I suspect that everyone who visits this site today will know precisely what day it is, and as such, allow me to remind you of Cecil Rhodes' famous injunction to one of his countrymen:
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."
Or perhaps this one from the late (and great) former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, who was born a draper's son in Hampshire:
"There are many things in life more worthwhile than money. One is to be brought up in this our England which is still the envy of less happy lands."
Indeed. And as it now "beer o'clock", to quote Detective Chief Inspector Gene Hunt, may I wish a very happy St George's Day to Englishmen and Englishwomen everywhere.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thoughts on the Royal Wedding...
Well, not strictly speaking on the wedding itself, for which I wish Prince William and Kate all the very best, but on the participants themselves; and being old-fashioned, it's ladies first, so I'll start with Kate, or as we must learn to call her: Catherine.
In saying what I'm about to say, I will no doubt be damned to eternal hell-fire by the Diana worshippers who still cling to their view of William's mother as a saint in human form, whose beauty is unsurpassed in the history of human pulchritude, but I think that Kate (sorry, Catherine!) knocks her into a cocked-hat in the beauty stakes; her looks are of a totally different order of magnitude to the late Princess of Wales, even if Diana was a very attractive woman
But that aside, I have to say that I've been a little alarmed at Kate's recent impersonation of the incredible shrinking woman. For a girl who was always slender, her recent weight loss - and it must be in the order of a stone - has meant that the bones in her chest are clearly visible, whilst her legs are now simply thin.
And yes, I know she'll be nervous at the prospect of her wedding - which bride (or groom) isn't - but unlike most brides, she will have the eyes of as many as two billion people on her when she takes her vows; a prospect sufficiently terrifying, I suspect to quell the fiercest of appetites. But please, Kate (sorry again!) once the wedding is done and dusted, have a few good meals and get your weight back up to normal; you'll look even better for it.
Turning to William, the same Diana worshippers who can't (or won't) let her go and can't forgive Prince Charles for 'betraying' her, are clamouring for the succession to leap a generation and see William crowned our next king, rather than his father.
Forgetting for a minute that the rules governing succession to the Throne mean that Charles will become king the second his mother breathes her last (and long may that day be off), irrespective of the wishes of what could be called the anti-Caroline faction, what of William's wishes; have any of them given that a moment's consideration?
I suspect that being bumped up the queue to next-in-line would horrify William, a young man who clearly wants to live as ordinary a life for as long as possible given his extraordinary inheritance. Would the Diana worshippers really want to foist the responsibility of monarchy on his shoulders before he was either ready or prepared for the responsibility?
Really?
Because if they do in the teeth of the evidence that the prospect would horrify William, then they do their idol's eldest son, and by extension her memory, a grave disservice indeed. And let's also remember the relationship William and Harry have with their father. Both of them clearly love him dearly (and he them) irrespective of the circumstances of the break up of his marriage to their mother and there is no way on God's good clean earth that William would agree to act in a manner which would deprive Charles of the birthright he has planned for for over sixty years: he simply wouldn't do it, and nor should he either.
Anyway, moving on, I have a feeling that the Queen will make William a duke on the morning of his wedding, in order that Kate will have a proper royal title, rather than the leaden 'HRH Princess William of Wales', which doesn't exactly do the job, I'm afraid.
No, I suspect that the newly married Catherine will become HRH the Duchess of Cambridge when she says 'I do'; don't ask me why I think Cambridge, rather than Sussex or Albany; I just have a gut feeling about it.
Anyway, let me close by wishing them both well again and by presuming to advise Catherine to have more than her fair share of the wedding cake...
In saying what I'm about to say, I will no doubt be damned to eternal hell-fire by the Diana worshippers who still cling to their view of William's mother as a saint in human form, whose beauty is unsurpassed in the history of human pulchritude, but I think that Kate (sorry, Catherine!) knocks her into a cocked-hat in the beauty stakes; her looks are of a totally different order of magnitude to the late Princess of Wales, even if Diana was a very attractive woman
But that aside, I have to say that I've been a little alarmed at Kate's recent impersonation of the incredible shrinking woman. For a girl who was always slender, her recent weight loss - and it must be in the order of a stone - has meant that the bones in her chest are clearly visible, whilst her legs are now simply thin.
