shurlock

Coz the world is one long episode of the Thick of It where leaking and smearing are rife and the only way to get things done. Perhaps Lallana is being defended, albeit behind closed doors rather than the club sullying itself in a big media circus. Bit tinpot if you ask me. Been taking night classes at the Harry Redknapp school of media management along with your excellent training at the Stoke City school of football finance?

From someone whose credibility depends almost entirely on the perception that they're acting impartially and professionally. Yeh right.

Pi $$ easy draws all round for prem teams.

Dan Harding on for Forest

Why Art - what do you use pipes for?

Can't stand the luck love-in. No way would have the chiefs lost that had Charles, Houston, Avery and Flowers -just to name a few- not got injured.

Why- they're going to ref impartially and professionally

If Davis was anonymous, I guess JWP was the invisible man.

Part of the weasel's modus operandi. If he let's something contentious go, he's either made the correct or enjoys the get out of jail free card from from some talentless, stone age former footballer claiming that he "let's the game flow and that's what everyone wants to see".

Going, going...

Is this the "thinking" mboarder's man walked on the moon thread?

So the other references to cup finals in this thread are also missing the point? Poor misunderstood chap. The whole debate whether we prioritise the cup or the league by putting out a full-strength team given the respective chances of winning 'something' has nothing to do with this thread. Nothing whatsoever Thanks for clarifying - clear as mud, pal.

Rather amusing choice presented here. Akin to being asked whether you would want to win the lottery or a gift-wrapped turd from the OP (note supply exceeds demand). The bookies have us at 25/1 to win the cup and 2/5 to finish in the top 8. Because compared to finishing 8th, winning the cup is definitely going to happen. Really.

This'll be dealt with in a classic English way. Clattenberg isn't being formally sanctioned and is publicly vindicated but he'll be gently steered away from our fixtures in the future. Everyone's a winner.

Edit

Interesting observation - possibly the economics dictate that clubs invest in the development of forward-minded players given they command greater transfer fees? As you say, many of our fullbacks originally started as midfielders. Or possibly there's been an assumption that CBs don't need to be coached to the same level as other positions given a (misguided) belief that physical rather than technical ability determines a good CB.

The market value of a squad is an useful but crude indicator. First it tends to discount the value of younger players who have no ready market value (something which probably counts against a teams built around youth). Second while having a deep squad beyond the first XI is vital, it is questionable whether simply adding up the entire value of the squad of 25 -a fair number of whom will play little or no role during the course of a season- says much about the overall ability to compete.

You really don't understand the rather basic difference between gross and net spend do you. My point is that we are playing catchup and overhauling a championship squad (noted at the outset), so we will be spending disproportionately more than others but that over time the amounts needed to compete will come down in line with others spending levels. And that those amounts aren't anywhere near the the £30-40m (net) you suggest we will need to maintain indefinitely. Forever and ever. And ever.

"Net spend is only relevant if we are talking about balancing the books" - did they teach you that at the Stoke City school of finance. A mongboard classic for the ages. Tell me how selling Torres to buy Suarez and Carroll worked again? Where did I say that we would reach a point where we wouldn't have to strengthen at all? Does not buying Lovren or Wanyama mean that there are two less holes to plug for the foreseeable future mindful that there will always be churn and attrition in a squad?

That's the crux of the issue IMO, though am still unclear what a successful transfer policy looks like (as opposed to the aspirational strawman one invoked by some where a club gets it right 100% of the time). Would be surprised if the most successful clubs in the transfer market get it right 60-70% of the time.

On net transfers it is - obviously this excludes wages which understate the outlays needed to compete with the big boys. But it's hardly like we're paying peanuts to Ramirez, Osvaldo, Wanyama et al either. If a club is spending a bundle on transfers, in most cases it's also walking the talk on wages. Everyone largely agrees that trying to integrate too many new faces in too short a time is a recipe for disaster. So flushing out the deadwood of a championship squad will take one or two more windows. It's also generally agreed that there is a premium to buying in January, so it becomes harder to compress this time frame as opposed to waiting till the summer. The last thing that can be said is that we're trying to do things on the cheap - a much more valid criticism is whether we're getting a decent return on our investment. Obviously you can take that up elsewhere...

Well our current transfer spending, if extrapolated over the next few years, would suggest we are. Probably unsustainable but even if we rein it back to £15m a year (net) over the next 2-3 years, it would still put us up there with the big boys. Obviously, we could be spunking that money on flops and busts but the ambition is there which is the essence of your challenge.

One and a half seasons in and we're comfortably top half. You're more deluded than the clappers - they're hoping for European football; you're positively demanding it now, now, now.

"Promising" is the favourite word of those in denial about the quality and ability of our young players to make it.

Agree totally...as well as include other sources of revenue.