£48m has bought good depth, but what about the balance and cohesion?

[BringBack_leGin]

But that money was not available to buy players other than Defoe and Keane.

I'm sure Levy would explain it all infinitely better than I can if he could be bothered.

I'll have a stab at it:

One asset in a business is Cash. This can be used to buy another asset, which in our case is players.

Another kind of asset is Debt from Debtor's, i.e the money owed to us by others, in this case Liverpool and Portsmouth.

On a Balance sheet, both are positive and increase the final total.

In this case, because a lot of Cash has been directed at bringing in players already, there might not have been much of that Asset remaining, even though we are in a strong financial position. However, the Debt owed has been used to bring in players instead, because by writing it off, we decrease this asset in the cash and in return receive two new assets, Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane.

This is a shrewd way to do things, because the two clubs we were dealing with, especially Portmouth, may not have been able to meet the payment of their debt because of their well publicised financial difficulties. As a result, if the worst happened and it all went tits up at those clubs, we'd have to write off the money they owed as Bad Debt, which means we would never get it and our Profit and Loss account would have a hefty negative on it. This way, receiving Player's, a more stable asset than Debt, instead of Cash, means that even if we have not received Cash from them, our Balance sheet will show that our Asset's have not gone down at all, because the Asset of Debtor's Debts has been replaced with the Asset of Player's, which I think would count plant and machinery for these purposes.

 

[sloth]

Damn, busy day in the office, I'm itching to get stuck in but will have to save it for later

 

[Kendall]

But that money was not available to buy players other than Defoe and Keane.

I'm sure Levy would explain it all infinitely better than I can if he could be bothered.

How can you be sure? I'm sure if we needed liquidity in the form of a loan from ENIC there would've been no issue, as the money expected from Portsmouth/Liverpool would soon cover it.

 

[Kendall]

I'll have a stab at it:

One asset in a business is Cash. This can be used to buy another asset, which in our case is players.

Another kind of asset is Debt from Debtor's, i.e the money owed to us by others, in this case Liverpool and Portsmouth.

On a Balance sheet, both are positive and increase the final total.

In this case, because a lot of Cash has been directed at bringing in players already, there might not have been much of that Asset remaining, even though we are in a strong financial position. However, the Debt owed has been used to bring in players instead, because by writing it off, we decrease this asset in the cash and in return receive two new assets, Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane.

This is a shrewd way to do things, because the two clubs we were dealing with, especially Portmouth, may not have been able to meet the payment of their debt because of their well publicised financial difficulties. As a result, if the worst happened and it all went tits up at those clubs, we'd have to write off the money they owed as Bad Debt, which means we would never get it and our Profit and Loss account would have a hefty negative on it. This way, receiving Player's, a more stable asset than Debt, instead of Cash, means that even if we have not received Cash from them, our Balance sheet will show that our Asset's have not gone down at all, because the Asset of Debtor's Debts has been replaced with the Asset of Player's, which I think would count plant and machinery for these purposes.

I don't believe this would ever have happened.

 

[leetotty]

Agree with many of the positive comments, can't really see a lot of negatives with what we bought apart form the sheer surprise that we brought in 3 ex-players that in December I wouldn't have perceived.

Defoe for goals and a cutting edge makes sense and if he plays and stays fit will surely score 15-20 goals per season.

Cudicini is a very good deal although his lack of cames over the past 4 years may be an issue for us.

Palacios is interesting. What sort of midfielder will he be?

Keane is all about spirit, but I am worried that we will see Keane coming deep trying to be the playmaker which to me he is clearly not.

The chimbonda one makes sense to me as i think Corluka offers very little going forward and I think his best performances have been at CB. I would be very surprised if he played CM due to palacios,zokora,jenas proving more dynamism in the midfield which i think is what arry wants.

If we assume that we could have only of bought the players that did actually move in January, I don't think we missed out on anything special..