And yes, I know she'll be nervous at the prospect of her wedding - which bride (or groom) isn't - but unlike most brides, she will have the eyes of as many as two billion people on her when she takes her vows; a prospect sufficiently terrifying, I suspect to quell the fiercest of appetites. But please, Kate (sorry again!) once the wedding is done and dusted, have a few good meals and get your weight back up to normal; you'll look even better for it.
Turning to William, the same Diana worshippers who can't (or won't) let her go and can't forgive Prince Charles for 'betraying' her, are clamouring for the succession to leap a generation and see William crowned our next king, rather than his father.
Forgetting for a minute that the rules governing succession to the Throne mean that Charles will become king the second his mother breathes her last (and long may that day be off), irrespective of the wishes of what could be called the anti-Caroline faction, what of William's wishes; have any of them given that a moment's consideration?
I suspect that being bumped up the queue to next-in-line would horrify William, a young man who clearly wants to live as ordinary a life for as long as possible given his extraordinary inheritance. Would the Diana worshippers really want to foist the responsibility of monarchy on his shoulders before he was either ready or prepared for the responsibility?
Really?
Because if they do in the teeth of the evidence that the prospect would horrify William, then they do their idol's eldest son, and by extension her memory, a grave disservice indeed. And let's also remember the relationship William and Harry have with their father. Both of them clearly love him dearly (and he them) irrespective of the circumstances of the break up of his marriage to their mother and there is no way on God's good clean earth that William would agree to act in a manner which would deprive Charles of the birthright he has planned for for over sixty years: he simply wouldn't do it, and nor should he either.
Anyway, moving on, I have a feeling that the Queen will make William a duke on the morning of his wedding, in order that Kate will have a proper royal title, rather than the leaden 'HRH Princess William of Wales', which doesn't exactly do the job, I'm afraid.
No, I suspect that the newly married Catherine will become HRH the Duchess of Cambridge when she says 'I do'; don't ask me why I think Cambridge, rather than Sussex or Albany; I just have a gut feeling about it.
Anyway, let me close by wishing them both well again and by presuming to advise Catherine to have more than her fair share of the wedding cake...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
A little Lancashire banter...
I have to say that this intra-Lancashire banter between Freddie Flintoff and Jimmy Anderson made me laugh; I'd never realised Fred was so witty. I particularly enjoyed: "the town mobile phone is working overtime with all extra thumbs to the pump" before suggesting the Burnley "town crier" was being kept busy by reading all his tweets to illiterate townsfolk. Corkers! Just one point, though; Prince William didn't go to to Preston on his recent visit to Lancashire; he and Kate went to a suitably soggy Darwen (the sun had been cracking the flags the day before)and then to Blackburn, which as all football fans will know will have annoyed people from Burnley far more than being compared to the Dingles, or described as more generously endowed in the finger department than the norm! Update Looks like the paragraphing's still knackered...
Football and alleged anti-Semitism...
As I mentioned in my reply to the comment from 'Outed' on the post below this, I have suffered something of a problem internet access-wise, as a result of my trusty seven-year-old laptop going kapowee about ten days ago. So catastrophic was its collapse, that not even the TPS (technically proficient son) could repair it and hence my recent keyboard-silence. Anyway, tenuous link re-established (crosses fingers), I couldn't let this article in today's Daily Telegraph go by without comment. Regular visitors to the Throne will recall that I am a football fan; indeed, I have been attending matches at my favourite team's ground for nearly forty years (good grief, forty years!) and in all that time, I cannot remember ever hearing any specifically anti-Semitic chanting or abuse. Don't get me wrong though; in those four decades, I have heard the most appalling racist abuse at grounds the length an breadth of the country - not for the last fifteen years or more though, I'm glad to say - and similarly offensive chanting aimed at goading supporters of Manchester United by reminding them in verse of the Munich air disaster and supporters of any Welsh club, north or south, it mattered not, by references to the Aberfan disaster. All breathtakingly appalling. However, as God is my witness, the only football fans I have ever heard using the expression 'Yid' or any of its derivatives, are supporters of Tottenham Hotspur themselves; so I suspect that David Baddiel would be well advised to focus the early part of his campaign on encouraging Spurs fans to stop using the expression about themselves before training his guns on others who use it about them.
Friday, April 01, 2011
A little light relief...
Shamelessly nicked from a site called World Weary Detective. Apparently they made him laugh; me too! Read them carefully...
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Large bacon sandwich, please...
