Probably a place for him in the team? We can't play Palmer without dropping Dack. If we dropped Dack I would rather play Rothwell. So you'd spend 3m on a player who would be 3rd in the pecking order?

So, took a day to think things over. Positives - Johnson (major positive for me and a huge encouragement) Things that were ok verging on positives - Formation Travis Gallagher Negatives - Defending (collectively) Bennett Dack Overall, it was a game that we should have won and, in my many ways, we played well enough to win it. That being said, we created very few chances and rarely looked like troubling them. What's worse, Charlton only managed to make it into our half on a handful of occasions and managed to come away with 2 goals. The sad thing? There's nothing new here. I'm not a big Mowbray hater - not that I love him either - and I will reserve some judgement until 4/5 games into this season, but something has to change. Bennett cannot play. We need a CB to replace Mulgrew. Dack is doing his best possible impression of Rhodes. He had one moment of quality yesterday, but, apart from that, he was a complete passenger. We can't afford to have a midfielder who goes is anonymous for large stretches of the match. He should have been the first one-off for me, it was crying for Rothwell to come on in his place and add a bit of pace. The one major positive is that I hope this forces a bit of action on the transfer front and in the selection process - but I am not that hopeful.

Yes, because scouts have never passed on a good player before...certainly not the Barnsley scouts...

Glad to see this racist nonsense getting another go-around in this thread. Expected more of you - especially expected you to be aware of the fact that this is the article Sterling used as an example of the differences in tabloid coverage of black and white players. We don’t know why this deal is falling through. Maybe he’s a massive tw*t. News flash - most footballers are. May also be us messing around or City messing around. Let’s just stop sharing this complete shit.

Shocking. Almost as if a manager is choosing to not share his entire transfer strategy with the general public.

Good teams have been playing short passes from goal kicks for years, the only difference now is that you are allowed to receive the ball inside the penalty area. There's no logic behind simply lumping it up and hoping that something comes from winning the header, makes far more sense to look to keep possession.

Jim, I've been around here long enough to know that you are smarter than that.

Well, he did manage to make Everton's bench on a couple of occasions last season, so it seems about right that he would at least expect to be in the discussion to make ours.

Whatever gets you off.

Or it was just an observation on the different ways that people were reacting (including sometimes two different reactions from the same people). You're the one who has struck the arrogant tone but thank you for introducing me to the concept 'English' football. I can't wait to experience more of it.

I do love periods where I can just be an observer on this site. One week - 'we've extended the contract of our backup keeper??? Why??? We need a better first choice' Next week - 'why would we sell Raya? We could never replace him!!!'

?

Just a tip for next time - if you're going to semi-condescendingly explain what something is you had better get it right. The European Golden Shoe isn't awarded simply to the player who scores the most goals, it's a weighted system. Modric won the champions league, the club world cup, and was runner-up in the world cup (where he won the best player award). Now, I think a lot of people would take that over a league and two domestic cups, if you don't that's ok, it's a subjective award. My point is that you called it a farce. It's not like they selected Joe Hart as the winner. I mean, that's one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. They finished 32 points clear of 5th. Now, Messi is their best player and an amazing one at that, but they've got a lot of talent in that side and, whilst they may not have won the league without him (which is still saying his individual impact is worth 14+ points), they definitely wouldn't have been 32+ points worse off. By that logic, you'd arguing that Messi + our team from the mid-2000s would have won the league every year. Hyperbole in the extreme. The guy above has said this is like two fanboys arguing, to me it comes across more like a couple of kids who've just discovered who Messi is telling their friends that he can fly.

So Messi has had the best calendar year for 10 straight years? The question isn't has he been the best overall player. It is whether or not he has had the best year.

Not really. I said that Messi underperformed at the world cup, not that he shouldn't be in the top 3 because he didn't win it. Pretty simple really. Griezmann was good at the world cup, but not spectacular. If you interpreted my statement as being that anyone that won the world cup last year would have to be higher than Messi then I would have to rank Messi no higher than 24th.

No one is doubting Messi's greatness, but calling that a farce is saying that you fundamentally don't understand what the award is. The ballon d'or isn't for the greatest player of the time, but for the player who achieved the most in that calendar year. Messi failed to really impress in Russia, and in a World Cup year, underperforming at the season's major tournament is going to make winning the ballon d'or difficult. He was beaten in the voting by a world cup runner up (who was also voted the best player of the tournament and who was also a key player in a Champions league winning side), a Champions League winner who had another great year (winning the CL is undoubtedly a better achievement than winning La Liga, dull as it is), and two world cup winners (one of whom had a record-breaking domestic season and the other who had a good all round year. For me, Griezmann is the only player who probably shouldn't have been ahead of him and you can maybe convince me that Ronaldo and Messi were a push last season, but to call it a farce is, in itself, a joke.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.

Would I guarantee that Reed would be a long term success? No. He wouldn't be the first player to do well on a loan spell here and then fail. Obviously, he is a bit different to Brereton because he's more experienced and dropped down a level to play here. The jury is still out on Armstrong. A great loan spell in league one, a poor first half of the season the Championship, and now a good run of a few weeks.

Anyone who has been in football long enough also knows that judging players 6 months after they were signed, for good or for bad, is a very dangerous policy.

It may be possible that they're not allowed to come out and publicly state the fee.

I think it's always great when people justify a position by just quoting rules. None of my recent posts have questioned what's written in the rules of the forum, just their reasoning and impact. If we're using social media as a standard then why bother even having mods? One sit admin could give a cursory glance to complaints every 2/3 months and it would function just like twitter or facebook. Problem solved.

But we all know there are plenty of under 18-year-olds on the forum (as was the case when I signed up way back in 2002 and may well have been the case when you first registered) and that the messageboard has long prided itself on having a standard of debate that is significantly higher than those of other forums (in large part down to the overall quality of the posts and the lack of swearing). But I suppose it doesn't matter really.

This isn't really the place for the discussion, but I think having an admin openly saying fuck in a context when it isn't needed isn't great for the tone and long term is likely to be damaging, particularly when it is then followed up with him chiding other board members. It might not be against forum rules, but it doesn't exactly set a great example. ...but fuck it.

So, all swearing is allowed so long as it isn't directed at a forum member?