boils down to. Tomasson had more charisma and was more interesting but also could appear smarmy. The one thing I could point at Ismael as a positive is his willingness to change formation. Results havent massively improved overall but they have slightly. I think the academy players are out of necessity really. They didnt get a sniff for most of the season.

Surely the fact the whole squad wasnt training properly in the first place is tbe bigger worry. If someone had a house that set on fire and put it out, you would be more worried as to why their house set on fire. Playing youngsters has no real relevance to man management. We can pick apart which players he has used, not used, speculate about training, split things home and away etc. The main thing to judge him on is his record which I think (if I have tallied up correctly) is 11 wins 8 draws and 16 losses.

Processing deadlines. Ok.

Obviously its debatable. Thats the point.

You are yourself re writing history. At that time, Eustace's overall record was poor. In a fresh season after a full pre season he obviously then showed himself as a very good manager, unlike Ismael so far. But at the time, he was struggling. Notice how no manager doing well has his record split into home and away. At the time, Eustace had an ok away record but his home record combined with that meant that his overall record was poor. If you split out Ismael within the inflexible argument that we are bad at home and good away, that suggests that we would level out right in the middle. The fact that we arent suggests that such an implication is misleading. Splitting into home and away is partly flawed because teams on average pick up more points at home than they do away. Our away form is 6th best, so its certainly above average. Our home form isnt below average, its truly woeful, 2nd worst, 2 points less than a point per game. If we had collected the points we have away at home, it would actually be the 17th best rather than the 6th. But by saying bad at home and good away, it makes us look better than we actually are doing.

Agenda as in to suit the argument which always for you when a manager is employed by the club (barring an occasional blip) is to make them seem as good as possible. What use is it that "he knows" that the home form is crap? I know and you know that its crap. Until that knowledge turns into results, its of no use. My argument is not that his man management is bad. Its that we cant possibly know in my opinion that its strong enough to be used as a positive in regards to him being our manager. We dont know either way, I have pointed out some red flags regarding how he manages his players, members of the squad not trying in training, not running back in games, being questioned personally in public etc, when brought up you take any debate off on weird tangents. But I couldnt strongly say his man management is poor. Why does playing youngsters prove good man management? Or winning the odd match? Coyle and Kean won the odd match, obviously Ismael isnt on par with them but every manager wins sometimes. You could easily say he loses more than he wins so his man management must be crap, its such a weak argument because there are so many variables that lead to results. Are there any areas of Ismael's management that concern you beside the generalised observation that the home form is poor (although even then you try to qualify that by saying "he knows"), and what do you think of his overall record in charge without splitting it into home and away?

I believe so.

But again, especially Rogers, they wouldnt have got the same game time. City had Foden, De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva etc. Its impossible to suggest that they could have merited that game time and therefore they wouldnt be the same player. It made sense for them to move on. Its not a difficult concept.