Regular visitors to the Throne may recall that I entertain a healthy scepticism as regards the opinion of certain ‘scientists’, as they always seem to be described, as to what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for our health.
That scepticism has been significantly reinforced this weekend by the publication of two wholly contradictory reports (here and here) as to the possible health risks – or otherwise - of eating too much red meat.
Why on earth should we entertain the opinions of the merchants of doom, who claim that eating more than one bacon sandwich a week will result in colorectal cancer, if heart disease doesn’t kill us first? Weren’t they saying the same things about the cholesterol content of eggs a decade ago, (don’t eat more than two a week or you’ll have a heart attack!) only to see that ill-founded scare story comprehensively repudiated?
And what about the campaign to get people to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day? I actually do so because I happen to like them, but other countries recommend eating far more – the Japanese for instance recommend the consumption of quantities in the teens; so who’s scientists are correct, if any?
We’re also told, at interminable length, that drinking more than a thimble full of alcohol a week will leave us with livers resembling a use teabag, whilst simultaneously urging us all – but especially middle class, middle aged wine drinkers, for some reason - to sign the pledge or face a slow, painful death. At the risk of repeating myself for a third time, the much-vaunted numbers of ‘Units’ of alcohol we are ‘allowed’ to drink each day or week (without supposedly catastrophic consequences for our health) were the result of completely unscientific, finger-in-the-air guesswork by people who should (and probably did) know better.
Moving on, I am not and never have been a smoker; in fact, I have never held a lit cigarette to my lips, let alone suck on one. But whilst acknowledging that smoking cigarettes is very likely to damage the health of the person doing it, I utterly reject the hysterical nonsense surrounding the issue of second-hand smoking and even more ludicrously, third hand smoking: I simply don’t believe it.
I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ food, only bad diets and in closing, can anyone tell me why, if we are eating and drinking ourselves towards ill-health and an early, painful death, we are now living longer than we have done in the history of mankind?
That scepticism has been significantly reinforced this weekend by the publication of two wholly contradictory reports (here and here) as to the possible health risks – or otherwise - of eating too much red meat.
Why on earth should we entertain the opinions of the merchants of doom, who claim that eating more than one bacon sandwich a week will result in colorectal cancer, if heart disease doesn’t kill us first? Weren’t they saying the same things about the cholesterol content of eggs a decade ago, (don’t eat more than two a week or you’ll have a heart attack!) only to see that ill-founded scare story comprehensively repudiated?
And what about the campaign to get people to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day? I actually do so because I happen to like them, but other countries recommend eating far more – the Japanese for instance recommend the consumption of quantities in the teens; so who’s scientists are correct, if any?
We’re also told, at interminable length, that drinking more than a thimble full of alcohol a week will leave us with livers resembling a use teabag, whilst simultaneously urging us all – but especially middle class, middle aged wine drinkers, for some reason - to sign the pledge or face a slow, painful death. At the risk of repeating myself for a third time, the much-vaunted numbers of ‘Units’ of alcohol we are ‘allowed’ to drink each day or week (without supposedly catastrophic consequences for our health) were the result of completely unscientific, finger-in-the-air guesswork by people who should (and probably did) know better.
Moving on, I am not and never have been a smoker; in fact, I have never held a lit cigarette to my lips, let alone suck on one. But whilst acknowledging that smoking cigarettes is very likely to damage the health of the person doing it, I utterly reject the hysterical nonsense surrounding the issue of second-hand smoking and even more ludicrously, third hand smoking: I simply don’t believe it.
I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ food, only bad diets and in closing, can anyone tell me why, if we are eating and drinking ourselves towards ill-health and an early, painful death, we are now living longer than we have done in the history of mankind?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Ian O'Doherty rips into Irish 'junkies'...
Irrespective of the fact that I've helped myself to about a gallon of Mr Fosters finest amber throat charmer, (with more to come) I found myself nodding vigorously in agreement with Ian O'Doherty's observations about 'junkies' in today's Irish Independent.
Shocking? Possibly; but not as shocking as allowing more innocents to be debauched by their parents, surely?
Anyone disagree?
Shocking? Possibly; but not as shocking as allowing more innocents to be debauched by their parents, surely?
Anyone disagree?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
From bad to worse...
I don't know which aspect of this case depresses me more; the fact that a fifteen-year-old mother was attacked in a busy, well lit Lancashire street by a gang of at least six other girls, or that at the time of the attack, the victim was pushing her 14 month-old child in its pram.
