The Kraken

Are you deliberately missing the point? This is a comparison to how Norwich won the league and then significantly strengthened their squad. It's not a direct comparison of results in League 1 (which are extrordinarily close in any case).

It wasn't just Bates though; they constantly evaded disclosure by claiming that Ken Bates fronted a consortium of various individuals/groups who all owned a stake under 10% each, and therefore they were not legally obliged to disclose. They eventually disclosed as they claimed they had been bought out by Ken Bates alone. So who the previous owers were remains a complete mystery. Edit: see here for the actual ownership statement http://www.leedsunited.com/page/Ownership

His point is based in complete fact about how Norwich performed in League 1 and how they approached their season in the championship. How does it fail in that respect?

It's actually a very valid point to make in general; it was just a very poor way of making it, and holding Saints up as an example. The potential for corruption and bypassing of the fit and proper owners regulations and such like is enormous. Leeds went years without disclosing who they were actually owned by; still no-one actually knows who it was.

Agree with this, right up to the part about 19th. I think we have plenty for a mid-table finish, potentially scraping inside the top ten. Still think we're at least 3 players from a tilt at the top though.

Being as it was the first game Cork played, I would imagine it means a little more than nothing. I doubt Adkins will write them off as a combination after 45 minutes as you seem to have! The reports I've seen of the game (online, Echo) seem to suggest that the first half partnership of Cork and Schneiderlin was a lot mroe effective than the second half partnership of Hammond and Chaplow. Of course there will be more experimentation before the season starts, we'll likely see all 4 midfielders play alongside each other at some point. But come the Leeds game I'll be very surprised if it isn't Cork alongside one of Morgan or Hammond, and my money is on Hammond being the one who dips out.

They did in our last game.

Ha ha ha, classic. Imagine those poor fools who've pre-bought a kit they haven't actually seen, only to have it not turn up in the post! A marketing dream by Saints!

Jackanory, i think you've just described what any top level manager has been guilty of regarding talking about other team's players. Redknapp is absolutely the worst at it, forever talking about players from other teams and how "e's a triffic player" while denouncing any other manager who does the same with his players. It's got nothing to do with nationality, so I'm not sure how valid your Big Sam et al comparisons are.

From today's Football365 Mediawatch:

The problem with that has been that, at least with Hammond, both of them seem to want to play that role. Chaplow seemed to be a bit of fresh air when he first came in, in that he seemed more inclined to bomb on and support the front line. It'll be interesting to see how it works out with Cork, and whether Morgan sitting will encourage Cork to play a slightly more advanced role.

Does it though? Umbro (in particular for their "Tailored by" range) issue a pre-release teaser of the kit, and design inspiration. I don't think this has the effect of diluting the impact of the release, in fact it probably has the opposite effect.

If we're going to play one up front and 3 in midfield then Guly is the only proper solution for the "number 10"; that's by far his best position IMO.

That is true. In his first season with us he was so sharp; and he won pretty much everything that was played up to him. At the time I remember saying that he was the closest thing to an on-form Beattie than we'd had since. Which was why it was a bit mystifying to see that last season he so often looked off the pace, and was nowhere near as dominant (or determined) in the air. Perhaps a proper pre-season can do the trick, I certainly hope so because when he's really on his game he's almost unplayable. But the thing with Lambert is that he provides so much more than just goals. In a way he determines the way we play, in that he acts as the fulcrum of the team. Take him out and as team we would have to adapt massively to his absence; and I believe that overall we would lose a lot more than just the goals he scores. His season won't purely be determined by his goal tally, it's a bit more difficult to measure his overall impact than that. But, especially at this level, it's absolutely vital that we see the Ricky from his first season, and not last season.

It's the long sleeved version that is £47; the short sleeved shirt is £42.

