The Kraken

From these comments. "Looks more of an Arsenal type player to me, he'd be better than either of our wingers at the moment.. but he is more of a free role player." and "I don't think he has the step up to go beyond Arteta-like levels. Good player at good club." Another compares him (favourably) to Nasri. There's far more positive comments on there than negative ones about Lallana (and SFC, to be fair) but I'd agree with most of them in that for the money he'd cost them, he's not a signing they need right now.

Just had a read of that and most are quite complimentary. I don't really see very many incendiary posts throughout that. And I think this fella has it right: "He's decent. So was Young. So was Fellaini. I'm sick of buying decent. Our first team needs elite quality that is up there with the best players in the world, not Adam Lallana." Fair enough point IMO. There's one thing fitting in to United's team; there's another thing going in and taking it up a level as Ozil did with Arsenal. Could Lallana play for a top 4 side? Yes, I believe he could. Is he the signing that United need right now. No, I really don't think he is. And as "believe he would be better off staying put", others suggest he would be a better fit for Arsenal or Spurs. Again, a valid point IMO.

Its not clear cut, no. But the opportunities you get from going to a big club are enormous, even if you don't make it as a first choice player. I think I'm right in saying that Adam Johnson spoke out against City and gave it an "if I had my chance again I wouldn't have signed for them" statement. Pretty sure I read it at the time, I didn't go along with it then, I don't go along with it now. What the move did for Johnson was immediately propel him into the England reckoning (he was called up a month after signing), and a showcase at one of the best clubs in Europe. As it turned out, he wasn't quite good enough for such a high ranking side, the launch from mid-table Championship to challenging for the Premier League title was too much. But it set him up financially for life and, despite being mainly on the bench in his times before leaving, was still very much in demand from other PL clubs. That is much less of a risk that it could have been signing for, say West Brom, hoping to do ok with them then moving on up. He got given a great opportunity, he was found short of the required level but his profile will be much higher than it ever would have been had he not signed, and that is a huge career boost in itself. There are arguments for players staying at smaller clubs. But not many, and there are so many benefits to moving a big club that turning down such a move is very, very much in the minority.

I think you miss the point. Not that he was an established PL player; but using him as an example of Lallana should think twice about signing for a top 4 side. Johnson was going nowhere with Boro when he was signed for City, in the league in any case. It was a great move for him to go to City.

Well I was just struggling to see the analogy, given that Adam Johnson was playing for a Championship side at the time of his signing (a championship side who didn't look like they were going to get promoted, and indeed haven't done since he left). Seems a strange example to make to me.

Are you talking about Adam Johnson?

I'm an old fashioned fart, and I like the rule as it is. I find it ridiculous when you see the like of Tuilagi playing rugby for England. Pietersen in the cricket is massively borderline, though he does have at least some family attachment. I also think it should be a rule that international managers fulfill the same requirements as the players for the nation that they represent. Call it old fashioned but international football should be that, and not a massively watered down version of it IMO.

It's not about whether clubs make zero mistakes in the transfer market; its the proportion of spend on players that do and don't work out. Spurs are getting pelters this season from all corner for spending all the Bale cash (and then some) on players who are under-perfoming compared to expectations. Everton on the other hand have spent relatively little, made some excellent loan signings, and Roberto Martinez is being lauded for it. We've made some amazing signings in the past few seasons. There's also no getting away from the fact that we've also spent proportionally an awful lot of money on players who haven't or aren't quite working out. It's perfectly valid and not trolling in the slightest to point that out.

Well said Duncan. Although manji is quite possibly the most bitter poster in m-board folklore so I'm not sure of the wisdom of such a benchmark.

I thought it was a twitter thing hashtagconfusedkraken

I can only think that 110 was an alt, and got thwacked by the b-an stick for that. If he got b-anned for posting a consistently contrary view then I find that a bit of a shame. He was a bit of a tit but everyone's entitled to a viewpoint, however incendiary others may view it.

I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if it did change in that regard; solely for the fact that, since its inception in 1993, the agreement has only got more and more strict. Only in 2009 was it brought in that foreigners with no "grandparents rule" relatives could play for any of the home nations (except for the 5 year pre-18 residency rule, which is fair). But I think all of the home nations see it as a vital agreement to keep integrity and not ride roughshod over each other; and for that and other reasons I think its a good rule, I like that we have it. I'm constantly amazed that the likes of the England manager and seemingly all of the British press and Sky pundit team don't ever seem to know about/reference this agreement The Januzaj debate rumbled on for days and not once did I see a press writer or TV pundit say "well, of course, there would have to be a major change in the rules for him to play for England".

Then again we could always get the left back equivalent of Gaston Ramirez

Yep, 15 goals in the Premier League last season was completely inadequate. Great analogy.

It's not a shame that's he's gone, he's clearly a pain in the arse, but it seems like his crimes have to been to be a bit negative and quite repetitive in doing so. You could argue that NickG and others of his ilk are at the other end of that spectrum. Again, not knowing all the facts its just how it seems. But its a shame if people are going to get banned for being too deliberately contrary, if that's what it boils down to. If its more than

OK then

Yes, we know this. So what was the solution? In that situation, what would you have done differently? What were the better options?

Are you suggesting he's lying?

Ha ha, he's gone!! Boom, headshot. A touch harsh, really, unless he's done something else other than ask a few negative questions.

To save people reading through a whole article, here's why (despite the huge media clamour) Adnan Januzaj can't actually play for England (and also why Morgan can't do under the current agreement).

And Pat van den Hauwe had a Welsh mother

He's not saying anything the fans weren't thinking.

Read the link I posted and you'll understand more. 2009 was the latest iteration of the agreement, so whatever Pat van den Hauwe and his mates went through has been thoroughly superseded.

He may be eligible, but unless the Home Nations change their agreement he'll never get picked.

People might want to read more into the Home Nations gentlemen's agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement