Right, I've just checked

Gillingham were four points adrift of safety at the start of November 1992, and stayed up. Sounds good, huh? Except that Roeder was appointed at the start of the season - so he was responsible for them being four points adrift in the first place! And finishing second bottom in the fourth tier is not an achievement.

Newcastle, then? Nope: they were 15th when he was appointed, six points above the drop zone, and given they had the fifth highest paid squad in the league, had to improve at some point. And they were 13th when he left: woohoo!

I'm only pointing this out because Munby focused on his record of "turnaround situations". I can well understand why the board liked him: they're old fashioned patricians, who'll have admired his resilience and determination. But I've watched the press conference, and saw nothing to change my mind (the bit where he went all stern and tried to look hard and tough was, frankly, pretty amusing).

Oh, and by the way - this has precisely zero to do with anyone thinking we're still 3rd in the Premier League, and still beating Bayern Munich. It has to do with us appointing a man with a record of almost constant failure. The process was apparently thorough and diligent - so did no-one actually ask about the man's record, for God's sake?

Posted By: thebigfeller, Oct 31, 03:24:01