FloridaMarlin

It's always interesting to listen to the pundits and you could develop serious paranoia if you take everything they say at face value. However,I don't think it's stretching a point to say that former players will always defend their old team-mates. Ferdinand's efforts to defend Rooney swung from desperate to embarrassing, and short of him pulling out a gun on the pitch and shooting somebody dead, Rio will back him to the hilt. And without being paranoid, there is a strong Manc-Scouse axis of pundits who will always big up their buddies. But thus, it has always been.

I don't think anybody is being too critical of the younger players. The problem appears to be with the elder statesmen. Of course you need experienced players, but it must be a concern how much influence Gerrard appears to have in team selection, and his own contribution to it. I think Gerrard's role is a cheat's position. The spin is that he's re-invented himself in this deep-lying role, when the reality is that he no longer has the legs to play at the top flight. His role consists largely of sitting in front of the defence, picking the ball up and pinging long-range passes out to the wing. Compare his effectiveness to the of Pirlo, whose role is similar. Because he hasn't got the legs, he can't cover the width of the pitch (never mind the length) and he and Henderson were so narrow in front of the defence you could have covered them with a tablecloth. Because they were narrow, Italy worked out pretty quickly that coupled with Rooney's lack of defensive responsibility, there was going to be space in front of Baines and they and exploited it. Hodgson has nailed his colours to the mast of Gerrard's captaincy, and doesn't know how to extricate himself from it. The senior players - Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Johnson - are the ones who have underperformed in previous tournaments, but for whatever reason, continue to be picked. The exception was Cole who, ironically, might have been the best of the old guard. Of course, some of the protection of Rooney has already started and Hodgson will ship most of the flak as the Rooney apologists claim it was the manager's fault for playing Rooney out of position. Perhaps the truth is that England have better players - Sterling - who can play where Rooney would prefer to play and Hodgson's reluctance to drop Rooney sees him shoehorn Shrek in wherever he can. It begs the question that if Rooney is being played out of position, are there better players in that position who should be playing? And if you want further evidence that it was the old guard who let England down, contrast and compare the contributions from England's senior players to Italy's last night. Gerrard, Rooney and Johnson v Pirlo, de Rossi and Chiellini. I rest my case, m'lud.

Gerrard does seem to have quite an undue influence on selection, if not directly by whispering in Roy's ear, then indirectly by subtly yanking up the pressure in the media by bigging up his club mates. Is it just me, or do the Liverpool players always try to pass the ball to each other and only bring others in when there is nothing else on? We were told that in past England squads to United and Liverpool players divided into two distinct cliques both off and on the pitch.

They write their headlines with key words for SEO. For many reasons and not just football (crime, economy, welfare fraud, etc) people are more likely to search for stories with the keyword 'Liverpool' than 'Southampton'.

He lives just down the road from there and, believe it or not, has put down a modicum of family roots in the area (as much as anybody in as transient a profession as a football manager can). There's no real reason for him to move house, uproot his kids and disrupt their education. He's only 1.5-2 hours drive to Spuds training ground, and if needs be, can tuck himself into the nearest Premier Inn during the week. I'm sure Spuds' expense account will stretch to him sharing a bed with Lennie Henry.

Why? Do you not think Alex Crook has got his sources? Despite what most people think on here, he's actually a very-well respected journalist at most national newspapers and does a lot of work for Sky Sports. None of these organisations would use him if they didn't trust him or his product.

Munich is a great base to move around Bavaria, Austria and into Italy. Had a fantastic summer holiday in Germany. Not usually the sort of place you think of for a summer holiday, but central Europe gets really hot in the summer Germans - especially Bavarians - are really friendly and genuinely like Brits. If you like picturesque scenery, you are made. Head out towards the Allgauer alps and take in Fussen (for Neuschwanstein Castle) and Oberammergau for choccy box towns. Or you could zip up the E3 autobahn to Wurzburg in three or four hours and take several days driving down the Romantische Strasse (Romantic Road) which takes in fantastic mwdieval walled towns like Nordlingen, Dinkelsbuhel, Rothenburg and Augsburg. The road ends in Fussen. Hotels are invariably of a high standard and the prices for essentials (beer, eating out) are roughly the same as the UK if you go where the locals go. It's no problem to nip across the border into Austria and the ski resorts like Seefeld or lakeside resorts such as Maurach or Pertisau on the Achensee are classy places to visit in the summer. While most people speak English, the Germans don't cater towards Brits specifically as it's not a huge tourist destination for us - and that's what makes it great. Dive in and absorb yourself in German/Bavarian/Tirolean culture. The best nights we had were sitting out in beer gardens on warm summer nights, with the locals in traditional costume for no other reason than they are proud to wear it, a small tirolean band striking up, and everybody dancing, fuelled by the amazing local brew. For somebody who usually goes long-haul holidays to search for sun, I was absolutely knocked out by Germany and Austria in the summer.

