Lokki 7
WSU
True. But you said you didn't know who I was so you were probably being extra polite.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
How influencial is NSC?
- Thread starter theonesmith
- Start date
True. But you said you didn't know who I was so you were probably being extra polite.
I think the Internet as a whole has changed the landscape in the last decade. Previously you went to a match then probably discussed it down the pub and read the Sports Argus.
The 24/7 nature of the web (of which NSC is a part of) does encourage discontent and rumours to grow and I think it has led to people wanting a steady feed of news from their club.
To get back to the original question I don't think NSC is that influential if for no other reason it rarely agrees on anything.
The 24/7 nature of the web (of which NSC is a part of) does encourage discontent and rumours to grow and I think it has led to people wanting a steady feed of news from their club.
To get back to the original question I don't think NSC is that influential if for no other reason it rarely agrees on anything.
John Bumlick
Banned
it's a website. full of slices. if it has any influence on the club, we're lucky to be in the lofty position we find ourselves in.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
True. But why did you get rid of the Jade Goody pic?
severnside gull
Well-known member
John Bumlick
Banned
no particular reason. i can change it back if you like....
Lokki 7
WSU
Bumlick by name...
It is a snapshot of what a % of fans think. After games when the chat is purely football it is probably reprasentative of what our support think. It's only at other times it is generally not reflective at the board does tend to go off topic on most posts ..... + yes the usual suspects with their in jokes etc ;-)
Rougvie
Rising Damp
desprateseagull
New member
why are people complaining, about the fans that whingle on over the team? they are ebtitled to, cos BHA currently playing like headless chickens..
and people will always want to whinge, regardless of any success- Man United is a case in point- top of the league, won a 'cup' already, but people stil hate them
cos they are good.
and mancs.
and people will always want to whinge, regardless of any success- Man United is a case in point- top of the league, won a 'cup' already, but people stil hate them
cos they are good.
and mancs.
WHAT THE f***ing HELL ARE YOU ON?!?!?!?!?!?!
McGhee was in the Championship. At the time we were absolutely skint. McGhee made us an absolute fortunes in transfers and gave us the highest attendances we have had in a bloody long time and since then.
From what I can remember the only transfer money he spent was £100k on Knight and he was fantastic as we were promoted. Glenn Murray alone was more than most managers we've ever had have spent on transfers. I'd bet a he'll of a lot of money that Wilkins wage budget inhis second season was a lot more than McGhee's.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,286
Not to mention McGhee made us 2 mil on transfers the season we stayed up and didn't get to spend hardly anything of it.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
NSC only has influence when the media are scratching around for stories to print or put on air. Consider how many times has a piece of complete utter bollocks ended up in the Argus which has then been picked up by the daily nationals ? The new Albion manager is (choose one from the 80 odd suggested names by reliable sources on NSC) 
Erm... Lokki7 was explaining to London Pompous that he was making an unfair comparison. I wasn't arguing his point about wage bills or transfers, I was arguing that LP was "comparing chalk and cheese", and providing a further example of how that was the case.
I'm not entirely sure how your view of McGhee's stint contradicts mine. You are talking about his middle two seasons, I can tell because you say we were in the championship. Which we weren't when he took over from Steve Coppell. Nor was he in his last (half) season before DW took over.
I'm saying when he took over, he took charge of a team that Steve Coppell had got coasting to automatic promotion. We were top of the table when Coppell left. We dropped down a place or two in the time it took to appoint McGhee.
We dropped points, and at one point there were serious concerns that we wouldn't even make the play offs, though we did with points to spare. We won the away leg against the run of lay, we lost the home leg and thankfully away goals didn't count double or we'd be out. We won the lottery of a penalty shoot out, we won the final thanks to a soft penalty that we wouldn't like given against us.
He kept us up in the championship for one year. Then we got relegated the following year. Typically it is expected the team that is relegated becomes one of the stronger teams in the division below. This did not happen, we struggled. And Dean Wilkins took over.
When someone says "McGhee got us promoted in his first season, Wilkins didn't" it's important to put it in perspective, which is what I was doing. McGhee took over a team in a promotion spot, with momentum, on a run, he just had to not screw up too badly. Wilkins took over a team lower/mid table team, struggling for form and confidence. He had to rebuild the team spirit, and 'turn things around'.
Comparing DW and MM based on promotion in the first season is clearly an unfair comparison. (I was also pointing out how easy it is to make unfair comparisons when I pointed to their last seasons in charge).
Of course attendances were higher than they'd been in a while - we were in the championship! The second year there was the expectation of pushing on. Many people would've got season tickets simply because it was the championship, that number would increase in the second year because "we survived one year, this season we push up the table". It's only natural.
I believe Leon Knight was signed by Steve Coppell (or while Steve Coppell was in charge).
We signed Henderson under Mark MGhee, and I believe Turienzo among others. I don't generally judge managers by their transfer dealings, pertly because I see the club as being ultimately responsible. Scouts are involved, Knight negotiates, he's the one who dictates what we spend and what we sell for.
And for the record, some are claiming that DW had nothing to do with Murray's signing, that it was all Dick Knight. I don't know how true that is, but those rumours/conspiracy theories are another reason I don't judge managers on their signings, I judge them on their results on the pitch.
DK himself has claimed credit for finding Zamora, so how can we use him to judge MA?
Last edited: