CanadaSaint

If we have Clyne and Shaw, and to a lesser extent Ramirez, I fancy our chances of getting something. Perhaps even all three points. But if we lose either of the full backs, and especially if we lose Cork from midfield in order to cover for Clyne's absence, my optimism plummets. The lesser issue is that Corky lacks pace at RB, because City don't quite have the speed on that flank that other teams have; skill in abundance but not so much speed. The bigger issue for me is that Cork and Schneiderlin complement each other so well in midfield, and Davis - though playing quite well recently - is no substitute for either of them. I think we'll need to score three to beat City, though, because it's too easy to get behind Jos and City are very good at those little angled balls.

Great discussion. I'm really enjoying how we're playing, despite the troubling inability to convert dominance into wins. I hope we stick with it, which I'm sure we will. The two angles that trouble me, though, are whether Ramirez can fit within and contribute to this style of game, and the attrition rate that we might encounter. Ramirez might not be suited to high-pressing but he could still contribute with some "killer passes" in the late stages of attacks, and some quick and accurate shooting from the edge of the box. Neither is happening right now but if that starts the draws will become wins. The attrition will come through the sheer physical demands of playing like this and through the yellow cards that this style can produce. Cork and Schneiderlin are super-fit and can sustain it over 90 minutes, but we'll see whether they can sustain it over the rest of the season. Schneiderlin, in particular, must continue to improve his decision-making when it comes to when to "hold" and when to tackle; although he's improved, he has a habit of picking up rather needless yellow cards, and he's a player we can't afford to lose for even one game.

Hands up with this one - I thought they would struggle a bit this year but they've been excellent. I've watched our go-ahead goal half a dozen times from origin, and Schneiderlin ran almost 100 yards to be on the end of that Rodriguez cross. And that was after he'd already covered more ground than anyone else on the pitch. I hate seeing him get unnecessary bookings because we just can't afford to lose him.

A good point that most of us would have taken beforehand, but it was still 2 vital points thrown away. Rodriguez is starting to look worth the money. I'm beginning to think that we spent 12 million on a player that doesn't fit within - and doesn't contribute to - our high-pressing style. Schneiderlin must have run about 105 yards to score that cracker. Shaw is worth a frigging fortune - to us but, unfortunately, also to all of the Big Boys.

I don't understand why MP moves Puncheon away from his best position - wide right, where he teams up well with Clyne and keeps their left side too busy to push forward. He always loses effectiveness when they do that. And I certainly don't blame Yoshida for the goal - it was just one of those things. How often does a guy heading away from goal get that much power and perfect direction on a header? Still very much in this.

The alternative theory is that Pochettino thinks he can get more out of the current group than NA did - by, for example, committing to a playing style and sticking to it, giving some of NA's un-used signings a chance, making sure that everyone understands their role, applying his own motivational style, and so on. He said he'd only sign players that would improve the squad, so he obviously fancies his chances of turning NA-type draws into MP-type wins. If he's right, or if the right kind of player wasn't available, why on earth would signing new players be viewed as a measure of success?

We need a giant banner that says "Adam - Shoot, Shoot, FFS Shoot"

I think you're dead right - especially as he's exhibited cramp issues fairly frequently. But then we go back to the old problems - Fox is a slow, ball-watching space-marker, so Yoshida (and others) have to cover for him, thus creating problems in the middle - including Clyne having to push in, which leaves us far-post-vulnerable. And then we move Punch to the left to occupy United in another attempt to cover for Fox, which costs us a lot of effectiveness on our right side. Well, half-time is Poccetino's first big test, but we do have instant-improvement options on the bench.

Yes he does, because that might be a bit of an oversimplification. It's not just about keeping our talent, although that's very important. It's also about building a production line. We will, in all likelihood, lose Shaw sooner or later because he's clearly a real talent and the Big Boys' money will still be talking for a long time to come, but we need the Matt Targetts to come through as well so that we're still okay even if we lose the Shaws. That is even more challenging, especially when others are trying to catch up with their academies - and probably will.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that. Those legal challenges are always possible but there's no place in the world where 'principles' such as "unbridled free enterprise", "let the market dictate the price" and "let the weak die" rule life the way they do in the States. Any intervention in these concepts, by government or regulatory bodies, is fought "tooth and nail". And yet it still happened. As it must with football.

TK, the sports themselves are less relevant than the fact that the remedies were implemented to rectify exactly the same kind of problems - the "haves" being on a different planet to the "have nots". The equalization arrangements over here evolved over a period of time - it wasn't some blinding flash of brilliant, problem-correcting genius. And they experienced a lot of "push-back" from the "haves", who were quite happy with how things were. The remedies include things such as the draft system (the team finishing last gets first choice of the upcoming talent), revenue equalization (where the high-income teams effectively subsidize the low-income teams), and salary caps (aimed at making it far more difficult for big teams to corner all the top talent and sign players just to keep them away from rivals); I have never seen any suggestion that weaker teams should have an easier schedule. Yes, teams will always find work-arounds but it's getting more and more difficult. In fact, there has been an increasing acceptance that "it's good for the sport". How remedies like that fit into football, where the PL big-boys might well react by threatening to head off and start a European super-league, an option not open to the NA sports, remains to be seen. My "never say never" point about Saints reflects the fact that the measures over here took quite a while to evolve, and football has barely even started. But I do believe that once this process starts and gathers momentum, there will indeed be a levelling of the playing field. That - more than Cortese's vision, skill and financial backing - makes his and Markus's dream far less impossible than some are saying. We can only hope, but I - for one - think football is always about hope.