Morgan on!!

One word. Roko.

And not written by somebody with a vested interest at all!

Was it all his ****? In which case, it's a tremendous feat to fill all those bottles. If it wasn't his, where did he get it from? Did he buy it in? Are there shops where you can buy it? Did other members of the coaching staff have to contribute? So many questions unanswered.

Tony Pulis was really interesting on ESPN last night. Forget that he was interviewed by arch-skate Ian Darke, Pulis said he has been forced to change the way he deals with players down the years. When he first started in management, the climate enabled him to be the archetypal, nasty hard-line boss (and in his case, VERY hard line, according to some Bompey players who were on the receiving end). Back then, you could deal with players how you wanted and needed to because they didn't go squinnying to their agent. But he admitted that he has now had to adapt to the changing player-manager dynamic. Players do hold most of the power these days, but he has to balance that with still letting them know he is the manager. Instead of balling people out, being a complete hard-liner who accepts no dissent and it's my way of the highway, he's realised that he's had to change and adopt a softer approach. It was also interesting to hear him on how to deal with troublemakers within the club. "It's easy - get rid of him," was his first answer, but then pressed on what he does if the player is the best and most influential one at the club, he said he would then get rid of the players around him who give him an audience. He's a canny operator, Pulis. I wouldn't like to see him at Saints because I don't think he would be a good fit for us, but it would be completely wrong to brand him as a management cave-man with a coaching manual from the stone age. Yes, his teams do have a certain way of playing, but he's actually a more intelligent and deeper-thinking person than he's given credit for. I don't think you get to be a Premier League manager for as long as he has if you aren't. Pulis has been forced to change his way of operating as players are completely different beasts. They no longer react to the constant use of the stick, because they don't need to. Managers have to be increasingly aware of how to use the carrot instead of the stick. Whatever, Pulis certainly got the best out of Stoke players in his time there, and his feat in getting the best out of Palace and keeping them up last season was a tremendous feat.

The way I got it was Mitchell - needing money to pay off some pressing debts - actively punted him to Saints who said: "Thanks, but no thanks." At which point Eddie gave it the: "I'm not allowing him to speak to Saints" big one to save face.

You cannot libel an organisation, although an individual within that organisation could sue if the defammatory statement can be construed as being against him. Ashton mentions Les Reed, but it's unlikely any law suit for libel would succeed. A defammatory statement is one that lowers the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public, or disparages him in his office or profession. Ashton would have no trouble defending any action as his piece is based on fact -Reed did issue the statement, and since then Poch and Lambert have gone. It's still conjecture as to whether Lallana and Shaw will go, but the piece - while spiteful - is safe legally. It would have been run past The Mail's lawyers.

There is a mutual review clause for both parties after a major championship. Standard FA England manager's contract.

