shurlock

Spurs don't deserve him -awful support, just a few chavvy chromosomes removed from Chelsea fans and a bit more ethnically diverse than the joey essexes down the Boleyn. If it aint flashy or new, theyre not interested. Forget that's why they've been so s**t since Arry left. What has FdB achieved outside a very poor domestic league in European competitions? Arguably he's more of a gamble than MP.

West Ham (h), Fulham (h), Liverpool (h), Everton (h), Man City (a), Sunderland (a), Chelsea (a), Spurs (h), Spurs (a), Swansea (h).

Been reliable in the past? Can't see it myself.

Note you're talking to the same mong who has argued that MP isn't better than Adkins - he's just been lucky to have a better squad at his disposal.

How can you compete with someone for whom cutting grass is a labour of love? Seriously...

Surely there are other costs in addition to these?

Aguero and Costa had buyout clauses - puts a lid on what they could fetch in a truly open and insane market.

In part because that's the picture the club presented to media. The main issue is how much the board is still sticking to this line. For all we know, it might have been a convenient card to play to smear Cortese and put clear blue water between it and the past. If it served this purpose, it may little bearing on its plans and ambitions for the future. Or perhaps, the board still feels that even with these figures a period of retrenchment is necessary -the additional risk is not worth the additional return. Hopefully its the former not the latter -because while we're perhaps punching below our weight, we're certainly not recklessly managed.

Only strange if you are a dinlow enough to lap up RK's corporate babble.

Totally agree - I think we're on the cusp of something and 56 points arguably understates how we performed over the season. And with the side's youth, we're only going to get better. But as you say, keeping the squad together and if that's not possible (i) minimising departures (ii) securing a decent transfer budget and (iii) spending wisely -to cover not only the loss of key players but also gaping holes that were evident in the second half of the season are big, big IFs. Unless all three conditions are met, things could get difficult very quickly.

True, though that 10+ year record included a string of 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th finishes - I don't quite see that happening under MP without -and perhaps even with- financial commitment from the board.

All of which assumes he can continue to be a success by staying with us - what happens if this season is as good as it gets? How will prospective employers view his record if the club tails off - a one season wonder? Note I don't think we've peaked and there's alot more than can be achieved within our constraints -just that the board might not see it that way. With Spurs, there's massive upside (and downside); with us, in the absence of financial commitments, there's certainly job security -but few ways to enhance a reputation.

Evens is pretty stingy - got to be at least 2-1 or 6-4.

Any more info? Credible source? How much would you put on it being true?

Who's we? The collective singular?

Possibly, though Sherwood was always deadman walking and Harry's style of attacking football, built on individuals, is very different from MP's more disciplined and team-based approach. Would love them to go for FDB - Spurs fans are a few chav chromosomes removed from Chelsea fans and flock to anything new and flashy. The main reason they've failed -from managers to players- is lack of prem experience -something which makes MP an intriguing choice. But if they want to take the same risks as in the past, happy for them to fill their boots.

Living in Spurs country, can't see Moyes as manager whatsoever.

AVB is known for a high pressing game and a lot of signings were brought in to execute that strategy, though AVB deployed it inconsistently. Perhaps Levy feels that MP who's had much more success with the pressing game, can get the best out of those signings. Would certainly save him having to tear things up and start over.

And how many players can we afford to lose? One of or both Lallana and Shaw? Any others? I'd think we could lose one of them, though it would be v.hard to lose/replace both. I think we could cope with the loss of Morgan as Victor and Cork are ready to step up.

Pretty much my assessment - above all, don't think its unrealistic or financially irresponsible. Question how many players can we afford to lose before it starts going pear-shaped, mindful the risks of plugging gaps in the transfer market and the loss of team chemistry. 1,2,3?

He behaved like a disruptive little **** during the WC playoffs.

Cheers

Has Deschamps just named a list of 30 which will then be whittled down or has he cut straight to the chase and named the 23+7. Thought Hodgson's way was very much the exception? Guess I'm missing something.

What about your 'vision' you set out a few months ago when discussing our realistic targets for the summer window. Keeping as much of the squad together, selling Osvaldo and possibly Ramirez and pooling those proceeds with a kitty of £20m or so. At the time, you didn't think it was unrealistic. Have no doubt that some players will want to leave -though none are begging to leave- but I think it could be managed in a way that avoids any snowball effect. With a more explicit plan, I also think we could keep hold the likes of Shaw for another couple of seasons. Despite their desire to see Shaw play for them, the united mongboards are pretty clear why the lad might want to stay for a little longer. The same goes for the other players under 25. Lallana's the exception as he's reaching an age where it's increasingly now or never. However time is on the side of the rest of the squad. Who knows with incremental improvement each season, perhaps by the time the others reach the crossroads Lallana has, we might be a more attractive proposition -maybe not for the world beaters like Shaw but players of the calibre of Lovren/Morgan etc.