Matt

We didn't get relegated due to financial policy, we were relegated due to the insanity of the management situation. No-one can claim it didn't cost us a single point over the course of the year.

There isn't enough space on the internet to answer this.

NUFC was running out of cash but someone would have bought the club, even via the administration route. The status quo could not have continued. That could have relegated us, but hey we got relegated anyway. So life would probably be not to dissimilar to now, just probably with a different owner and without the eye watering intercompany numbers. To say 'NUFC would not be here without him' is to assume there is not another buyer in the world who would have been interested in a distressed sale.

Exactly- reducing debt levels is hardly impressive when it is little more than the flick of a pen!

This theory is all wonderful, but the test of the club's mettle is when we have a deficiency in the squad, but there is no obvious 'bargain' replacement- or we find ourselves in a position where we need that bit of experience. Do we simply limp along or actually act to improve the quality of the squad?

Spurs cashed in on Berbatov & Carrick then invested the funds in improving the squad. I can't see that happening here.

The club stopped bonus payments for the players a while back. There was something uttered in the press to that regard, but we have no way of knowing if that impacted in any way on actual negotiations.

We wouldn't have signed Gosling if it weren't for his contractual situation at Everton. We sniffed a steal and moved in. His role in the squad didn't really come into it.

I disagree, although the club clearly took a view on quantity over quality. We started the season without a single proven PL-quality striker. Just so happens Carroll showed what he's really capable of.

We needed a striker in the summer and we needed a striker in January. I cannot see how anyone thinks we've done a good job in that department as we've arguably been light since the summer of 2009.

The last three strikers we've paid a fee for are Leon Best, Xisco and Obafemi Martins. Our policy in the summer was to be expected, there was never any indication it would be anything other than a cheapo supplement to last season's squad. Policy is coming home to roost nicely now.

Despite his horror miss against Juve the other week, I like the look of Giaccherini at Cecena. Reminds me of Bellamy in the way he buzzes around on the shoulder of defenders.

Which radio station was this? It's wrong on so many levels.

He covers a lot of ground yet rarely gets near the ball. It's soul-destroying stuff.

He doesn't have to lead the line, he just needs to be in and around the edge of the box- more importantly we shouldn't also be relying on him to get back every single time.

If it weren't for Tiote's suspension I'd have harboured a hope we might move Nolan up front. He might not be a striker, but he has more positional and goalscoring sense than Lovenkrands or Best (and probably Ameobi). As it is, he's being deployed box-to-box and is breathing out of his arse after an hour of the game. He's not a lung-busting player anymore- the Bolton game was a great example- busy in the first half but couldn't get involved in any counter-attacking by the end of it becuase he was fucked. Not that drafting in Guthrie is a particularly appealing option either.

Howay Darlo....

Surely he's not expecting a profit? I'd say getting £200m, loss or not, would be a very decent result.

It doesn't really matter about the intercompany debt. A price for the club will ignore this 'debt'. For various reasons a buyer may actually repay this debt, or it may be cancelled and more paid for the equity of the club, usually depending on the tax situation of the companies (I am no tax expert!). It's like me offering you £10 for your empty wallet or £70 if you leave £60 in it. The net consideration is the same. To assess if something is debt or equity you need to look at the risks and rewards- all of which in this case reside with Ashley. This is tax-efficient equity, nothing more. Forget about 'loans to Ashley'- that's like saying I owe myself a fiver. What should be in no doubt is that following any serious takeover, the club will not owe a penny to any Ashley vehicle. Equally it might owe £200-250m to a new holdco, but the same rationale applies.

That's really a very small issue. It ceases to exist.

I'd like whichever owner minimises the risk of me undertaking a 600-mile round trip to watch Leon Best and Peter Løvenkrands pissing about up front.

As much as he likes. They apply only to entry into UEFA competitions.

Don't think I could cope with actually looking forward to seeing us play.

That wouldn't make a jot of difference- cash in the bank (or otherwise) won't be used in valuing the underlying business, just overlaid on top as an adjustment to the total price.

If we can't keep the ball, then sooner or later someone will get caught out at the back. Retention was absolutely shocking and we lacked anything on the counter attack. That really was very poor.