Ideal Newsflash: neither of those are arguments that will get you anywhere in a discussion.
LOL @ Ideal for quoting Wikipedia to back himself up and then complaining about the argumentative style of his opponent.
Seriously, just have a look at the sources for the sections you bolded. The "pot of gold" comment leads to a BBC article about Steve Gibson complaining about this criticism from, for one, Harry Redknapp (then at Portsmouth - I suppose if anyone knows about being given a pot of gold to squander, it's 'Appy 'Arry). The links relating to the "dull football" claim lead to: 1) again to a BBC piece by some no-mark part-time hack, and the only reference there is actually that "Boro's victories earned them many plaudits as they ditched their tag of being a dull side", and 2) a piece in the Independent that mentions McClaren but says nothing about the claim and bears no relation to the story it was supposed to be ("Football: McClaren under fire as Sunderland taste victory").
As it happens I broadly agree that the success at Twente was the exception in a pretty dismal career, but you're essentially saying "there was an article on the BBC website that made reference to my argument" and then making out that you've put forward a cogent factual argument. It goes some way to explaining why you're so credulous of poor journalism and poor news reporting on the subjects of race and religion, and why your views on those are, accordingly, very confused.
..