1. Quaresma - has been really bad since being at Inter. Must be questions marks over his mental attitude, 2nd bad period when happened to be playing for lareg clubs. When at barca was poor too.
2. Heskey - Will do well at Villa and was a possibility, but after reading comments by Sherwood and Redknapp I suspect we don't need another quiet player. We need someone who can rile the troops.
3. Bellamy/Bridge - Couldn't compete with Manc monies. Plus WHU didn;t want to sell to us.
4. Nzogbia - The player I suspected after the failed downing bid we might go for. But question marks over attitude.
5. AA - Not a chance really when Ar$e showed their interest. CL or relegation...

Of the other players that signed for prem clubs, nothing of any interest either not proven, fitness issues or just no better than what we have.

Giles Barnes
Kevin Nolan
Diouf
Ben Watson
Bullard
Marlon King
James Beattie
Mido

I would have had a closer look at Nzogbia to push that left side more, but I fancy Modric will play more on the left in thew second half of the season and surely Bale will show some improvement soon...

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I don't believe this would ever have happened.

Probably not, but Pompy had actual failed to meet two payments owed to us recently, both of which were delayed. If that trend continues, under the Insolvency Act we could have applied to have them wound up, though I doubt it would ever have reached that stage.

Anyway, fact is that physical assets such as players are generally much more stable than assets such as debtors, which have far more liquidity.

 

[SpurSince57]

How can you be sure? I'm sure if we needed liquidity in the form of a loan from ENIC there would've been no issue, as the money expected from Portsmouth/Liverpool would soon cover it.

This from a recent study quoted in the Guardian:

A press release arrived at the Guardian this morning from Equifax, a financial company. They mark companies out of 100 on their credit rating, and the lower the score, the more likely a business is predicted to default on payments. At the top of the scale are Arsenal and Manchester United, both in the 90s. Spurs are on 65. At the bottom, nine clubs are marked 10 or less, including Chelsea. Hull City have one point out of 100. Pompey? Zero, with an asterisk. "*No accounts filed fo Portsmouth Football Club at Companies House, so automatically given an insolvency rating."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...fratton-park-harry-redknapp-tottenham-hotspur

As one of the outstanding payments was for Mendes, from three years ago, and the final instalment had reportedly already been defaulted upon, I'd say there was a very fair chance of us being left whistling for our £7m. If the situation at Liverpool is altogether less parlous, Statler and Waldorf are scrabbling around to find money to service their debt, and Benitez (assuming he's still there) is unlikely to have much of a transfer budget this summer.

If we had wanted that £17m for other players we would have had to borrow it (or pull it out of the piggy bank) against potentially bad debts. It's all very well for you to say you don't believe this would have happened, but in the present financial climate the possibility of clubs like Portsmouth going to the wall is all too real—certainly too real for a businessman as astute as Levy to take a risk on. Arsenal are publicly stating that they will have major difficulties if they fail to get CL football next season, and they're one of the most efficiently run clubs.

 

[sloth]

It is plain and simple. Around £17m was money we hadn't received, and in Pompey's case, might never have received. Therefore, we didn't have it to spend on anyone else. You're making it sound as if it was £48m straight out of the bank.

And, yes, I believe it will be money well spent. Redknapp knows what he's doing, which is a great deal more than can be said of his late and deeply-unlamented predecessor.

The bad credit argument is ridiculous. We didn't sign Defoe from Pompey just in case they couldn't pay us back and it's patently absurd to imply this should be a consideration (excuse the strong terms but frankly sometimes they're deserved). But lets leave the realms of reality for a moment and follow the hypothesis through to it's conclusion. Were Pompey's financial's straits a consideration it would have had to get a hell of a lot worse before we'd worry about their debt to us, for one thing the reason they're in a pickle is because they've spent too much on players, those assets would be sold and we would not only get our money back but get first dibs on many of them because of the money owed us. But now I'm getting side-tracked.

