roversfan99

Id love to know how many sales are made at £90 a pop. Anyone that gets it has more money than sense.

I think it will have been the Wolves fans comments that put him off!

He was sacked last season with 9 points after 16 games. Pereira then got 33 from 22 games. How they can decide a year on that actually he is the man to take them forward is beyond me.

Jamie Carragher has said that it isnt a surprise that O'Neil is set to be appointed at Wolves because, and its typical pundit rubbish, he "knows the club." He does know the club, he got sacked a year ago because he was failing with it. Surely even an unknown is better than someone who they actively know has already failed with a lot of the same players! Im sure it helps that O'Neil was apparently on Monday Night Football 2 weeks ago.

He was doing terrible when they left, everything had gone into chaos, discipline had totally gone and they appeared doomed. Pereira came in and did a great job rescuing them which made him a candidate for manager of the season. Wolves fans appear to be absolutely fuming about his potential reappointment.

Based on merit and current ability rather than nostalgia and cliche? A really unusual idea from me.

Wharton has always had a mistake in him, hes not very good on the ball and turns like a milk float. Nothing to do with coming through the academy.

Leonard and Dolan are not comparable. Leonard never really had an impact for us and has gone down a division. He was also never available. Dolan was always available, whether hes up to the standards of a far superior league is irrelevant. He was an important and had become a productive player for us and is a big miss.

By affiliation, I am obviously referring back to the initial argument that a former player/manager shouldnt be automatically preferred purely due to nostalgia. Loads of poorer European leagues similar to the SPL have 4 fixtures against each team due to the league being smaller. I am sure lots also have strong religious links. Its irrelevant to the manager anyway, the job is the same, to win football matches.

I bloody hope not. But none of them are similar to Tronstad.

Hes not the same type of player, nor is he close to the same quality. He lacks Tronstad's ability to screen the defence, you saw that at the weekend when he just totally switched off at one point, stood still and a runner just ran off him so easily. He also isnt as good on the ball. And then who will replace TGH?

Cantwell is out until after the international break anyway so we dont know if it will be a winning side.

Hes been ok without standing out, hes had a mixture of good and poor games. I think its a bit early to decide and obviously would depend on the fee and wages included in any option to buy.

I remember beating them under Mowbray when Bradley Johnson and Adam Armstrong scored too.

But he had never had any actual affiliation with the club. He didnt "know the club" based on the point I am making about this need to prioritise someone who has played for or managed a club prior. He didnt win all them trophies because he had been a fan as a kid. On a lesser note, Steven Gerrard had no affiliation with Rangers before he won the league there but their fans seem to love him now and seemingly wanted him back.

Makes sense to those happy to promote cut backs rather than improve the team. Doesnt make sense to essentially replace your best defender not with a first team replacement but with a young lad who wasnt anywhere near the first team prior to 12 league starts in League 1 who could come back to make the numbers up. We should leave him there to continue to play and sign a proper replacement for Hyam. A centre back who can slot straight into the team in that middle position. Better late than never.

You nor chaddy have explained WHY it makes sense to prioritise "knowing a club" in appointing a manager. Nor why its especially important for those clubs. O'Neill didnt know the club ahead of his hugely successful spell there that ended in 2005. Wasnt important then.

Im not against the idea. Although it was a fair question by ossydave to at least ask why, and one you didnt answer properly.

How is that an explanation? That a team has appointed someone they used to have on what is for the moment a purely interim basis. Which could well be an attempt to appease the supporters or quite possibly a case of the owner/chairman pulling in a favour and asking an old mate to cover the team while they look for someone proper. A man who has been left behind in footballing terms, no job for 6 years, his most recent jobs being failures and big questions over whether he has been left behind. Scottish football isnt unique, youve seemingly just got a soft spot for it, but even if it was, I dont get why it specifically suits someone who knows the club. O'Neill hadnt played for or worked for (as far as I can see) Celtic before he had his successful spells in the early 2000s, so he didnt know the club then. My point is, why is it so important to "know the club" when deciding upon who to hire. What does that even mean? That hasnt been answered. The club he knew will have changed massively in 20 years.

Whilst I think your mark is slightly harsh, certainly agree with your comments on Wharton and need to sign a defender. TGH loved just booting the ball anywhere and was really lax on the ball, and once in particular just switched off. Cantwell comes back in surely. Neither Henriksson nor Miroshita have nailed down a spot or convinced.

I dont. And not in the patronising way you imply, where I am just being a bit thick. Ive yet to see an explanation as to why specific clubs benefit from someone who "knows the club" rather than just finding the best possible manager ignoring whether hes been there before.

Absolutely. Its a tired old cliche spurted out often by poor quality pundits. In Celtic's case, any joe bloggs would likely guide them to the title to be fair with the resources they have. And if its literally just a couple of weeks interim appointment, makes little difference. But in general, why do people deem it as so important? In what scenario does it outrank just getting the best possible manager to get the best possible results? What is so important "to know" about the club that requires an ex manager or player when the club would have been run by and employing different people.

Why do so many teams have set piece coaches? I dont get why its seen as necessary. Lots of teams do. Yeah, but why? Is it necessary. Team x and team y do. Superb counter arguments.

Because his CV in the past decade wouldnt have him near any serious job. Why dont United re appoint Ferguson? Surely we should try and re appoint Souness? Why dont Tottenham get back Harry Redknapp? Its not that I dont accept it. Its that I havent had it explained as to WHY that is the case.

They could never have been seen as a free hit.