roversfan99

Sky could start moving games to 3am and he would defend it.

They have massively reduced the enjoyment of either tournament by making 24 and 48 teams. With 3 teams qualifying from most groups, it removes much of the jeopardy.

Made an appointment in Cleverley that clearly hadnt worked, have him more than a season and in the second half of that season, no team had worse results in the second half of the season so clearly going in the wrong direction. Sacked him understandably. Appointed someone, quickly identified he wasnt working so sacked him too. Need to work on appointments but at least they act when they wont work. Unlike us with Ismael. Takes one correct appointment and they are away.

Who said he thinks he is so smart?

You would be very naive if you think that the Premier League's attitude would be that they already generate enough money. Greed will take over. Other leagues are setting a precedent and global fans will no longer be satisfied with second strings playing friendlies. Eventually English games will be played abroad. Its a depressing likelihood. The only question is when.

As mattyblue suggests, couldnt the nations league be essentially a replacement for qualification? The club world cup also is unnecessary. But so is the nations league. Players have actively come out and questioned it. Do we need the big nations packed full of players who already play too many games to have these games to compete against each other? Far ahead of the only tournaments that matter, often with changed teams. And cant the smaller nations have a tournament during the world cup/euros if they are desperate to play each other?

Nothing really new learnt though. The nations league shouldnt exist.

I really still fail to see the point in playing a friendly against a team who had subs coming on that play in the third tier. Is either side learning from that pointless game? That England team will be miles different when the World Cup comes around.

I dont think its to cash in as I cant see a flurry of teams or any decent fees being offered. Has serious injury red flags even if he has a run of games between now and January. Hes a decent age but not young enough to cause a spike in price. And although hes usually solid, I dont think that his Watford return is by any means standard for him. Its an easy deal to do, obviously a Rovers fan, not a player playing above his level, weak negotiating power considering the injuries and all thats been done is a year added. A good decision to sign him up but it wont be a big wage spike by any means.

I think you are getting seasons confused. In Tomasson's first season when we had a long early season spell of no draws, we were actually much less expansive. That Sunderland game was in his second season.

And historically the players who make up those 4 attacking spots are far from prolific/clinical.

For the avoidance of doubt as people will suggest it. This doesnt mean that the court ruling has freed up funds, or that January will see a decent budget. They have to do this to cover costs, they have no choice, it doesnt equate to ambition or any change in interest. Championship clubs run at a loss, even one as intent on slashing costs as us, beside one fluke year when we could sell Wharton. Its nothing to be grateful for.

An absolute farce of a signing. A total waste of time. But actually, they told us he was injured so apparently its fine.

Most of them chances were just half chances though. The Gudjohnsen one and the Kargbo ones I would say are the good chances that carried a reasonable expectation of a goal. We created more than we usually do though but certainly our total absence of players that are naturals in front of goal has and will continue to cause us frustration.

Thats a bit of an exaggeration. I suppose we could literally in that we had more than 5 or 6 chances. But how many were what you would consider to be big chances? Gudjohnsen and Kargbo aside, mainly half chances.

UEFA have "reluctantly" agreed to having a Spanish and Italian match abroad. England will be next.

Yeah, why do people even look at jobs a manager has done previously. Just get a legend from his playing days in. We should get Dunn as manager. Still dont get why the job is ideal for Ferguson or why him being a good player for them is a reason to get him as manager.

And to think after the home defeat to League 1 Bradford, we had one or two saying how we had likely found an upgrade on Travis.

But equally, it wouldnt logically lead you to then giving him the job, especially considering his overall CV, and especially when it is such a big job that surely requires more managerial expertise. Still unclear why being a club legend should be a deciding factor.

Why? His interim period wasnt particularly successsful and his CV beforehand is very non descript. Dont get the logic behind trying to fix things with a "club legend."

We have our excuse why football wont come home in place at least.

If you having a winning philosophy but then your manager parts ways for reasons that arent performance based, surely you dont then appoint someone who has been crap in English football who plays in a way that couldnt be more different. It seems that often talented managers are seen as secondary to people off the field in high positions. Surely out of Nuno and Edu, the latter would be the one seen as dispensable.

Surely what they need is a competent manager. Not some bloke who wouldnt get a sniff without having been a good player there based on his managerial CV, who had a fairly underwhelming spell there last season, purely to try and get fans on side. (Which im not convinced it even would). If your criteria is correct then maybe Gazza will apply.

Why would Ferguson be the right appointment?