Lets put aside the outlandish ifs and buts and focus on what is reality, we bought Jemaine Defoe for around £15m and we bought Robbie Keane for about the same. That's £30m the pair. Had we bought Craig Bellamy and Kenwyne Jones instead for the same amount they would have not had a different affect on our balance sheet. It is irrelevant (unless we have a credit issue which we clearly don't (Bring_Back's point); look at last annual report) where the credit promises come from (providing they're creditable, (excuse the clumsy language)) and where they are spent. If this is not the case then the whole transfer system is bankrupt and we might as well give up now.

In short, we had £30m to spend and spent it. That other clubs used it to wipe out a proportion of their debt to us is irrelevant. £30m, is £30m, is £30m and we have splurged it on two players who when fit can't play together. If Harry says otherwise then he's fooling himself and all the more so after his much publicised mocking of the Bent/Pav purchases. But most of us know this to be the case even if some are trying desperately to screw up their eyes and pretend otherwise. The rest of the money was spent on another short term shoring up exercise and the only dosh spent with the longer term in mind was on Palacious, but even there we've held onto midfielders we'd have been better off selling.

 

[Coyboy]

The bad credit argument is ridiculous. We didn't sign Defoe from Pompey just in case they couldn't pay us back and it's patently absurd to imply this should be a consideration (excuse the strong terms but frankly sometimes they're deserved). But lets leave the realms of reality for a moment and follow the hypothesis through to it's conclusion. Were Pompey's financial's straits a consideration it would have had to get a hell of a lot worse before we'd worry about their debt to us, for one thing the reason they're in a pickle is because they've spent too much on players, those assets would be sold and we would not only get our money back but get first dibs on many of them because of the money owed us. But now I'm getting side-tracked.

Lets put aside the outlandish ifs and buts and focus on what is reality, we bought Jemaine Defoe for around £15m and we bought Robbie Keane for about the same. That's £30m the pair. Had we bought Craig Bellamy and Kenwyne Jones instead for the same amount they would have not had a different affect on our balance sheet. It is irrelevant (unless we have a credit issue which we clearly don't (Bring_Back's point); look at last annual report) where the credit promises come from (providing they're creditable, (excuse the clumsy language)) and where they are spent. If this is not the case then the whole transfer system is bankrupt and we might as well give up now.

In short, we had £30m to spend and spent it. That other clubs used it to wipe out a proportion of their debt to us is irrelevant. £30m, is £30m, is £30m and we have splurged it on two players who when fit can't play together. If Harry says otherwise then he's fooling himself and all the more so after his much publicised mocking of the Bent/Pav purchases. But most of us know this to be the case even if some are trying desperately to screw up their eyes and pretend otherwise. The rest of the money was spent on another short term shoring up exercise and the only dosh spent with the longer term in mind was on Palacious, but even there we've held onto midfielders we'd have been better off selling.

The fundamental flaws in your argument, notwithstanding the financial factor, is you refusal to recognise that Keane and Defoe can and could (in the imperfect and conditional tense) play together and that we needed depthn and so signing players to provide that depth and versatility was sound.

Buying new players and selling good players we already have sounds an awful like what we did in the summer and to do it in January is madness when we are fighting relegation. Did you look at the back of the programmes at the beginning of the season?

If you are going to just flatly ignore the positive traits that Keane, Defoe (indiviudally and collectively) and Chimbonda will bring us, and have brought us, then fine but you are being short-sighted in the extreme. It's not as if we have bought four thirty five year old Nigel Quashies.

 

[SpurSince57]

The bad credit argument is ridiculous. We didn't sign Defoe from Pompey just in case they couldn't pay us back and it's patently absurd to imply this should be a consideration (excuse the strong terms but frankly sometimes they're deserved). But lets leave the realms of reality for a moment and follow the hypothesis through to it's conclusion. Were Pompey's financial's straits a consideration it would have had to get a hell of a lot worse before we'd worry about their debt to us, for one thing the reason they're in a pickle is because they've spent too much on players, those assets would be sold and we would not only get our money back but get first dibs on many of them because of the money owed us. But now I'm getting side-tracked.

