The Kraken

Where is this form of leaving transfer activity too late? Last season we signed Ryan Dickson on 10th June, Frazer Richardson on 6th July and Danny Butterfield on 17th July? Guly then arrived on 23rd August. We then signed Richard Chaplow and Jonathan Forte in the winter window (Chaplow after an initial loan), plus Dany N'Guessan on loan. None of whom went on to establish themselves as a first team regular. Which of those signings were too late? Our pre-season last season was a shambles and the Pardew effect very de-stabilising on our early season form. But how do you manage to blame it all on our incoming transfers being made too late?

Just like last season when we didn't buy Ryan Dickson until 10th June? Just like last season when we didn't buy Frazer Richardson until 6th July? And just like last season when we didn't buy Danny Butterfield until 17th July? Guly was admittedly a late arrival, not getting to the club until the season was nearly over, on 23rd August. We then signed Richard Chaplow and Jonathan Forte in the winter window (Chaplow after an initial loan), plus Dany N'Guessan on loan. None of whom went on to establish themselves as a first team regular. So, using last season as a benchmark, which players should we have signed earlier? And when should they have been signed?

Antti Niemi Right back - Michael Svensson - Dean Richards - Mark Dennis Jimmy Case - Steve Williams Rod Wallace - Matt Le Tissier - Danny Wallace Alan Shearer Subs: Tim Flowers, Gareth Bale, Neil Ruddock, Ronnie Ekelund, Marians Pahars, James Beattie, Ricky Lambert.

I'll start getting concerned if we haven't signed any new players by the time pre-season training starts. It's always nice to have new players signed by now (such as West Ham with Nolan) but it doesn't actually achieve anything. Plenty of players like to go on holiday and allow their agents to get to work and identify the best offer for them. There's also the possibility that, rather than just signing any old player, the club are undergoing an extensive scouting/recruitment process to get in the best possible players we can get. That said, I think we need at least 5 or 6 new players to allow us to compete at the higher end of teh table. The transfer window is open until September, but realistically we need to be looking at getting all of those (or at least all bar 1 or 2) in well before the start of the season.

According to www.nufc.com and Joey Barton's twitter, Kevin Nolan has been sold and is having a medical at Wet Sham.

I wouldn't classify McClaren as a sh!t manager, but neither is he a good one. Average is the best description for him. Wikipedia has what I think is a pretty good summary of him. His spell with FC Twente was very impressive, but he totally failed at Wolfsburg. I can't see him doing too much with Forest.

Why? He's less than 24 so even if he does go anywhere when he's out of contract, we'll be due a development fee for him. And development fees these days tend to be an accurate representation of the transfer market.

The OP stated that he feels the league is "getting tougher". I think the current managerial merry-go-round is actually just waking people up to the challenge we're going to face. Our time of being the big fish in a little pond is now over; we're placed in a league with an awful lot of clubs of a similar size. Since our relegation from the Premier League a number of our current rivals have played in the top division, and benefitted from the increased revenues on offer. A number of those clubs have, like us, moved to new, larger stadiums thus increasing their revenue-making potential. The result is that we have a Championship division which is arguably stronger than at any other time in its history, as there are so many more clubs with large grounds, decent attendances, and financial backing. Anyone who thinks this season is going to be easy is, IMO, a bit deluded. Yes, we have some decent backing, a tightly-knit squad and some great facilities; but so do many of our rivals. I consider we're at least 4 or 5 players away from a squad that will complete for the title, perhaps a few more than that for a 46-game season. Adkins has done well to get us where we are, but this season will be a big step up from taking 3 points against the likes of Dagenham & Redbridge.

The fact that lots of teams have (as you rightly say) changed their badges suggests that badges are not what sticks to a club. Badges are no different to a normal company's logo; they can become outdated, and in normal industry companies will change their logo to keep updated with current trends. A football club really shouldn't be all that different, should it? Take Leeds as an example; a large club with a wealth of history. They have had numerous changes of badge throughout the past 50 years or so; Our badge looks exactly like what it is; an amateur effort. Changing badge doesn't mean we're forgetting our history; I don't know why some people are so precious about it.

Shame, our crest is pretty rubbish really. It doesn't even represent our history, as its only been around for about 40 years or so. But then, going for a new crest brings in all sorts of risks that any new one would be even worse!

