Rousseau

Ah, so it's his injury record that you have a problem with, rather than his age or ability. I understand that. Isn't it true that he -- despite, as you state, not playing much -- was a key player for his clubs? Like I said, I don't expect him to play much, but he'll play a important part IMO, in the sense that we need a DM/pivot, and his off-field presence which could be very beneficial. I agree a pay-as-you-play could be quite good.

We need a pivot/Defensive Midfielder. Eustace was one of the best in that position for Derby last season, which results will testify. He cannot have dipped that much in ability in 1 year to the extent that he cannot play a part for us. His off-field benefits have been intimated by Warburton and a few of the players. I think he'll be a very good signing all round. Neil Lennon was doing a fairly decent job at C***** at 36, with very little ability, and still played a part for Nottingham Forest a year later. Even our very own Sir David of Weir played until 40. Age is irrelevant if they can play a role: Serie A is littered with players in their late 30's; they are cherished, protected and carefully managed so they can play a part of the team -- sometimes a crucial part -- until a very late age; They are not shafted because they reach an arbitrary age. I think Eustace will play a very important role for us.

That requires some sort of forethought. Our idiot 'leaders' are only interested in the short-term. We're struggling to find sponsors. Surely that should be sounding huge alarm bells?

This is a laughable league structure. A team can beat Celtic one week then loose to the bottom-dwellers the next. There is no consistency. The old adage 'form is temporary, class is permanent' seems to ring true: our sides have no class, no ability; but they can beat a team once in a while through sheer luck. I despair.

He does not come out well in this.

It seems to me there is a misapprehension about players: they are either good or bad. Is there no in-between? Law's a unique player in our team; not a great passer, but is a genuine goal-threat and a good runner. We need players of different styles and abilities. I think it was our last game where Law was very useful: he was the goal-threat that we needed to win the game. I don't agree with this black and white view. Again, Miller and Shiels have been players that we've needed this season at times, for their individual ability. Every player has a part to play.

The kid seems to be a decent player in the Spanish Second division, playing a good 30+ games a season there over a few years. His appearances for English sides (OK, only Man City and Brighton; of which only at Brighton would he be looking to do well) are poor. I think it shows his style is not suited to typical British football. However, we don't play the typical British football so he could fit in very well here. Promising player that just needs a little guidance and a decent run in a team that suits his style. I think he'd be a great addition -- we need more wingers for when Oduwa goes off the boil!

Was there not a clip of a blind guy at QPR waving his white cane at the linesman going about last season? Brilliant. Surreal, but brilliant.

Attendances, European performance, sponsorship deals etc.?

You know what? You've convinced me. There does have to be an incentive for teams. I had assumed 'winning' would be the incentive, but perhaps cash is the only way to go. I'm not really interested in 'the rest shafted us and so we should just f*** them' argument. The league as a whole must come together to sort this out. Rangers being successful in a 'diddy' league does no one any good, least of all us. The Belgian example has some merits, but, as you say, is a little unsatisfactory. Perhaps just some tweaking though? Allowing more teams to realistically challenge for a European spot would provide incentive, and provide teams with more money through qualification. A European solution -- because there are a few teams throughout Europe who are in a similar situation -- could be very intriguing; it would certainly deal with most of the problems.

We can get back at them by simply being successful. The question is whether we want to be part of a competitive league, or a shit league as we are now. We can be successful either way. Our income will still far outstrip any other side, except one.

That's a very good point, but we're not going to be able to remove clubs. We are stuck with the numbers we have. I'm not sure we can do anything about it with regards to any change.

I actually agree. Overlooking his clear hatred for a moment, the idea that every team should get an equal share is a good one. It would allow everyone to start on an even footing, and would put the good of the game over any individuals. The money is minuscule anyway -- how much are we really giving up? We would still have bigger revenues because of the ST sales, but the increased competition -- that's still a big 'if', no matter what happens -- could give us better TV deals etc. If things are going to change, the ones that benefit the most have to take a hit for the good of the game. (We've almost been restructured towards lower income streams, so it could benefit us anyway!)

I couldn't see them winning it. They are just poor. Going forward they are not creating much -- the last few goals I've seen have been free-kicks, which are goals, but are not created from open play; weirdly the free-kicks were from the same area and the same player?! -- and they just can't defend. Mourinho can be a tactical genius all he likes, but if the players cannot do the basics, then they are in serious trouble. I think the team needs a complete refresh. Several players are past it. Mourinho needs to give the talented young players a go now -- the Chelsea youths have been winning everything the last few years.

Feeling the effects of the ban...

I forgot about Shaw's injury. So, yes they will be significantly weakened. However, I still think they defend quite well, as Blind is a decent centre-back: his reading of the game is exceptional; he's obviously slow and weak, but his ability makes up for it -- Smalling makes an excellent partner; they complement each other very well I think. Arsenal will be a big test.

I'm not saying we'll be playing with 2 centre-backs and that's it, like now. I think we must have a DM/pivot (preferably 2) in there to cover the full-backs. However, I maintain, it is perfectly manageable to have both full-backs playing high and wide. Too often, Scottish sides go into these games looking to defend, but why can't we play on the front-foot? Play our attacking game? Sure, we need to be pragmatic, but as long as we manage it correctly we can play our own game.

I actually think Man Utd have got a good defense -- their record would certainly suggest so. Tough to call, though. I agree with the rest though. Although, I have no confidence in Chelsea at the moment, so I can't see them getting a result.

De Boer is an interesting option, but I'm not sure whether winning the Eredivisie is necessarily suggestive of ability. I think he needs to move to another club and league first before we can really judge him. Again, Klopp would be an excellent signing for Liverpool.

They hadn't won the CL in 15 years... I agree Ancelotti is not the best move for Liverpool, but I'm not getting drawn into a debate about his merits as a manager. He is a class act. simple.

Ancelotti is still a class act. He did win the Champions League and Cup with Madrid...

Klopp would be an unbelievable appointment by Liverpool! (Ancelotti a little too defensive for Liverpool IMO.)

So simple. It's amazing how many would overlook something so simple, just because it's what usually happens.

That seems unbalanced to me! (It's a back 3 when in possession!) To be fair, when Milan attacked it was 3-4-1-2. British sides play a bog-standard back 4, so by your argument they have the perfect balance (in the sense that they don't roam too much)? but then you also say they are miles behind the continental sides? I think British sides are poor in comparison to continental sides because they are one-dimensional in attack. Aggressive full-backs, providing width and options, would improve that -- if managed correctly.

I suggested similar in the previous article: switching to a back 3, to utilise the spare-man philosophy, whereby we would set-up to with a back 3 or back 2 (centre-backs), depending on what the opposition has up front. I suggested 3-4-3, because it is easier to transition to from the 4-3-3 we play. Playing with a back 3 could provide us with the cover we need at the back to compensate for our attacking full-backs.