shurlock

Must have missed the Davos breakout session on organisational agility in an age of disruption. #ralphyalloverit

Fair enough - was at the game, so didn't see the gash up close and he didn't seem to be running impeded after he came back on.

Excellent first half, always looking up. However, he struggled second half as United were able to drive much more through the heart of our midfield. The Romeu sub couldnt come soon enough at which point they became much more one-dimensional again, restricted to the flanks through the square-pegs-in-round-holes wingbacks.

No. Luke Shaw was one of, if not their best player before he got injured. He's better than Bertrand with bags more potential and is clearly United's long-term option for the position. Things may change if Shaw doesn't recover fully but they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

Cortese trying to destabilise the club, innit.

I just thought in the future when you win William Hill Sports Book of the Year and give your acceptance speech, Crooksy will be at the top of your list of thank yous for giving you your big break in journalism.

Strongarm, is that the best defense you can provide for your mentor and guide?

Did Dig Dig say 'affect' As a matter of fact, these revenue tables say nothing about the size of our budget. Of course, in principle, healthy revenues mean we can afford a bigger budget which makes Koeman's point all the more striking, if true,.

Its more than that. Its the distribution of revenue that matters. After Spurs, there's a nearly £90m drop off to the next side -Newcastle; whereas only £40m separates newcastle and the remaining prem clubs, including us. Needless to say distances get even larger the further up you go -the gap between Man U and the nonelite clubs (i.e. newcastle to west brom, the lowest listed club) is close to £350m. None of which is particularly surprising, though it appears MLG is none the wiser.

??? Factually, it neither proves nor disproves it, though surely healthy revenue (and Deloitte's figures exclude transfer fees) means we can afford a bigger budget.

This doesn't follow. Under uncertainty of any kind -for instance, knowing where wages will stabilise with the new TV money- it's just as easy to overshoot; indeed against a backdrop of rising footballers wages, the risks of overshooting are even greater. The rational response, especially where an action is binding and irreversible -and footballers wages soon become reference points for others both at a market and club level- is often to wait and see (see real options theory). Basically we bought Austin because we can afford him and some of the wage is absorbed by the low fee we paid QPR -not because we think we know where wages are going to be in the dim future and we can perfectly time or position our offer. Don't be such a try-hard pal. Btw, you never did get back to me on Shane Long where you embarrassed yourself and shat the bed. But apology accepted anyway - as you like to remind me, I'm on your ignore list.

Half expecting the Clintons to come storming in -Bill to loosen his tie, throw off his jacket and smash Trump over the head with his saxophone- and the four to get it on camp WWE-stylee. Desperately farcical stuff.

Davo - you're comparing apples and swedish meatballs.

#bigman

Herbal - you're ITK and all that, so you'll know whether anyone has done any work on the predictive ability of opinion polls done so early in the electoral cycle. My guess: I think you have more chance of stabbing your eye out with a needle you found in the proverbial haystack than trying to find a signal in all that noise.

There is a 'rational' explanation. QPR friends tell me that they were happy to keep Austin for another season, even if it meant potentially seeing go for free in the summer. In effect, his goals represented their best chance of securing promotion and premiership lucre. And if QPR did go up, its quite possible he would have signed another contract. Its a gamble that hasn't paid off -it doesn't look like they'll even make the playoffs- but you cant say its bad business per se.

We know nothing of the sort. FWIW Reid took himself out of contention and signed a new contract well before Spurs/Arsenal made the aforementioned signings.

Not where I am it is. But let's see if Vic is still here in the summer, shall we, before you start trumpeting that one. Did I say no player says top four than Winston Reid? You're making things up again; however, I did say he has the quality to move to a bigger club. But perhaps I'm underselling him:

No problem. I agree to some extent. I certainly don't think his decline would have been as sharp as it has subsequently been at Liverpool/WBA, though I do think we had seen the best of him -and the club's decision to entertain offers was largely justified. With the Austin signing, I'm now less opposed to selling Pelle, though preferably that'll be at the end of the season once we've had a chance to see how Austin settles in and whether we can play to his strengths.

Living in the capital, the speculation around Winston Reid and a move to Arsenal or Spurs has been red-hot for the last couple of seasons, more than most players. But hey, keeping plugging away with the utterly and wonderfully nonfalsifiable logic that because the player didn't leave there was never any real interest in him to begin with.

Garth covering himself in glory again, I see

You mean West Ham BOTH keeping key players (eg Reid) AND strengthening the team? As ever, clear as mud, pal.

Also don't forget Austin and Jrod combined very well for Burnley -of course, its a big if whether Jrod recovers fitness and form.

You're on the wrong thread pal. This isn't the Clasie thread. We're talking about two touch, square ball JWP.

WBA supporters, whatever existed of them, were on the money.