Lets put aside the outlandish ifs and buts and focus on what is reality, we bought Jemaine Defoe for around £15m and we bought Robbie Keane for about the same. That's £30m the pair. Had we bought Craig Bellamy and Kenwyne Jones instead for the same amount they would have not had a different affect on our balance sheet. It is irrelevant (unless we have a credit issue which we clearly don't (Bring_Back's point); look at last annual report) where the credit promises come from (providing they're creditable, (excuse the clumsy language)) and where they are spent. If this is not the case then the whole transfer system is bankrupt and we might as well give up now.

In short, we had £30m to spend and spent it. That other clubs used it to wipe out a proportion of their debt to us is irrelevant. £30m, is £30m, is £30m and we have splurged it on two players who when fit can't play together. If Harry says otherwise then he's fooling himself and all the more so after his much publicised mocking of the Bent/Pav purchases. But most of us know this to be the case even if some are trying desperately to screw up their eyes and pretend otherwise. The rest of the money was spent on another short term shoring up exercise and the only dosh spent with the longer term in mind was on Palacious, but even there we've held onto midfielders we'd have been better off selling.

Eny fule kno that. Writing off £7m that we certainly weren't going to see in a hurry (and in a worst-case scenario not at all) simply made it a better proposition.

As for Keane and Defoe not being able to play together, experience suggests they can't, at least on a regular basis. That, however, is irrelevant right now and quite possibly until next season. We were suddenly down to two front-line strikers and Campbell. Can you name a better alternative than Keane that we could have got at such short notice? £20m+ on Rocket Roque, perhaps? It's well worth writing off a £10m IOU to have Keane back—not to mention the hilarity that will ensue if something happens to Torres and Liverpool bomb out of the CL and the top four. Collapse of Stout Spanish Waiter. Blubbing Scousers. Yes, definitely worth every penny.

How is Chimbonda a short-term measure? Is he going to be applying for free false teeth and a bus pass at the end of the season? Clearly, we didn't sign him for the sake of kicks and high spirits. Zok is a useful occasional RB, with the emphasis on 'occasional'. Harry clearly doesn't think Gunter's quite ready yet. Neither did Ramos. Hutton's injured most of the time and not all that good when he isn't—if you're complaining about wastes of money, maybe you should start with him. If Ramos didn't think Chimbo was much cop at RB, exactly what was he doing playing him at LB for half the season? Anyone who saw Chimbo play there against Sevilla could have told him this was not a Good Idea. Oh, hold on, Ramos did see him play there against Sevilla.

 

[sloth]

I know it doesn't but I think anaphora is a good rhetorical tool. I don't think it was short term getting cover for Corluka whatsoever. I think it was quite forward looking because we don't know what's up with Hutton's fitness whenever he returns and we certainly don't know what's up with King's fitness so long term I think, as I said, that Corluka could be a good King replacement. Rednapp may not think so and may have only played them out of obligation but that may have been because Woodgate (whose long term fitness is uncertain also) has been ok fitness-wise.

I don't think we can rely on Gunter or Zokora filling in for the rest of the season were Corluka to get injured or have to play centre back. Zokora is good there but needed in the centre of the pitch and Gunter is too unproven to rely on in our circumstances. It is kind of like saying we don't need another striker because we have Campbell. He has played only in the Championship and a handful of games in the the top flight.

I take your point about King, Woodgate and Hutton's injury records but Corluka seems to be fairly injury free and on the bench we had a decent understudy in Gunter, plus Zokora who can also ably fill in when required. When Hutton comes back in the summer we'll have four RBs and three 1st choicers, it's a recipe for discontent in the squad. Add to that Chimbo's clear deficiencies and I question Harry's decision to buy him, especially when I suspect most Spurs fans have seen a hell of a lot more of Chimbo than harry has.

I don't understand what you mean regarding my other reasons. Of course they take into account the team. Chimbonda can help out the team by playing across the defence. Chimbonda can help out the team by getting forward down the right wing as he did Sunday. Chimbonda can help out the team because he is experienced. This notion of him as a disruption or inimical to team spirit is perhaps of result of the CC final or just hot air.