And this is the irony, of course. Liverpool refused to accede to Suarez's demands and were generally applauded by people in football for their stance in standing up to a dummy-spitting player, although let's be honest, it was entirely self-serving by Liverpool. A club who always claim the moral high ground should have sacked him following his disgraceful behaviour in racially abusing Evra and biting Ivanovic, but we'll gloss over that as easily as May 29 is always glossed over on the red half of Merseyside. But Liverpool expect us to lamely accept Lallana's request to let him go (if he has actually done that). Expect more cranking up of pressure on the club. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book: If the club are being stubborn, work on the player. That nice Steven Gerrard will be in Lallana's ear every hour of the day, and of course he now has Lambert to give it to him in stereo. Saints should stand firm and remind Lallana he signed a four-year contract extension last year, which he was happy to do and that he is paid handsomely to play football for the club. What's Lallana going to do? Go on strike and refuse to play? The only way he is going to continue to be a part of the England squad is by playing well for Saints. And I'm pretty sure if he did go on strike, Liverpool would not look too kindly on that. Unless there is an underlying agenda to sell off our best players (which I don't think there is, as Lallana would be gone by now) Saints have actually got the strongest hand. The ace up their sleeve is a four-year contract. There's a lot of twaddle spoken about "If a player doesn't want to be here, it's best to let him go, as you don't want a bad apple upsetting the rest of the dressing room." I'm pretty sure there are stronger characters in the dressing-room than Lallana, who might just pin him up against a wall and tell him to pull his finger out rather than sew seeds of discontent.

This will not affect solely Saints. All clubs looking to recruit players from World Cup squads - and that will include pretty much every PL club - will be in limbo. There hasn't been a lot of business done since the end of the season, even among the top clubs. Presumably they won't be able to integrate any players they sign until late July - possibly even later as the top clubs are likley to be chasing players from counties expected to make the latter stages of the World Cup. If there is one peculiarity about World Cup summers it is that it pretty much plays havoc with every club's transfer ambitions.

See: Hero/villain/hero/villain/traitor swingometer on p****y takeover saga thread.

I'm not sure, but think you have made the same point as me. People are more prepared to take one journo's word for something than another on no clear basis or understanding than a personal preference. Of course, all journalism is predicated on trust; trust in how the information was obtained, and trust that the information obtained is correct. If a journalist has no trust, he has no audience. By and large, BBC journos have the need for audience trust inculcated into them. It's the cornerstone of BBC journalism. But it doesn't mean to say all BBC journos operate that way all the time, every time. They don't and they probably can't if they want to be seen to be the first to break stories. Other journos on here get lambasted as being unreliable and for making up stories, but only the blindly stupid among journalists do that. Alex Crook has very good sources and contacts and the information he receives he publishes in good faith the same way as Adam Blackmore. Any professional practicing journalist will tell you the most frustrating thing about the trade is that you can never publish everything you know. I say professional and practicing journalist because these days everyone is a journalist - even you. By coming on here, you have become part of the army of citizen journalists that did not exist 15 years ago. Citizen journalists have their sources and contacts the same as the professionals, and the those sources and contacts may not be mutually exclusive. Like anybody else on this board, I have my contacts and sources, and journalists are among them and I hear loads of stuff. But I try and be discreet and discerning in what I give out because I would not want to risk compromising the person who gave it to me. From stuff I had heard in the past, I posted some while ago (18 months? Can't remember) that Les Reed was one of the most despised and dangerous men in football. I was shot down in flames at the time, but it doesn't give me a warm glow of smugness to see that others as now making that assertion. Journalism is not an exact science. It can't be because it relies too heavily on human interaction, and all the risks that brings with it. Because of that, it is nigh-on impossible to quantify success in journalism. People on here deride the red-tops and tabloids as purveyors of lies and untruths. But which papers continue to sell the biggest numbers? (or have the highest hits on their websites if you are going to advance the argument that newspapers are dying). Even in these tough times for papers, The Sun and The Mail (derided on here for being purveyors of lies, etc) continue to rack up big profits. The Guardian (ethical, tried and trusted) has been run at at a loss for years and leaks money as fast as it leaks circulation. Which is the best indicator of journalistic 'success'? Does the British public enjoy being lied to that much that it is prepared to pay for the privilege? Rant over, this is my last post of the day (I think, I'm not good at counting) and I'm off for my dinner.

Why should that be the case more than anybody else? Have you ever considered where he gets most of his inside information from?

And I'm pretty sure that when they are together on England duty, Gerrard has never been under any sort of instructions at all from that nice Brendan Rodgers to whisper quietly in the ears of Lambert and Lallana about what they could possibly get at Liverpool.

Yeah, like any p****y fan has the scope to take the **** out of Saints. How are things going down there? Have they popped along to the hardware shop to get a supply of plastic bags before they can clear the dog crap off their training ground? How are their fund-raising efforts going to persuade the slow of thought to cough up even more money for "shares" before they can put a team together? He must be bricking it that other clubs are falling over themselves to prise Andy Awford away. I could go on, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel. And seriously, if you can't combat ****-taking from him, perhaps you should look for another job.

