RevidgeBlue

Do people at the Club actually get paid to come out with that garbage? Shame he isn't our player either.

I made the point earlier that these lists are merely compiled by the bookies to relieve mug punters of their money but it's a fair point. John Terry is an interesting one. Might be absolutely brilliant for someone, but equally could be terrible.

Or ringing HSH and saying "Who have you got?' The owners have tried almost everything in the past, they've backed Bowyer and Mowbray who made an effort with them fairly generously and starved managers who didn't make as much of an effort with them of cash. The one thing they've never really done is be really ambitious with their managerial appointments. The possible exception to that was Lambert who looked a good appointment on paper but who turned out imo to be a disaster and they should never have allowed him to put a break clause in his contract. Either he wanted the job or he didn't. Nevertheless getting the best manager and coaching staff you possibly can in is the only way to succeed. Bilic, Jokanovic or Wilder for me, as academic as it's likely to be.

Was thinking earlier we're probably a few months away from exactly where we were at the pont when Bowyer was sacked. Six years and £100'? m to go precisely nowhere. Difference was, Bowyer didn't have the CEO watching his back for him like Mowbray does.

Nah, not "working class enough". He'll get a lot of bang for his buck back in Teeside though.

It really is that simple. Get the best manager in you possibly can and give him a workable budget.

Surprised no - one is linking the Brockhall situation to Mowbray's likely departure date. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Coventry three are all in it together so I can't see him going until it's been resolved. If it hasn't been resolved by the time his current contract expires, I'd imagine Waggott will try and get him another deal. Once the deal to sell the site of the STC is done or more or less guaranteed I doubt you'll see any of them for dust. I think the only way we'll see him leave in the forseeable is if the owners can be persuaded they're having their pants pulled down on AND off the pitch by the latest in a long line of chancers. And I'm praying that will happen sooner rather than later so we can put some hope and pride back into the Club and preserve our infrastructure.

Not sure about Lenihan but otherwise nail, hammer. head. If we had our own youngsters in the side gaining experience then we could say we were building towards something worthwhile. As it is we're just bringing in countless loanees every season and are back to square one every summer. We had a side out on Wednesday which thanks to the neglect with the contract situation and the loanees bore no resemblance whatsoever to the one that will start for us in August. "Slow build my arse" And when the excellent and desperately unfortunate Scott Wharton does return he'll probably have been shoved down the pecking order behind several more temporary "solutions" from other Clubs.

The overall point Sparks makes is an excellent one though.

Wouldn't pay too much attention to that list, it's been compiled by the bookies to relieve mug punters of their money. Cowley has just gone in at Portsmouth until the end of the season so is temporarily unavailable. Whilst some of the list makes pretty grim reading, there are still 2 names that stand out Bilic and Jokanovic and I'd take a few more on there over Mowbray as well.

Evans?

The number for the Samaritans should be under "What would you like to do next?"

And the difference between Coyle and Mowbray in pure recruitment terms (apart from the fact that Coyle had got a team promoted to the Prem more recently than Mowbray) was? Must stress again, this is in no way an endorsement of Coyle.

(Tin hat on) Not saying Coyle is a good manager but the financial backing that has been given to Mowbray is incomparable compared to that given to Coyle. When Coyle was appointed, Lambert had left us without a single senior striker under contract. We managed to get Graham (who had been here on loan) back in permanently and Gallagher in on loan. No big money acquisition to replace Rhodes. In defence, the owners seemingly sold Duffy and Hanley out from under the manager for big fees and we had to make do and mend with loans and freebies at centre back and throughout the rest of the side as well. No £5m or £7m permanent signings, no luxury of being able to pay a couple of centre backs £1m p.a. each to play for Fleetwood or sit in the treatment room and no Premier League loans on request. Just saying.

The screening application referred to a new facility of "similar scale" to the existing STC on roughly the same footprint as the existing Academy building so as not to drastically reduce the outdoor pitch space any further. The specification for the facilities inside the proposed new build was also almost identical to that of the existing STC. Fast forward to when the plans were uncovered by an Eagle eyed fan and everyone started kicking off about the potential loss of Cat 1 status and Waggott suddenly starts talking in the LT about a 2 storey build being necessary to maintain Cat 1 status. Forgive me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember the existing STC is on one floor only (not 2 floors) so a 2 storey build is not what it says on the plans. And bear in mind you need a very high roof for an indoor pitch, the existing STC is still roughly 14m in height at just the one floor. A move to the new site would also seemingly only leave us with 4 full size outdoor pitches. Make of the above what you will, I certainly know what my view is. If I'm factually incorrect with any of the above, I'm happy to be corrected.

Come on lads, let's focus. darrenrover isn't at fault,or the problem, or the enemy in this instance. That would be the man who introduced the "Waggott tax", who put prices by up to 25% in the midst of a pandemic and reduced the season ticket base by 75%, the assistant manager who pitched a similar scheme for housing redevelopment whilst at Coventry, and the manager who presumably had us training on an already knackered pitch to keep everyone out of the surveyors' hair. One or two people might have attempted to misdirect the thread a bit to stop the issues being discussed properly I don't know. The rest of us need to concentrate on the issues at hand and not the personalities. There are numerous potential downsides. I'm Still waiting to hear a single reason why this scheme would leave us with better facilities than we have now. Other than "under the same roof". Anyone?

You can't just compare walloping great sites like Everton's which are at least five times the size of the site currently occupied by the STC and think any new facility we built would be comparable on the "all under one roof" basis. Also where is this "professional" opinion that we don't need both sites coming from?. All we have is Waggott who according to his comments in the LT "thinks" we can configure the one site and schedule the use of any facilities to meet Cat 1 requirements. I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but if the new facility fails in terms of either lack of outdoor pitch space, or all the teams having to share facilities, then that's it. No room for manoevure, a white elephant of a facility not fit for purpose and Cat 1 status gone forever.

There you go again inferring that anyone opposing the plans must be a silly old sod clinging desperately to some outdated sepia tinted notion of "The Jack Walker Legacy". As regards the first part of the above paragraph, we're "online" as well aren't we? And out of curiosity, where are these other bastions of support for the plans? The only comments I've seen are in the LT along the lines of "There we are, Steve said it so it must be right, can we put that one to bed?" At least people on here are attempting to be constructive by comparing the available facts with the spin and highlighting the vast discrepancies. Not just taking everything at face value.

Coming from you that's quite a concession! Fair do's!

There is, isn't there.

I completely disagree. You made some extremely disparaging remarks along the lines of "The Jack Walker legacy isn't particularly important" and then went scurrying off complaining to the mods when you received the predictable flak. You also received comments questioning the impartiality of your stance as an existing Club sponsor which I think was an entirely fair question. No-one accused you of taking any financial consideration for your comments or being "a plant". No-one has stopped you from posting your views on here either, criticism of the moderators in that respect is completely unfair. You simply got overly precious about the fact people didn't like what you posted and took your bat and ball home.

You can hold a contrarian view, no problem at all, but if you do by then definition you should expect to be challenged on it. And the more extreme your view appears the more you should expect to be challenged on it. Fine line sometimes between being a contrarian and a troll? How's that "progress" under Mowbray coming along BTW?

That's not a reason why the plans are a good thing though, it's crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. If you oppose the plans that is. You haven't really indicated what your stance is on them.

Not even sure if the point about RO referring to JHR in the first person is a valid one. I certainly can't be bothered checking which thread it came from and looking it up but did RO not mean (in my other post on the subject which you replied to) "I'd missed out....."

You were getting a bit hot under the collar at the time though! "Why do you keep asking me the same question every week Mercer?" 🙂