This was the bit i was referring to: we signed him because he was available, cheap, experienced and was part of a successful, fifth finishing, CC winning team. when I wrote "Your other reasons don't take into account the team as it is or the cost of buying a player like Chimbo." and what I meant was "Cheap" is a relative term and being part of a winning team says nothing of your contribution to it. But over all i think Chimbo can do a job in the short-term I'm just worried about the long term affect of his signing and the squandering of cash will have on the team.

Again see my sig and do some digging circa 2006 to refute the Keane/Defoe one or tother argument.

I completely disagree with you and I'll be amazed if Harry plays them together and if he does he'll only try it once or twice before he realises the folly of it, but we'll just have to wait and see.

A lot of people look at Keane on the pitch see him shrug his shoulders and wag his finger and seem to think 'twat' or as you say, not conducive to leading or inspiring. But managers and players who know him and see him outside of 90 mins every two weeks say different. I will take their word and the fact that a bit of perfectionism and rollicking might be what we need. Keane is no Keane. He is not a great, natural almost now antiquated leader but he does lead well and I don't think Ramos, Jol, Rednapp and countless Ireland managers would have made him captain were this not the case.

He seems to have a positive effect off the pitch but on it he's a finger pointing whinger who'd do well to lead by example as to be calling everyone else's kettle black.

I think my reasons do connect:

We need depth/experience and greater attacking from FBs- Chimbonda

We need more goals- Defoe, Keane

We need passion, leadership- Keane.

We need to build a team that competes, scores goals, wins games and has flair. Each of these players have these qualities and were part of a successful team. It is a bit odd that we have resigned three players but that is just a freak of football and a bonus (depending on how you see it) that they were all available and wanted to come back.

I largely agree with your diagnoses of what we need and of course you think your reasons connect otherwise you wouldn't be stating them, but I think in much the same way as certain folk last year were trying to claim our position was false because if you looked at the mirrored fixtures we were virtually on par with the previous year and all that nonsense statistics they were coming out with so I think your argument tends towards extracting disparate elements and examining them each in turn finding a reason for why you're right and then slotting them back in patchwork style. But I fully accept that's no argument from me so feel free to ignore or point it up.

 

[Coyboy]

I take your point about King, Woodgate and Hutton's injury records but Corluka seems to be fairly injury free and on the bench we had a decent understudy in Gunter, plus Zokora who can also ably fill in when required. When Hutton comes back in the summer we'll have four RBs and three 1st choicers, it's a recipe for discontent in the squad. Add to that Chimbo's clear deficiencies and I question Harry's decision to buy him, especially when I suspect most Spurs fans have seen a hell of a lot more of Chimbo than harry has.


This was the bit i was referring to: we signed him because he was available, cheap, experienced and was part of a successful, fifth finishing, CC winning team. when I wrote "Your other reasons don't take into account the team as it is or the cost of buying a player like Chimbo." and what I meant was "Cheap" is a relative term and being part of a winning team says nothing of your contribution to it. But over all i think Chimbo can do a job in the short-term I'm just worried about the long term affect of his signing and the squandering of cash will have on the team.



I completely disagree with you and I'll be amazed if Harry plays them together and if he does he'll only try it once or twice before he realises the folly of it, but we'll just have to wait and see.


He seems to have a positive effect off the pitch but on it he's a finger pointing whinger who'd do well to lead by example as to be calling everyone else's kettle black.

You see this is my general point. Where you criticise as short term mentality, I see it as necessary and I don't necessarily think that you cannot be a short term solution and a long term option. I don't see Gunter and Zokora as viable options if something were to happen to Corluka or one of Woodgate or Dawson. It doesn't matter how injury prone you are, anyone can break a bone and we need cover. Ramos by hook or by crook left us very shallow in most areas, partly by selling Chimbonda.