I agree, but I'm pretty sure we were saying exactly the same thing at this point last year; that he might get caught out for pace, and that he wouldn't be able to play twice in one week. Didn't quite happen that way. It's not as if he's massively over the hill, he's 35, and never really relied on pace in any case. With a decent pre-season behind him he may well yet surprise quite a few people. Certainly I think we'd struggle to find anyone as dominant as the big man.

Yep, Sturridge had a fantastic scoring record for Bolton last season, if he does get loaned out he'll be massively in demand from Premier League clubs.

I don't. Schneiderlin has got potential, that's for sure, but IMO what really lets him down is how casual he can be, and so often. He's capable of spraying balls around the park, and of course doing the simple things very efficiently. But far too often he throws in a ridiculously misplaced pass, or gets caught in posession in completely the wrong areas. Highlighted as recently as this pre-season, where a badly misplaced pass led directly to us conceding a goal. I also think he needs a lot of work on his attacking play; again I think he's got potential to score more goals but something's just not quite right when he pushes through into advanced positions. Hustle and bustle or whatever has IMO got nothing to do with it; for a supposed top quality midfielder (for this level) he's just far too prone to making unneccessary mistakes.

OK, back again, and unsurprisingly you've managed to miss my point again. But I'll answer your question anyway. I would expect the club to reserve seats up until July 15th because, as stated by the club: So priority is given to renewals up until 15th July, from when you can buy new tickets. For a minute, just understand what I'm actually saying and see if you disagree with it. My original point on this was that this offer is only detailed on the club's official website, and I suggested that the wording on the OS is not completely clear. And while (if I was choosing to renew) I probably would have assumed the renewal period would end after 14th July, there is aboslutely NOTHING in the club's wording that confirms that; so I'm not surprised to hear that someone has fallen foul of it. Now is that such an unrealistic statement to make? That the terms and conditions could have been made clearer? It's either that, or you believe that the terms and conditions as laid out are perfectly fine and give 100% of detail without the customer having to make any assumptions of their own. The9 has a differing point of view to me on some aspects of this but can at least accept that the wording is "ambigious".

And finally, before i go. Priority is given from those dates over new sales. Does it say that renewals are not available after this date? No.

Again, it really doesn't matter what "every club" does. We are not every club, so it is irrelevant what they do. And there's nothing in the wording about "general sale", so I don't know where you've plucked that one from. Here you go, here's the wording again: Nothing about a general sale. Nothing to say that renewal prices stop on 15th July. A confirmation that renewal sales get priority before new sales begin. A confirmation that new sales begin on 15th July. And nothing to suggest that new sales then take over from renewal sales, and renewal sales are unavailable after this date. I know you'll refuse to admit it, but that's the fact of it. And, thankfully, I'm off out now so won't have to listen to you try to tell me that black is actually white and that I'm wrong.

That's a completely different point altogether though, isn't it? And can you name another club that releases its replica kit for pre-order 20 days before anyone can see it? We're unique in that respect, so it isn't inconceivable to suggest we may be unique in others. The point I'm making has nothing to do with what we've previously done; we've previously done many things, and have changed quite a number of them. The fact is that the terms were not clearly written, which is why I'm unsurprised someone has been caught out.

Technically correct; but it's a bit of a sad state of affairs that the fan base condones and supports a supposed plan to catch out or trick supporters in an effort to extract more money from them for a product that they clearly already want.

As I pointed out yesterday, the initial instructions were actually less than clear. I'm unsurprised that someone has been caught out by it. Here's how it read on the OS: So until today there was actuall nothing in the wording on the OS (the only place where this information was given) to suggest on there that you can't renew after the 14th July and still get the reduced prices. Admittedly, I'd have probably assume that was the case, but it wasn't completely clear according the to the terms of the OS. I have some sympathy with the guy.

If the quality is there in our own ranks then yes, it should be encouraged. Is it there though? We sent Joseph Mills out on loan, and he was one of the better prospects. Gobern very, very rarely got a look in and now has been released. AOC right now is the only one worth a spot. The others may get given their chances, but if they're not up to it there's no harm in taking other good players from clubs.