Because on any reading of the victim's situation, she must have given birth aged fourteen and given the human gestation period, it is entirely possible - indeed probable - that her child was conceived when she was only thirteen years old.
As a nation, we are surely going to Hell in a handcart; God help us.
Because on any reading of the victim's situation, she must have given birth aged fourteen and given the human gestation period, it is entirely possible - indeed probable - that her child was conceived when she was only thirteen years old.
As a nation, we are surely going to Hell in a handcart; God help us.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
There goes domino number four...
By which, of course, I mean that former MP Jim Devine has become the fourth parliamentarian to be convicted following the expenses scandal exposed during the final few months of the last parliament.
He may consider himself fortunate if he doesn't follow his former colleagues David Chaytor and Eric Illsley through the prison gates when he returns to court to be sentenced.
And still the pulses run quicker in the Morley and Haddingfield houses...
He may consider himself fortunate if he doesn't follow his former colleagues David Chaytor and Eric Illsley through the prison gates when he returns to court to be sentenced.
And still the pulses run quicker in the Morley and Haddingfield houses...
Friday, January 28, 2011
Ian O'Doherty and intolerant 'liberals'...
It's been a while since I posted a link to an opinion piece from the Irish Independent, so allow me to rectify that omission forthwith.
But unlike my more regular links to the writings of Kevin Myers, this piece, in which he exposes the illiberal bankruptcy of the self-important pedlars of 'the orthodoxy' - ring any bells - comes from one of his colleagues, the frequently amusing and always readable Ian O'Doherty.
You won't be surprised to read that I think he's got it absolutely spot on; but what do you think?
But unlike my more regular links to the writings of Kevin Myers, this piece, in which he exposes the illiberal bankruptcy of the self-important pedlars of 'the orthodoxy' - ring any bells - comes from one of his colleagues, the frequently amusing and always readable Ian O'Doherty.
You won't be surprised to read that I think he's got it absolutely spot on; but what do you think?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Lord Taylor convicted: the third domino falls...
Given the nature of the evidence which emerged during the trial of Lord Taylor of Warwick, I am not at all surprised to see him convicted of six counts of false accounting in relation to what are now unarguably bogus expenses claims.
Indeed, given his extraordinary admissions (remember, Lord Taylor is a fully qualified barrister who specialised in the criminal law) that he claimed a total of £11,000 in lieu of a salary which members of the upper house are not entitled to, because 'that's what everyone was doing, so I thought it was all right', the only aspect of his conviction which raises my eyebrows is that he was only convicted on a majority of eleven to one.
I fear the noble lord would now be well advised to buy himself a new toothbrush before he returns to court to be sentenced, as a custodial sentence may now be all but inevitable. At this rate, Kenneth Clarke may have to consider building a new prison simply to hold convicted parliamentarians.
He could call it H(MPs) Graft.
And still the pulses run quicker in the Morley, Devine and Haddingfield homesteads...
Indeed, given his extraordinary admissions (remember, Lord Taylor is a fully qualified barrister who specialised in the criminal law) that he claimed a total of £11,000 in lieu of a salary which members of the upper house are not entitled to, because 'that's what everyone was doing, so I thought it was all right', the only aspect of his conviction which raises my eyebrows is that he was only convicted on a majority of eleven to one.
I fear the noble lord would now be well advised to buy himself a new toothbrush before he returns to court to be sentenced, as a custodial sentence may now be all but inevitable. At this rate, Kenneth Clarke may have to consider building a new prison simply to hold convicted parliamentarians.
He could call it H(MPs) Graft.
And still the pulses run quicker in the Morley, Devine and Haddingfield homesteads...
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A wintry wonderland...
I took this photograph earlier today, whilst out for a walk in the Lancashire countryside with Mrs RToK and our canine companion.
Whether the shot actually conveys the true beauty of the scene, I'll leave up to you; but the dusting of hoar frost on the branches of the trees and bushes at either side of the path was truly a sight to behold.
And for those of you wondering exactly where I came across this scene, it was on the footpath leading down into Marles Wood at Dinckley in the Ribble Valley. For regular or semi-regular visitors, this location is about half a mile away from the one I refer to in this post from April 2010.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Ex-PC Mark Kennedy courts the press...
