Rousseau

For me its the complete opposite: he cannot be criticised for being a bad manager, because he tried his best, unfortunately he wan't good enough -- neither was Greig; but taking wage when he's not doing anything -- and the amount -- is ridiculous. It's the wage that taints his reputation in my eyes.

I agree. He is a genius at setting up teams to win. What I like best is that he tweaks his teams to exploit a weakness, or defend against an oppositions strength (Fellaini last week comes to mind; he put Zouma in midfield to battle with Fellaini and he was completely ineffectual!). It's like Barca play to play, Mourinho plays to win. You will always get people criticising the way a team plays: you have to play good football to be considered great. I disagree. You are great because you win. And there are many ways to win. He's the anti-Barca because he can win with 20% possession. How many teams can do that at the highest level?

I agree. He should not be getting a wage. A manager cannot be criticised too heavily for being a failure if he's done his best. No one should deny he tried his best. As I said: "One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on." That's what should've happened. I don't think his legendary status can be erased just because he wasn't good enough as Manager. The wage aspect is different. It's clouding his legendary status. Again, like I said: "I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings."

Great player; terrible Manager. He did his best, but it was not good enough. I think he went too far towards experience, whereas a mixture of youth and experience would have been better; it certainly would have placated the fans a little more. He did a lot, and he deserves credit. However, he is still taking a wage. We cannot afford it. He is a legend; he will always be a legend. He did so much good, and he tried his best; unfortunately it wasn't good enough. One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on. But there will always be that stain on his legend, at least over the short-term -- it'll be forgotten in years to come. I can't resolve these two feelings. I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings.

Clubs should be punished for financial irregularities (overspending etc.), but FFP should limit that. If there is an external cause for a clubs financial difficulty, then they should not be punished. Case by Case scenario would be better. The Dutch FA are quite domineering in regard to the financial operation of their clubs - they actually step in I believe?

Rangers: The only club that could lose money by being promoted. Scottish Football is a joke. We need to retreat into ourselves and stop bothering with these 'authorities'. We need to be self-sufficient and generate cash ourselves. Membership schemes like Germany etc.

There is a correlation with league position though, except Southampton. That's what it takes. It's not the clubs' fault.

What about Financial Fair Play? Or are we too small (Scottish clubs in general) in terms of revenue for it to take effect?

I watched the video from the link and they show white socks. But then Frankie says they aren't. Perhaps there are two colours?

The socks are white!

Modern football was invented in Barcelona in the mid-90s. Of this season’s Champions League quarter-finalists, four sides are managed by players who turned out for Barça in 1996: Pep Guardiola, Luis Enrique, Julen Lopetegui and Laurent Blanc. Within a couple of years, they had been joined by Frank de Boer and Phillip Cocu as well as the coach Louis van Gaal and his assistant Ronald Koeman. In slightly differing ways, the eight are apostles for the Barcelona way – or, more accurately, given the influence of Ajax on that style, the Barçajax way. However, there was another presence there, initially as a translator and then as a coach. In the Barçocracy of modern football, there is a fallen angel. In the modern world, at least at elite level, José Mourinho stands alone. At the greatest coaching seminar the world has seen, when the game as we know it was shaped, but he did not draw the same lessons everybody else did. The other eight espoused the proactive, possession-based football seeded at the club by Vic Buckingham, developed by Rinus Michels and taken to new levels by Johan Cruyff. Mourinho, however, was different. Mourinho believed in reactive football. He was the outsider, the outcast who now revels in his role as the dark lord. Saturday’s game against Manchester United was typical. Others, playing at home in a match that could effectively ensure the title, might have felt compelled to attack. Mourinho fielded Kurt Zouma, a central defender, in midfield, sitting deep and won the game with 28% possession. Mourinho may have objected to Diego Torres’s biography of him but the passage describing his methods against the better sides was as true of Saturday’s win as it was of the victory over Liverpool that determined the destination of the title last season: 1. The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors. 2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition. 3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes. 4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake. 5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake. 6. Whoever has the ball has fear. 7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger. It’s true that earlier in the season, Chelsea were more expansive. When Diego Costa, Cesc Fábregas and Nemanja Matic were fit and in form, they attacked and racked up goals. The talk was all of how, after the regular failures to break down massed defences last season, Mourinho had taken decisive action. As the squad has tired and form has waned, as the finish line has approached, though, he has reverted to type. Chelsea have been struggling for form and consistency all year and yet, in the 12 league games since the 5-3 defeat by Tottenham on New Year’s Day, they have conceded only seven goals and dropped only six points. There was a concern earlier this season that Mourinho might be losing his touch. Against Manchester City (home and away), United (away), Southampton (away) and PSG (home and away), Chelsea took the lead, sat back and ended up conceding equalisers. It could even have happened on Saturday, Falcao hitting the post with 11 minutes remaining. However, even if Chelsea have been unusually vulnerable at times in a lead this season, Mourinho hasn’t changed – and it could be argued that Saturday was vindication. From right to left, the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keeper's trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999 Facebook Twitter Pinterest From left to right: the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keepers’ trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999. Photograph: VI-Images/VI-Images via Getty Images Anyway, the sense is that it’s not entirely a matter of utility: Mourinho has his sides play that way because he enjoys it. Cast out from Barcelona, overlooked by them when they appointed Pep Guardiola in 2008, he is now the anti-Barcelona, determined, like Milton’s Satan that, “glory never shall his wrath or might; extort from me,” vowing “To wage by force of guile eternal war, irreconcilable to our grand Foe.” Every defensive performance, every win with limited possession, is a blow against Barça. There’s probably no game Mourinho has enjoyed so much as Internazionale’s Champions League semi-final second leg at the Camp Nou in 2010, when his side, down to 10 men for more than an hour, had only 19% possession and lost 1-0 to win 3-2 on aggregate. Who needs the ball? Mourinho is not a pragmatist in the way that, say, Fabio Capello is, changing approach according to his players and, where necessary, adopting reactive, defensive tactics. Rather his preferred way of playing is reactive, which is why he sold Juan Mata. He may have been Chelsea’s player of the season in each of the two previous years but he had no place in Mourinho’s conception of football. The paradox is that if Mourinho really has allowed his philosophy to be defined in opposition to Barcelona – he is that which they are not – then he is still allowing Barcelona to dictate terms, creating a dichotomy where there could be multiplicity. It is not that there is the Barçajax school and Not-the-Barçajax school; it is that the Barçajax school is one way of playing among an almost infinite variety, as represented by Jürgen Klopp, Carlo Ancelotti and Diego Simeone among others. And that, of course, is testimony to the astonishing influence of Barcelona over modern football. Mourinho cannot escape his upbringing as a coach; even as a rebel, it is Barcelona he is rebelling against. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/23/jose-mourinho-the-anti-barcelona-chelsea-pep-guardiola