You make some good points but ending them with that statement diminishes them. I might as well have said that anyone who doesn't buy into the "FFP will make it easier angle" is just a cynic with a negative outlook on life, but that wouldn't be fair or accurate, would it? FFP is not about widening these gaps but about closing them. How it will actually turn out in the case of PL football is anybody's guess, but I've mentioned before that North American sports suffered from exactly the same issues and has managed to level the playing field quite well. Teams that couldn't compete with the "big boys" are winning things. At least one of them is playing in the Superbowl on Sunday, and hockey, baseball and basketball have all managed to achieve greater equality through FFP-type initiatives. I have an open mind on this.

I was never very excited about Coutinho but I've always wanted to see us make a move for Ince. All the more so because Puncheon is still a big question mark - in terms of whether we want to sign him, whether he wants an extension with us, and whether - with his past attitude issues - he'll still perform well without contract expiry on the horizon. And if Reading are in for him I'd be highly p*ssed off if we don't step in at the last minute.

TK, it's because at least two of the top four are spending sums vastly beyond those that they generate through their own size and status. In all likelihood they will always have an advantage but FFP will - potentially significantly - reduce the size of that advantage. That's how I see it, anyway. It's as much about them coming back to us rather than us tying to catch up with them.

It's not out of the question that there is a ton of money set aside, but that it has timing constraints attached to it. I think I'd trust Cortese to handle that side of things a lot better than the financial numb-nuts on this forum, and I include myself in that category.

Yeah, the borrowing thing threw me for a loop, and still does. I'm not sure I buy into the "for tax reasons" rationale, but then I'm not an accountant. I could buy into the "stretch ourselves this year because it becomes much easier next year" rationale, but that is moving into very different territory to where I thought we were.

Well, in my lifetime I've seen Liverpool in (the then) Division 2, Manchester United relegated, Man City light years behind their civic neighbour, Chelsea as everybody's idea of a joke team (including their own fans), and several PL teams playing in non-league football. There's reasons for clichés such as "Never say never".

I don't think Cortese handled it as well as he should have done, but nowhere near as badly as some media folks are suggesting. He's just reaping the dubious rewards of poking sticks in various media eyes a couple of years ago - just what many on here thought would be the result when he did it.

Four reasons why I'm a little more open-minded about what seems like an unachievable goal: 1) We have absolutely no idea how much funding is actually available to us for team and infrastructure development. 2) We're assuming that we have to match demented spendthrifts in order to reach those levels, but financial fair play/equalization arrangements could change that - potentially significantly. That is exactly what has happened in several North American sports. 3) If the idea of us being a top six club is laughable, I would argue that the notion that Swansea and West Brom would challenge for a place in Europe was equally so - for most of the same reasons. They are out-competing teams that spend more and draw more, and that has always been a feature of football. And they are arguably not as well-placed as us - finance-wise, ground-wise or academy-wise. 4) Keeping top-quality academy-produced talent is an equalizer and even a game-changer; it strengthens us in a cost-effective way but also denies the big clubs a source of talent. Of course it's an unlikely dream, very unlikely, but what the hell happened to the notion that football is all about enjoying the ride and dreaming of the destination?

You might want to take your acronym over to meet some of Frank's on here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?42880-Cult-of-Cortese-Terms-for-members You might find a certain biological symmetry that sums up the situation on here.

Inventers of the notion that there is such a thing as a “Cult of Cortese” (CoC) - 1 Full Members of the Sneerers and Demonizers (SaD) club believing that there is such a thing as a “Cult of Cortese” – 3 (includes inventer) Puppy dogs with pending applications for membership in the above club of self-perceived 'intellectuals' - 6 Hero-worshippers who will hear no wrong about their heroes, and will hurl insults at anyone who may see a more balanced picture - 1 Actual subscribers to the Cult of Cortese - 0 Normal people who feel that Cortese has mishandled things and may not be a particularly nice guy, but who also feel that he’s done a good job so far and that “there are two sides to every story”, of which they’ve heard only one – 63,586 (Numbers accurate as at January 27, 2013)

What a division this is. In the space of three games teams can move from relative comfort to the edge of the abyss.

It's sad that a number of people in this saga, whether participants or just sideline-commenters, seem to have a moving target for "principles" based on who is supposed to have exhibited/failed to exhibit them. Frankly, I'd like to bang a lot of heads together.

I said at the weekend that I thought that some of the players had been consulted well in advance of the change - all the more likely because Cortese (and, thus, Reed) wouldn't have any qualms about undercutting the manager if they thought he wasn't up to it. But, unpleasant as it may be, that's a sensible thing to do, especially if you can't afford the change to adversely impact performance at such a critical time. I just get the sense that there might be a bit of a split in the dressing room, with some very sad (and possibly angry) to see Nigel go, and some not at all sad. That's certainly not unusual in this kind of situation but it does throw some spins into the situation. Who fits where is anyone's guess right now. Other than with Morgan. He seems buoyed by the change, and almost seems to have become the Cortese-approved spokesman for the players. Correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be doing a lot more talking to the media than he has before, and I can't see that being allowed to happen unless it's part of "the plan".

But also, possibly, because the up-tempo/high-pressing style that Pochettino favours is physically very demanding, so the ability to rotate in midfield without losing too much quality is very important.