Whatever your views about the rights and wrongs of using 'undercover' police officers to infiltrate environmentalist groups bent on 'direct action' (and for what it's worth I would be very disappointed in them if they weren't), you may agree with me when I observe that for a man supposedly living 'in fear of his life' after he was exposed as such an officer, Mark Kennedy has hardly acted as he might have been expected to if his fear was genuine.
On what do I base that assertion?
Well call me old-fashioned, but agreeing to have your photograph taken (after transforming your appearance back to what most people would refer to as 'normal') and printed in a national Sunday newspaper is hardly the action of a man fearful of an imminent lethal attack, is it?
Either that, or he's an imbecile.
And by the way; has anyone else noticed his rather startling resemblance to the late Marty Feldman?
On what do I base that assertion?
Well call me old-fashioned, but agreeing to have your photograph taken (after transforming your appearance back to what most people would refer to as 'normal') and printed in a national Sunday newspaper is hardly the action of a man fearful of an imminent lethal attack, is it?
Either that, or he's an imbecile.
And by the way; has anyone else noticed his rather startling resemblance to the late Marty Feldman?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Humour...
Just to lighten the tone, here is a post I shamelessly nicked from a site called 'Area Trace, No Search':
.uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu ɯɐ ı
Well it amused me!
.uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu ɯɐ ı
Well it amused me!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Eric Illsley MP: The second domino falls...
So, the second of those former and in this case present, parliamentarians to be charged with fraudulently obtaining thousands of pounds in so-called 'expenses' from the taxpayer has acknowledged his serial dishonesty by pleading guilty to obtaining a total of £14,500 he was simply not entitled to.
I was going to say that he had admitted stealing it; but it's actually worse than that. Theft can be - and frequently is - an opportunist crime, committed by those presented with a spur-of-the moment chance to take something which doesn't belong to them.
But Eric Illsley like David Chaytor before him engaged in a sophisticated and protracted campaign of dishonesty and deceit in order to 'steal' that money; and in that sense, his offences are far more serious than simple opportunistic theft, particularly as he is still a serving Member of Parliament and therefore in a position of huge trust and responsibility.
I will not speculate here as to the potential sentence he faces on returning to court in a month's time, but if I was him, I wouldn't be making any holiday plans this year.
And as a corollary, I suspect that with this news, pulses in the Morley, Devine and Haddingfield houses continue to quicken whilst their rabbits' noses simultaneously twitch all the more urgently...
I was going to say that he had admitted stealing it; but it's actually worse than that. Theft can be - and frequently is - an opportunist crime, committed by those presented with a spur-of-the moment chance to take something which doesn't belong to them.
But Eric Illsley like David Chaytor before him engaged in a sophisticated and protracted campaign of dishonesty and deceit in order to 'steal' that money; and in that sense, his offences are far more serious than simple opportunistic theft, particularly as he is still a serving Member of Parliament and therefore in a position of huge trust and responsibility.
I will not speculate here as to the potential sentence he faces on returning to court in a month's time, but if I was him, I wouldn't be making any holiday plans this year.
And as a corollary, I suspect that with this news, pulses in the Morley, Devine and Haddingfield houses continue to quicken whilst their rabbits' noses simultaneously twitch all the more urgently...
Friday, January 07, 2011
The first domino falls...
As former MP David Chaytor begins his richly deserved, but all too brief, prison sentence for stealing in the order £20,000 from the rest of us, I wonder if pulses are running just a little quicker in the Hanningfield, Morley and Devine households this evening...
Given that Chaytor has been jailed, despite his guilty plea, I suspect that the other three might just roll the dice and put their trust in twelve good men and true, don't you?
But to lapse into the vernacular for a moment, I'll bet their rear ends are twiching like rabbits' noses tonight...
Given that Chaytor has been jailed, despite his guilty plea, I suspect that the other three might just roll the dice and put their trust in twelve good men and true, don't you?
But to lapse into the vernacular for a moment, I'll bet their rear ends are twiching like rabbits' noses tonight...
Well done, England...
Little more to add to the tidal wave of publicity which has accompanied England's retention of The Ashes on Australian soil.
Not only did we retain the trophy however - merely drawing the series would have been sufficient to achieve that target - we won the series 3 - 1, winning three test matches by an innings, which for the uninitiated, is a thrashing.
We have effectively mauled the Australians on their own soil. They hate it; they really, really hate it.