Is this the scenario? Scene: Tanti Kati und Oncle Rolf’s Swiss Treats and Fancies shop. The bell rings. Enter three men with tight bubble perms, moustaches and wearing garish shellsuits. It is the Scouse Scallies, those loveable rogues who everybody loves because they’ve always got a funny line to joke their way out of hardship and adversity. Scallies: All right! All right! Calm down, youse. Tanti Kati: Guten Morgen mein Herren, und bitte, please keep your hands vere I can see zem. I know vot you Scouse Skellies are like for nicking everysink zat isn’t nailed down. How can ve help you? Scallies: All right! All right! Calm down. It’s our loveable old grannie’s bitrthday and we want to get her something nice. We wuz just wondering what you have got. Tanti Kati: Vell you are in luck mein kleine knooderln. Ve haff plenty on ze shelves at the moment, but you must hurry. Scallies: Eh! We’re from Liverpool, so we like tings dat begin with the letter L. Can we have a look at that Lallana you’ve got there, please? We’re also interested in the Lovren you’ve got. Tanti Kati: Let me just fetch Oncle Rolf. ROLFI! Zere are customers in ze shop. Enter Oncle Rolfi, smiling and beaming: Hi gentlemen. Can I just say that we do not have to sell any of our products. None of the items you see on the shelves are for sale, unless you want to buy them. I love Maple Syrup, me. Scallies: We’re interested in the Lallana for our loveable old grannie’s birthday. Oncle Rolfi: Ah, the Lallana, he might be a bit out of your price range, guys. He comes in at £25m. He’s expensive as we have to give some money back to our Russian buddy Maxim. He will shoot our kneecaps off it we don’t. Scallies: Dat’s a bit more than we wanted to pay. What about the Lovren? Oncle Rolfi: He’ll cost you around £15m. Our goods are all high quality and don’t come cheap. Scallies: Have you got something a bit cheaper. We don’t love our loveable old grannie that much. We’ve got lottery tickets to buy. Oncle Rolfi: We’ve got this Lambert. It’s knocking on a bit, but there’s a good few miles left in it. Like a fine wine, it’s just got better with age. It’s well loved by everyone and we’d be sorry to see it go. We want £9m for it, but seeing as you are loveable Scouse scallies, it’s your for £4m. Scallies: Gee, thanks Oncle Rolfi. Hey, hold on a minute, you’ve dropped something on the floor behind you? Oncle Rolfi bends down behind the counter and when he stands up the Scallies have gone and the shop door is swinging on its hinges. He looks bemused and puzzled. Oncle Rolfi: (shouts at the top of his voice) Tanti Kati! – have you seen the Lambert? It’s disappeared and those Scouse Scallies have left the shop. And it looks as though the Lovren and the Lallana have gone as well. Hold on a minute, they have left £10 on the counter and a note. Tanti Kati (from the back of the shop): Vat does ze note say? Oncle Rolfi: It says; ‘Calm down! Calm down! Thanks, mugs. We’ll be back later for your cruise ship business.’ Tanti Kati: £10 is gut. Get ze boats ready. In the meantime, get some Port ready. Zat nice Portuguese gentleman from London is coming in later.

So who is wrong? English clubs haven't exactly cornered the market in Champions League titles recently, for what is the self-styled best league in the world. We are still a bit insular in this country, not helped by Luddite old-style managers who bleat at the slightest hint of a change to their protected-species status, claiming interference and that they should be left alone to manage. I'm sure you can put names to faces.

Maybe not overtly pro-Cortese, but in the Smith genre, an exercise in muddying pools, wiggling a stick in a wasp's nest, the work of somebody who will give voice to somebody who delights in spoiling and making mischief (not my opinion, but a number of his colleagues who don't like they way he operates and who probably will not be exchanging Christmas cards with him this year). A dirty-bomb piece of journalism. Not designed to create highly visible death or maiming, but will cause extensive harm over a period of time. Of course, there's nothing in his job brief which says he has to write positive things about Saints, or any other club.