I just don't agree with that the squad was "very poor". Certainly on too much money for their actual worth, but not poor. Pearson inherited a squad that contained the likes of Kelvin Davis, Andrew Davies, Surman, Viafara, Safri, Stern John, Saganowski, Dyer, Wright-Phillips, and a young Lallana. Not an amazing squad, but by no means a "very poor" squad. While definitely not being good enough to challenge for the top of the table, that squad were under-achieving. Pearson did well to turn it around (and I very much wanted him to stay), but lets not convince ourselves it was a miracle that he saved us.

I think today's game shows just how far we have to go to be challenging at the top end of the table. Lots of pace, invention and creativity throughout both sides. I'm not saying we need wholesale changes, as with the likes of Fonte, Lallana, Chamberlain, Lambert and Guly we have a core of players who could compete up there, plus 2 or 3 others who may also be able to step up to the plate. But I think we definitely need 4 or 5 top players over the summer to move us from a mid-table side to one who can compete for the title. Also, I think today highlights just how important it is to hold onto Chamberlain, if only for one more season. He on one wing and Lallana on the offer are both game-changing players, and with defences much more organised than we've seen this year we're going to need their craft to break down sides.

I'm not sure that's any guarantee; you've effectively just described Michel Platini, who is being groomed by Blatter to be his eventual successor.

By that rationale, are only highly rated comedians allowed to pass criticism on other lesser rated comedians? You don't have to be a comedian to know what is funny. Mike Osman is not funny, and he never has been.

I was particularly referring to the season following relegation; we spent just £90K on Fuller in the close season, but still saw fit to take on Woodward, Clifford and all the expense of the refurbishment of the training facilities. The balance between funding of the playing side and the backroom side just seemed very wrong, and IMO we wasted one year of parachute payments with the ill-fated Woodward scheme. In any case, its water under the bridge. Top 5 here we come.....

They're not altogether dissimilar. The difference is that Cortese seems to recognise that investment is needed both on and off the pitch. Lowe's biggest gamble was investing in the infrastructure (Woodward etc) whilst neglecting the necessary investment in the team.

Strachan interviews were great, but i felt he became a bit of a parody of himself in the end. That said, he did come out with some crackers, such as these two about Claus: "He was carried off at Leicester and someone asked me if he was unconscious. I didn’t have a clue. That’s what he’s always like." and this one, not a quite but... Strachan was on Sky on one Sunday morning(season 2005-06). He saw John Terry's goal and said he was impressed that Terry goes up expecting to score. He contrasted this to Claus Lundekvam the Saints central defender who goes up for every dead ball and never ever looks remotely like scoring. He said if there was a dead body lying in the penalty area the ball would hit it on the head several times a season which he said is more than Lundekvam can manage. He said referees should book Lundekvam for timewasting every time he goes up for a corner. When the co-commentator said if Lundekvam was watching Strachan was only joking. Strachan assured him he was deadly serious.

Agreed. A huge stadium with a running track will never, never work in English football. I'm sceptical to the whole West Ham bid for the stadium. Spuds were at least realistic in that: a) the nation doesn't need a big athletics venue; a revamped Crystal Palace is perfectly adequate. b) an athletics stadium is nothing like a football stadium, so they'll take advantage of the location and transport links, knock down the athletics stadium and build something much more suitable to football instead. I have a feeling that West Ham will live in the stadium for 2 or 3 years before making a massive fuss that athletics and football can't live together, there's no big demand for athletics so they should be allowed to re-model the stadium to fit the footballing market. And when the whole Olympics "sustainability" movement has calmed down and moved on, I think they'll get away with it.

Incorrect. This subject has been discussed at length, in one topic halfway down page 1 and another 12 page topic on page 2. The discussion could quite simply have been carried on there, it really didn't need a brand new thread other than to attention seek on the negativity. And I'll just have to disagree with you that it's a valid point. The club have already said that season ticket information will become available later in the month. And shirts don't usually go on sale this early in the year. So it's a non issue.

Because adding to an existing thread on page 1 and one on pagee 2 doesn't provide court as much attention as starting your own negative one?