Which makes our victory all the sweeter, because as any sports fan will attest, there is nothing as awful as an Australian bragging about his country's latest sporting success; magnanimity in victory is a concept utterly lost on them.
So well done England and roll on 2013...
Friday, December 31, 2010
What I meant to say was... Happy New Year...
I had intended to write a mid-length piece this afternoon concerning the both the murder of Joanne Yeates and the publicity surrounding the investigation, but it will have to wait for another day or two now, always assuming that the matter will not by then be sub-judice and still of sufficient interest to justify my efforts in writing it.
The reason for my lack of productivity?
I'm afraid to say I have been one of the very many victims of this winter's flu outbreak and it literally knocked me off my feet; I haven't felt as poorly as that for many years - since the last time I had flu, I suppose - and as a consequence, my ability to concentrate, or even remain perpendicular for elongated periods of time, has been severely compromised.
In closing, and on a much happier note, may I wish you all a very Happy New Year, and I'll see you all in 2011.
The reason for my lack of productivity?
I'm afraid to say I have been one of the very many victims of this winter's flu outbreak and it literally knocked me off my feet; I haven't felt as poorly as that for many years - since the last time I had flu, I suppose - and as a consequence, my ability to concentrate, or even remain perpendicular for elongated periods of time, has been severely compromised.
In closing, and on a much happier note, may I wish you all a very Happy New Year, and I'll see you all in 2011.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas to one and all...
Well, it's Christmas Eve and everything's bought that's going to be bought; so may I take this oppotunity to wish any regular readers, and others who may arrive here by accident, a very merry Christmas.
I hope it brings you all you wished for.
Time permitting, I'll be back in mid-week...
I hope it brings you all you wished for.
Time permitting, I'll be back in mid-week...
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The sacking of Sam Allardyce: a clear injustice...
Hot (or as hot as it comes these days at the Throne) on the heels of my previous post about the replacement of Chris Hughton as manager of Newcastle United with the managerial luminary who is Alan Pardew, comes the dismissal of Sam Allardyce as manager of Blackburn Rovers.
Geographically speaking, the Rovers are my nearest Premier League football club and I know a great many people who support the club and who have done so since before Uncle Jack Walker rescued them from lower-league oblivion and turned them into the Champions of England.
Similarly, I often read the Lancashire Telegraph, the local newspaper, which reports extensively about the club.
Having done so, I have to say that Sam's sacking has gone down with the vast majority of Rovers fans like a pork pie would at a bar mitzvah, not just because they thought it was unjust (which it most certainly was, of which, more in due course), but because of the timing.
We are now just three weeks away from the opening of the transfer window on 1st January and the club's new owners, Indian millionaires Venky's, who have said they will spend up to£5m during that four week period, have appointed the club's number three coach - who most fans have never heard of - as caretaker manager. Who is he going to attract to the club?
They are in grave danger of turning the club - for which they paid out £42 million - into a national laughing stock before they've owned it for a month.
Anyway, in attempting to justify their sacking, Venky's have suggested that they wanted "a younger and more energetic appointment" to take the club forward.
Right, let's have a look at that, shall we.
Sam Allardyce is currently fifty-six years of age. Sir Alex Ferguson, unarguably the most successful manager of recent times, will be sixty-nine on New Year's Eve, Arsene Wenger, no stranger to success, is sixty-one and both Harry Redknapp, who is being spoken of as the next England manager, and Roy Hodgson are sixty-three; Sam is a relative strippling by comparison with them all. And let's remember, it was only a couple of days before his dismissal that Fabio Capello - who is of pensionable age - suggested Allardyce (or Redknapp) as the next England manager!
Frankly, that claim is rubbish and I think Venky's know it; they were just clutching at any straw they could to justify their unjustifiable sacking of a man they clearly intended to dismiss at their earliest opportunity, despite having promised to give him the time he needed to prove himself. in the end, they gave him about three weeks and four games, two of which were won and two, including the derby at Bolton last Sunday, were lost.
All of which brings me me back to my assertion that the sacking was unfair.
Blackburn Rovers currently stand 13th in the Premier League, five points clear of the relegation zone and just five points behind the Europa Cup placings. Had they beaten Bolton on Sunday, they would have been in seventh place; but that matters not a jot, for the owners had clearly decided Sam would have to go well before the final whistle went at the Reebok.