I am not concerned about discontent in the squad. I cannot see four fit and ready right backs. I see Gunter as not ready, Corluka as better at centre back, Hutton as a complete unknown both in terms of fitness and suitability and so the worst case scenario is that we have two, maybe three, players for one position. Depending on our situation at centre back, Gunter's development, Hutton's situation and Chimbonda's form we can go from there. Surely it is better to have options and a motivated squad.

Zokora is not a viable right back. He only fills in there in emergencies, like when Woodgate got injured against United. In our precarious position, I don't want him there.

Of course it was a relative term, this is football finance fantasy but when you chide Spurs for 'spending 48 mil' on two players, can you not see the financial sense in resigning a successful player for less than we sold him for. Daniel Levy is a financially savvy man. That has never been disputed. So I don't see it as squandering cash in the slightest and I think most fans were happy with Chimbonda pre CC tantrum and left back madness.

Ok Keane and Defoe can play together and the reasons are multi-fold. Firstly Keane is not short. He is five ten, this does not mean he will win many in the air like Ferdinand did who was an inch taller but it means he still has a presence and is not shrinking violet. Defoe is smaller but strong on the ball. I seldom see him pushed off it. The problem we then have is the defence cannot 'hoof' the ball up to them. Aesthetically and tactically that is no bad thing.

What that means is that if the defence is under pressure, and I know it sometimes inevitably is, it still has options. It can play the ball wide and long into the channels which enables those two and maybe Lennon to run on to the ball and put the opposition under pressure and change their shape. Alternatively while before we only had Carrick, now we have Palacios, Modric and Huddlestone who when they play are excellent on the ball and can be a better outlet for the defence than someone's head.

Further putting Keane and Defoe will give the defence an excuse, they shouldn't need one though, to push up more and not allow itself to drop deep, invite pressure and expand the gap between the rest of the team. Rednapp correctly diagonesed a problem versus Burnley at home of us making the pitch too big. If we can play cohesively and as a unit, we can close space and we have the passers, the pace and the guile to exploit that.

On the positive side, Keane and Defoe are both excellent and different players. Rednapp does Defoe a disservice when he says he is a goalscorer because he is a lot more and has developed steadily his play since Jol. People have recognised this. Keane can drop off and can link play and Defoe can work off the last shoulder of the defence, or they can alternate. Defoe showed for his assist against Stoke that he can pass and has the eye to link play.

There is factual evidence of them playing well together. For a lot of the last half of 05/06 they had to play together because Mido was injured. We carried on good form. Of course on some days it doesn't work and you have to resort to more pragmatic approaches. I don't dispute that and it's why I would keep Pav as a main first teamer and look for a Heskey, but I will never accept that they cannot play together or dispose of it as a viable option.

I don't care about his fingers. He is a winner and wants to do well. I never said he was perfect but if numerous managers see the need to laud his osmotic effect and innate leadership skills, who are we to argue and frankly it looks rather silly going on about his finger when what he offers substantially offsets that.

 

[sloth]

You see this is my general point. Where you criticise as short term mentality, I see it as necessary and I don't necessarily think that you cannot be a short term solution and a long term option. I don't see Gunter and Zokora as viable options if something were to happen to Corluka or one of Woodgate or Dawson. It doesn't matter how injury prone you are, anyone can break a bone and we need cover. Ramos by hook or by crook left us very shallow in most areas, partly by selling Chimbonda.

I am not concerned about discontent in the squad. I cannot see four fit and ready right backs. I see Gunter as not ready, Corluka as better at centre back, Hutton as a complete unknown both in terms of fitness and suitability and so the worst case scenario is that we have two, maybe three, players for one position. Depending on our situation at centre back, Gunter's development, Hutton's situation and Chimbonda's form we can go from there. Surely it is better to have options and a motivated squad.

Zokora is not a viable right back. He only fills in there in emergencies, like when Woodgate got injured against United. In our precarious position, I don't want him there.

Of course it was a relative term, this is football finance fantasy but when you chide Spurs for 'spending 48 mil' on two players, can you not see the financial sense in resigning a successful player for less than we sold him for. Daniel Levy is a financially savvy man. That has never been disputed. So I don't see it as squandering cash in the slightest and I think most fans were happy with Chimbonda pre CC tantrum and left back madness.

