Who do you think is at the club who can/will identify the "better" manager ?

The signs are very promising for him. He looks a good bet to go on to be an England player. Over the years we have been fortunate with individuals with a Liverpool background- the likes of Dalglish, Souness, Friedel. I don't understand the silly anti Liverpool stance of some posters on here.

Up to 4th in the division now behind Jake Cooper,Ivan Toney and Bradley Johnson.

Tizer it is then

Forest were most recently in the Premier League in 1999 - no doubt the 20 or so managers they have had since then talked a good game but results are what matter not throw away comments in interviews.

The others didn't pay off because they weren't "wonder kids" rather than because we wasted them.

Which wonder kid have we wasted ?

Constantly chopping and changing managers has not done either of those clubs any good.

Douglas on a loan confirmed

An "infinite" number of managers who could do better than getting to the semi finals of the World Cup - yet none are named ! Anything achieved by Southgate you put down to luck. Your dislike of the man is irrational and has coloured your judgement.

It's a fair answer to a proposal that a manager be fired.

Yes, I think negotiations with them would be extremely difficult. People looking to buy a football club would likely want to look elsewhere.

Not as England manger he hasn't. Southgate got to the semi finals of the World Cup. Hodgson couldn't get through the group stages.

I don't think he's selling the club short. It's generally acknowleged that the present global economic situation will make finding new owners for clubs very hard.

If the manager who took us to the World Cup semi-finals should not be leading us into the Euros then who should ? It's noticeable that you do not put forward an alternative.

Given that, when we were in the Premier League they used to be the home games with the biggest crowds , we would.

Current arrangements can be changed. As I said above, if you haven't already done so then go on to The Guardian website and read David Conn's article on there for a well balanced analysis of the proposal . Ultimately so much of the income in English football comes from Premier League TV rights; that the PL might be moving towards recognition that the greater good is served by spreading more of that income through the football pyramid is a promising starting point.

I know what you mean but something like that could happen now. It would probably require an agreement to stretch for 20 years or so.

The football gravy train has to run to pay people's wages; what's wrong with that ? For someone falling out of love with football you post a heck of a lot on here, in excess of 15 and a half thousand times and counting.

If the EFL clubs receive 25% of PL TV revenues as the proposal stands won't that provide a significant degree of finance to preserve EFL clubs ?

It's worth going on to The Guardian website to read the article by David Conn on this proposal. He is more welcoming of it than most pointing out that the EFL clubs will receive 25% of future Premier League TV deals ; the cost of that is covered partly by a reduction in the number of Premier League clubs from 20 to 18 and the abolition of parachute payments. There will still be a shortfall to the Premier League but the major clubs will make up for this from money spinning overseas friendlies and the anticipated increase in the number of Champions League matches ; it will be the Premier League clubs outside the top 6 who will bear most of the cost. This coupled with the proposed change in voting rights putting more power in the hands of the top 6 is why I think the proposal will fail to attract the necessary 14 votes.

For the purposes of whether it passes "The Premier League" is the clubs rather than the executives who have issued the statement on behalf of the league. The required threshold of 14 is probably high enough to ensure that the present proposal will not pass.

Go on to the state of Ewood Park thread and you will see I mentioned this yesterday.

I wouldn't want Labour involved either.

Yes but I don't think that is deemed to be interference in the running of the sport.