But that is only half the story. When Allardyce arrived at Ewood Park following the disastrous reign of Paul Ince, the Rovers were in the relegation zone, five points adrift from the pack and staring a return to the Chumpionship squarely in the face.
Allardyce turned that situation round and had the club safe from the drop with two games to spare.
Last season, his first and now only full one in charge at the club, he guided them to a tenth place finish - at least two places higher than he had been tasked by the board to achieve - and he achieved it on a shoestring.
Where's the justice in sacking a man with that record?
All that said, I know that the new owners can do with the club what they will; after all it is theirs, they own it lock, stock and barrel and they are free to sack whoever they want in an effort to take the club forward as they see fit.
But they would be well advised to be cautious, because they could easily antagonise and alienate their core support in England - the ones who actually pay to attend matches - and that will make their efforts much, much harder and could even see the entire enterprise crash and burn, and with it forty odd million pounds of Venky's cash.
It is a less than auspicious start and if the team doesn't win against West Ham United on Saturday afternoon, it will get much worse very soon.
A situation to keep my eye on, I suspect...
Geographically speaking, the Rovers are my nearest Premier League football club and I know a great many people who support the club and who have done so since before Uncle Jack Walker rescued them from lower-league oblivion and turned them into the Champions of England.
Similarly, I often read the Lancashire Telegraph, the local newspaper, which reports extensively about the club.
Having done so, I have to say that Sam's sacking has gone down with the vast majority of Rovers fans like a pork pie would at a bar mitzvah, not just because they thought it was unjust (which it most certainly was, of which, more in due course), but because of the timing.
We are now just three weeks away from the opening of the transfer window on 1st January and the club's new owners, Indian millionaires Venky's, who have said they will spend up to£5m during that four week period, have appointed the club's number three coach - who most fans have never heard of - as caretaker manager. Who is he going to attract to the club?
They are in grave danger of turning the club - for which they paid out £42 million - into a national laughing stock before they've owned it for a month.
Anyway, in attempting to justify their sacking, Venky's have suggested that they wanted "a younger and more energetic appointment" to take the club forward.
Right, let's have a look at that, shall we.
Sam Allardyce is currently fifty-six years of age. Sir Alex Ferguson, unarguably the most successful manager of recent times, will be sixty-nine on New Year's Eve, Arsene Wenger, no stranger to success, is sixty-one and both Harry Redknapp, who is being spoken of as the next England manager, and Roy Hodgson are sixty-three; Sam is a relative strippling by comparison with them all. And let's remember, it was only a couple of days before his dismissal that Fabio Capello - who is of pensionable age - suggested Allardyce (or Redknapp) as the next England manager!
Frankly, that claim is rubbish and I think Venky's know it; they were just clutching at any straw they could to justify their unjustifiable sacking of a man they clearly intended to dismiss at their earliest opportunity, despite having promised to give him the time he needed to prove himself. in the end, they gave him about three weeks and four games, two of which were won and two, including the derby at Bolton last Sunday, were lost.
All of which brings me me back to my assertion that the sacking was unfair.
Blackburn Rovers currently stand 13th in the Premier League, five points clear of the relegation zone and just five points behind the Europa Cup placings. Had they beaten Bolton on Sunday, they would have been in seventh place; but that matters not a jot, for the owners had clearly decided Sam would have to go well before the final whistle went at the Reebok.
But that is only half the story. When Allardyce arrived at Ewood Park following the disastrous reign of Paul Ince, the Rovers were in the relegation zone, five points adrift from the pack and staring a return to the Chumpionship squarely in the face.
Allardyce turned that situation round and had the club safe from the drop with two games to spare.
Last season, his first and now only full one in charge at the club, he guided them to a tenth place finish - at least two places higher than he had been tasked by the board to achieve - and he achieved it on a shoestring.
Where's the justice in sacking a man with that record?
All that said, I know that the new owners can do with the club what they will; after all it is theirs, they own it lock, stock and barrel and they are free to sack whoever they want in an effort to take the club forward as they see fit.
But they would be well advised to be cautious, because they could easily antagonise and alienate their core support in England - the ones who actually pay to attend matches - and that will make their efforts much, much harder and could even see the entire enterprise crash and burn, and with it forty odd million pounds of Venky's cash.
It is a less than auspicious start and if the team doesn't win against West Ham United on Saturday afternoon, it will get much worse very soon.
A situation to keep my eye on, I suspect...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