Ok Keane and Defoe can play together and the reasons are multi-fold. Firstly Keane is not short. He is five ten, this does not mean he will win many in the air like Ferdinand did who was an inch taller but it means he still has a presence and is not shrinking violet. Defoe is smaller but strong on the ball. I seldom see him pushed off it. The problem we then have is the defence cannot 'hoof' the ball up to them. Aesthetically and tactically that is no bad thing.

What that means is that if the defence is under pressure, and I know it sometimes inevitably is, it still has options. It can play the ball wide and long into the channels which enables those two and maybe Lennon to run on to the ball and put the opposition under pressure and change their shape. Alternatively while before we only had Carrick, now we have Palacios, Modric and Huddlestone who when they play are excellent on the ball and can be a better outlet for the defence than someone's head.

Further putting Keane and Defoe will give the defence an excuse, they shouldn't need one though, to push up more and not allow itself to drop deep, invite pressure and expand the gap between the rest of the team. Rednapp correctly diagonesed a problem versus Burnley at home of us making the pitch too big. If we can play cohesively and as a unit, we can close space and we have the passers, the pace and the guile to exploit that.

On the positive side, Keane and Defoe are both excellent and different players. Rednapp does Defoe a disservice when he says he is a goalscorer because he is a lot more and has developed steadily his play since Jol. People have recognised this. Keane can drop off and can link play and Defoe can work off the last shoulder of the defence, or they can alternate. Defoe showed for his assist against Stoke that he can pass and has the eye to link play.

There is factual evidence of them playing well together. For a lot of the last half of 05/06 they had to play together because Mido was injured. We carried on good form. Of course on some days it doesn't work and you have to resort to more pragmatic approaches. I don't dispute that and it's why I would keep Pav as a main first teamer and look for a Heskey, but I will never accept that they cannot play together or dispose of it as a viable option.

I don't care about his fingers. He is a winner and wants to do well. I never said he was perfect but if numerous managers see the need to laud his osmotic effect and innate leadership skills, who are we to argue and frankly it looks rather silly going on about his finger when what he offers substantially offsets that.

All good points and well argued. The only thing i'd say is the Burnley game is a case in point of what happens when a team sets out to play with two little forwards. On the Keane size point, it's one of the frustrations about the man that he's 5'10" but plays as if he's a midget.

 

[sloth]

Eny fule kno that. Writing off £7m that we certainly weren't going to see in a hurry (and in a worst-case scenario not at all) simply made it a better proposition.

As for Keane and Defoe not being able to play together, experience suggests they can't, at least on a regular basis. That, however, is irrelevant right now and quite possibly until next season. We were suddenly down to two front-line strikers and Campbell. Can you name a better alternative than Keane that we could have got at such short notice? £20m+ on Rocket Roque, perhaps? It's well worth writing off a £10m IOU to have Keane back—not to mention the hilarity that will ensue if something happens to Torres and Liverpool bomb out of the CL and the top four. Collapse of Stout Spanish Waiter. Blubbing Scousers. Yes, definitely worth every penny.

How is Chimbonda a short-term measure? Is he going to be applying for free false teeth and a bus pass at the end of the season? Clearly, we didn't sign him for the sake of kicks and high spirits. Zok is a useful occasional RB, with the emphasis on 'occasional'. Harry clearly doesn't think Gunter's quite ready yet. Neither did Ramos. Hutton's injured most of the time and not all that good when he isn't—if you're complaining about wastes of money, maybe you should start with him. If Ramos didn't think Chimbo was much cop at RB, exactly what was he doing playing him at LB for half the season? Anyone who saw Chimbo play there against Sevilla could have told him this was not a Good Idea. Oh, hold on, Ramos did see him play there against Sevilla.

Good stuff SS! Still don't agree on a lot of it, but you wouldn't expect anything less, especially with some of the baiting in that post.