Search results

There are only two black managers to choose from...

This argument doesn't factor in proportionality. If there are some black managers who don't apply for jobs after receiving their qualification, then presumably there would be a proportionate number of white managers who don't either. That still doesn't explain the 2% figure. And in this day...

I can only respectfully disagree. Boro had a good defence (Ehiogu, Vickers, Cooper) and Boksic. Leicester, though never a location for superstars, still had a tidy squad (Izzet, Guppy, Elliott, Savage et al). Everton similarly had B- players all-around, from Weir and Watson and Xavier to...

Why would 25% of former black players train to get their managerial qualifications if they had no intention of applying for jobs?!

It's not hard to say. Would anybody here say that homosexuality is a sorted issue in football? Nope. Why wouldn't we say it? Because we only need to look at the data. Footballers remain in the closet. Same thing goes here. We can say we live in a post-racial society, but we only need to look...

Could you? Around a quarter of players are black. Are a quarter of footie pundits black? That can be done: linky At the time of that article (2010) 25% of those taking the qualifications were black - proportional to those playing.

Which ones? Derby stands out, but I'm not sure of the others.

It's hardly pointless. Footballing bodies across the world have long campaigned (rightly) to 'kick racism out of football'. So when there are so few black managers, utterly disproportionate to the number of players, well, you have to raise an eyebrow.

Merely. Which teams do you think CCFC should have finished ahead of in 2000–2001? The seven teams ahead of us: Manchester City (also relegated), Derby County, Everton, West Ham, Middlesborough, Leicester, Tottenham. How many of them had poorer squads than City?

Comparing apples and oranges here. Contextually, Coleman's resources were strong enough to challenge for promotion and he severely underachieved. Strachan's resources in that final season were strong enough to battle relegation, but he merely underachieved.

'Good at the time' being the key phrase for the subject of the thread.

Most thought the writing was on the wall when Keane and McAllister were sold off. The team was tipped for relegation. There's no doubt the squad could have been better managed, but I just don't think there's that much of a discrepancy between the quality of the squad and where it ended up...

Aside from a nominal fee for Delomoueaux, I don't think Black paid any transfer fees. Pressley had a moderate budget last year. He said himself: "It [was] an average budget in League One ... There’ll be eight or nine teams on the same." That and the fortune of having two brilliant goalscorers...

Huckerby, Whelan, Keane, Dublin, McAllister and Boateng weren't there in the final relegation season. It wasn't a particularly good squad.

Eric Black in 2003–2004. This was at the apex of the post-Richardson austerity era. There was no money, the squad was generally accepted as being rotten, and nobody was shocked the team was in a relegation battle. Black took over and managed to turn them into a free-scoring, playoff-challenging...

It's unfair to name Strachan in this thread. Although he did a very poor job of managing the squad in his final year (either he fell out with players, or played them out of position, or didn't play those who should have done), he didn't have a good squad with which to work. Similarly, Andy Thorn...

'Present' being the keyword. The SNP earned a referendum in the 2012 Holyrood elections. Even if they maintained power in 2016, there would be no call for a referendum so soon after the last one. It's a timing and expense matter, sure, but primarily a democratic one: the majority of Scots...

Highly doubtful. This was the moment for the nationalists. The conditions were as fertile as they will ever be. The only sure thing the future holds for Scotland is diminishing oil. And the more that drips away, the more dependent they become on the rest of the UK.

Brown had many faults. His brutal politicking within the Labour party for one. His disastrous PR for another. One could argue against his policies on ideological grounds.. But the media's eagerness to portray him as being an idiot is plain wrong. It is broadly acknowledged by politicians of all...

Thoughts on this explanation?