shurlock

John Burridge - Hummel era FFS

Ashley Young was left wing back -Blackett, Smalling, Jones were the three CBs. Rojo will probably come in for Blackett.

The reports of Jrod and Morgan possibly leaving came from Simon Peach and the BBC IIRC - so as far as reports/speculation go, they're a pretty safe pair of hands. The game isn't played on paper -am happy to bet that the majority of the players we signed or loaned don't have better seasons than the ones we replaced (I'll even give you Osvaldo). That's two players who made the PFA team of the year for starters -of course, should Bertrand do the unlikely, he probably won't be here next season. Also wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that Gardos has a less impressive season than Chambers at CB - never mind Lovren. The debate may have been done to death; but you still don't understand it. Just because we sold players for a premium doesn't mean we couldn't have played our hand more smartly. Even in a crazy market, there is a big difference between having some money and sitting on nearly a £100m cashpile and clubs knowing you have to replace half your side as a matter of necessity. You also fail to address the fact that selling players in the manner we did possibly made it harder to secure our top targets -or in your cryptic words, bring in 'equivalent players'. All the money in the world makes f**k all difference if the club is perceived as going in the wrong direction. Hopefully, that perception is beginning to change; but things could have been handled so much better.

Not saying the club succumbed to fan pressure (though there is no doubt the media backlash took everyone by surprise and credible reports suggested we were negotiating deals for Morgan/Jrod); what I am saying is that every sale -right down to that of Chambers- was presented as an inevitability, the soccerball equivalent of the invasion of the bodysnatchers. Lets be clear: the point isn't hat we could have kept everyone; but the trickle didn't have to turn into a quasi-flood. You're implicitly assuming that it was now or never in terms of the inflated fees that we commanded. Rubbish: with the possible exception of Lallana, the value of those players would have held up just fine. Not to worry: your response is that they have been replaced with players of equal or better ability. A complete leap of faith that will take something pretty outstanding to come true. Either way, and more important IMO, the succession planning was a shambles. Had replacements been lined up, we might have been able to avoid the image of a club in crisis, albeit one that was cash-rich. Not only did this make it difficult to attract better players, forcing us to look further down our wishlist; but also enabled other clubs to hold us to ransom. The time lost from our back-to-front planning was also inflationary in that sides like Hull wanted to be compensated for losing players days before the start of the season. All the mockery and self-congratulation over the asset-stripping-that-never-was is a red herring -it was only ever a bizarre, minority position. Of course, it is understandable. It serves a purpose -it usefully deflects attention from being wrong on the points of substance.

If we keep Morgan, it'll certainly show up those divs who led us to believe that we were utterly powerless to resist offers from the bigger clubs. Now they are taking the moral high ground and want an apology for being wrong. One wonders what might have been had the board shown more fight or picked up on the mood of supporters earlier. Either way, the sequencing of our transfer strategy -once the decision was to sell players, regardless how many- has left alot to be desired.

Could have been to double up on Sturridge who drifted out to the right touch line quite a bit. Saying that, Tadic is naturally a left winger, even if he can play on both sides.

Agree that Boruc initially arrived out of shape; though Adkins also stuck by his keepers. It took him a long time to wield the axe on Gazza before returning to KD and only after he flapped and flailed up Stoke opting again for Boruc (Arsenal home) - by which time he had been at the club 3-4 months and in shape. Ultimately it's the manager's prerogative to pick the team he wants while living with the consequences -Boruc's reaction is unfortunate but not unforeseeable. Not sure what this has to do with KD/Gazza example - except to say if Boruc had been playing as badly as they had been, I doubt he would have objected in the same way to relinquishing the no.1 spot.

They're hopelessly different situations. KD and Gazza had both made howlers prior to Boruc joining. Do you remember the 6-1 up at Arsenal? Boruc, by contrast, hadn't done anything wrong - indeed he finished last season in some of his best form. And Boruc didn't walk straight into the first team - he had to wait a month or so. You'll get this analogy business right, one day.

???

Curious to know -what was the last book you read?

How much of that is genuinely racial and how much is economic that is then racialised?

Thanks for making my point -that migration had little to do with Labour electoral advantage -indeed parts of the party actually saw it as damaging to its electoral interests and core working class vote. Rather many saw diversity as an end in itself, though that isn't strictly true. Can say for a fact that many in the party bought into the economic benefits of liberalisation and freedom of movement as did many conservatives.

Absolute mongboard gold - having read this, a small part of my brain has disappeared forever. Where is the evidence that most immigrants don't want to integrate? How are immigration and multiculturalism one and the same thing? If its all an electoral ruse, why has Labour supported immigration from Eastern Europe, even though those coming to work here cannot vote? I could go on but I feel my brain hemorrhaging, the more I respond your utterly misguided tosh.

What did Jamie Carragher say about Cech on Monday Night Football - he would think less of any keeper who was happy with their lot on the bench. Rather, anyone with an ounce of talent and ambition would be pushing hard for a move.

Excellent post.

Exactly. Using your same patronising logic, guess you never actually set step into a stadium. Watching football live is nothing like watching it live on TV or beancounting goals. You don't get the same sense of urgency, panic and space opening up when a player decides to be direct and run at the opposition. Townsend is an extremely blunt instrument; but he puts defences on the back foot and we don't really an option like that. Other domestic players like Redmond and McManaman offer a similar threat, though don't seem to induce the same nervousness in defences. Just as I would have avoided Long, I would stay clear of Townsend at the price quoted; but I'll be less p i$$ed off with this deal -if it goes through- than with the Long one.

Feels is their best album, though Alvin Row is singularly their best song.

Most independent TV producers are both dicks and c**ts.

You should start a new thread like the good, old days. Does the leash extend that far?

Just surprised that Jeff and Glasgow's six fingered, web-footed friends and family know how to use Twitter. 40% sell-on as if that wouldn't be reported.

In theory, every talented player would have one - agents don't need to know who has or does not have one to advance their clients interests as best they can; yet out of all the talented players and youngsters that have gone through the prem, only a handful of them are known to have them in the last few years -and none are youngsters, not surprising since they don't have the bargaining power and/or valuing them is far too risky. Despite this, despite what the club said, despite what the club had to gain from disclosing the existence of a release clause, despite the media's incentives to report such information, you think Chambers had one. Have had this discussion elsewhere -its getting boring- will refer you to that. Try not to stink up the place, Glasgow

Probably Arsenal's best player tonight - only Sanchez is the other contender. First mistake just now.

Was both Eriksen and Lamela -but esp Lamela.

Why, Walt J? If it is in the club's interest to publicise one release clause, it would have been in its interests to publicise all them - would have shown them to be even more sympathetic prisoners of circumstance. Of course, it doesnt explain why Lovren and Lallana had to throw a strop to get their moves; nor does it explain the negotiations that took place. If a release clause existed, it would have been impossible for us to hold out for a higher fee, as was claimed we did with the Lallana and Shaw deals. The club made its position clear: it would have been an 'insane risk' to keep wantaway players. Need to look no further that for a motive or rationale.

That makes no sense at all, Walt Jr.