Of the clubs you mention, the only one I'd take much notice in terms of comparison would be Wolves. Their plans are split into different phases, but it looks for sure like they'll go from a current capacity of 28,500 up to 36,000. After that their plans are contingent on hitting that capacity over a longer term period, and further plans (to potentially go to 38,000 then 50,000) are not part of this planning application. West Brom will be going from a 26,500 capacity to 30,000. Birmingham, I've only seen talk that they are considering options for either a new ground or re-development of their old main stand, not heard of any definite plans. Hull, I think their stance is more to do with their chairman trying to buy the stadium on the cheap from the council. Without entering into negotitations he's been sounding off in the press suggesting if he can't get the ground for the right price he'll look to build a new 40K stadium; quite how serious that proposal is, is debatable. As for West Ham, their's is a unique situation. Potentially a huge stadium at their disposal, I don't know how much they'll be subject to pay for it but I assume it will well below what a new ground would cost. That said, I still think the running-track factor will prove a massive turn-off, as will the re-location, and if their attendances do go up I just can't it being a huge increase. It could of course have a negative effect on attendance (particularly if they don't gain promotion back to the top league in the next year or two). I still maintain that having a larger stadium is a "nice to have" rather than a necessity to push on in the short term. The sheer amounts of money available from the Premier League from TV money and prize funds, from the Champions League, and from sponsorship mean that the extra amounts available pale into insignificance compared to the extra revenue we could hope to see from an increase in attendance. If we do go for an increase in stadium capacity (which admittedly would be nice to see) I would suggest an extra tier on the Kingsland to provide an extra 8,000 seats and take capacity to 40,000 would be the most prudent step. Anything more than that is unncecessary IMO.

I seem to recall Bridgey giving it a go once or twice when he was with us.

I don't think your criteria for ranking clubs based just on attendances is particularly valid in today's game. The massive amounts on offer in the form of TV money and sponsorship has reduced the need for a huge stadium full up with paying punters. Don't get me wrong, it certainly helps, but you have to consider that Sky pay £50M a year just to clubs for being in the Premier League. Add in TV related bonuses, prize money, Champions League etc and you're probably talking in excess of £100M per year from TV money alone. Now add in sponsorship; Liverpool have just signed a kit deal worth up to £25M per year. That doesn't include sponsorship emblazoned on the shirts themselves; Man United's current deal with AON is worth £20M per year. So that's around an extra £150M per year up for grabs for the most successful sides. Man City have used their owner's money to get themselves into the top 4 very quickly. But now that they are there they have a massive advantage compared to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool in the Champions League money they will receive. Finish up in the top 4 next year at Liverpool/Spurs expense and the gap just becomes much, much wider. With the amount of foreign investment coming in to the league, you have to look well beyond attendances as an indicator of potential for success. The UEFA fair play rules may start to bring it back into line, but I suspect with the amounts at stake the likes of Chelsea and Man City will just find ways around it.

You have to take what Gold & Sullivan with a pinch of salt, they're well renowned gobsh1tes who will peddle all sorts of stories to the press to ingratiate themselves with the fans. That said, their financial situation is without doubt completely dire, as they inherited a complete catastrophe of a club from the Icelandics. Kieron Dyer and Freddie Ljungberg, who started just 32 matches between them over the course of their contracts, cost £34M to the club. Insane. You can bet that the likes of Rob Green, Scott Parker, Can't Control and Robbie Keane will all be on very high wages. But (perhaps apart from Keane) they all have a re-sale value and should be in demand from a Prem club. West Ham's massive problem will be the amount of dross that they have on the books but that still earn 20K, 30K or 40K a week. No club is going to want to take those salaries on board, so West Ham are either faced with the owner's stumping up or shipping them off to other clubs and subsidising their wages. I cannot see Sullivan and Gold sitting by and watching the business impode; I think they will take the decision to get rid of as many of their players as is possible, so a huge fire sale. It could mean severe problems for the 'ammers.

I don't believe the club are "putting off customers". But I do believe they are doing the very bare minimum to drive sales of season tickets. I think the club realise that they simply have to have a certain level of season ticket holders; I don't go along with the assertion by some that the club don't want to sell season tickets. They know that they have to. The club are savvy enough to realise that you need a core support, and the only way to assure that is to sell season tickets. That said, they are doing the bare minimum in marketing season tickets as they want to maximise the amount of customers they can get to pay on an individual basis. The hardcore supporters will buy a season ticket whether it is well marketed or not. The club will then take a gamble that those who they can't/won't convince to buy a ST will end up paying more over the course of the season by purchasing on an individual basis. Whether that has worked or not; who knows?