It goes to show: there is no gulf in class between top Championship sides and the bottom dwellers of the Premiership. It makes the case for an extended top division.

I actually think a two-leg tie gives us more of a chance. A one-off game would be nervy, but two gives us a margin of error. It's still not going to be easy though! Hibs will be tricky either way, and yes, ironically, the premiership tie could be the easiest one!

I am doubtful. As you say: the run in suits them better. I'm confident of beating Falkirk, but Hearts at Tynecastle is going to be very difficult. I can see them winning all their remaining games. I suspect we may have to do it the hard way.

You have summed up the last two years perfectly: Defense has remained the same (poor); Chances created has remained the same (average); goals scored has dropped substantially.

Hardie is another promising young player. I just hope he is given the chance with an extended run in the team.

Competition is excellent. Best problem there is! I'd agree with you in a normal season -- simple long-term development over short-term, which is a no-brainer. However, the play-offs are just a short-term mini-competition, so any player that would give us the best chance at promotion should be utilised, regardless of potential. Ferguson will not play beyond this season, but to exclude him from a significant series of games just because he will be leaving is irresponsible. I don't think the potential experience Walsh could gain outweighs the importance of promotion. Saying that: any youngster needs and should get a long run in the side -- it's the only way they will progress. I'd still use Ferguson over the play-offs if he will be beneficial to us.

Whilst I'm delighted for us to be linked with players -- and younger, promising players at that! -- I am suspicious of why. Has he been told he's not going to get a game at Birmingham? If so, do we really want a reject from a struggling Championship side?

Walsh has earned a game, but that shouldn't preclude Ferguson getting a run-out. If Ferguson can contribute, he should.

I don't think it would be too difficult to play them both. Vuckic could play off the striker -- he used to be one -- and Ferguson can take his wide spot. Simples!

Miller will certainly play again, but I would be surprised if Daly did -- i'm not sure he's fit enough, and there are so many ahead of him -- and Boyd I think has dropped out, but I can see him play a small role in the final 10 minutes of games. I was convinced Boyd would come good, as he always seemed to get a few chances a game, which I think was down to his movement -- not pace obviously, but that knack for finding space. The problem for Boyd has been his finishing; he's not recaptured that ability. Our game plans played a part but I think his failure is down to him ultimately. They are all past it now, unfortunately. It is a shame, because they were all good players -- even exceptional at times --, but they've had their day. I would be surprised, and disappointed, if any got new deals.

Get them in the first-team!

You missed out second half of the article in which he makes some good points about the future of Scottish football: extending the league, spreading the money less thinly etc. To be fair, it's nothing we haven't seen for ourselves. We need someone at the top to take a stand. They have a right to be upset at the decision, but the referee's missed it, so there is nothing to be done about it. To cry "Conspiracy!", "Cheat!" -- and even mentioning "Sporting integrity" is taking the mickey considering the Legia Warsaw affair -- is just taking it too far.

It's semantics: what constitutes a 'league game'? By definition the play-offs are not a league game, so therefore accumulated league bookings should not count.

I'm relieved someone grasped my meaning! Their age -- as well as their performances against us -- is what grabbed my attention. They're half-decent young, quick players that could be decent squad players. And like you said: we need squad players that can play a small role in a hard slog of a season. You presume we are getting promoted. I never suggested they'd be decent first-team players, simply squad players. We can't build a team of Scottish-Galactico's -- forgetting for a minute the financial impracticalty! --; there needs to be a mix of hard-working young players.