ohmelads

Looks very composed and confident on the ball, moreso than our other young players.

Thanks, I hadn't seen those quotes. I reckon it's more a game of brinkmanship between the two clubs, and the replacement thing is as you say just an excuse to show they are in no hurry to sell. We know they will want to offload an unhappy player as the window draws closer, but they know we will also get more desperate as time runs out. My main concern is another club comes in in the mean time, and the player probably won't be too impressed that we have spent the whole summer trying to get him on the cheap. I haven't seen much of him but his stock seems pretty high, coming out of a successful Lille team and playing every game for France in the Euros. I get the feeling it's gonna be a major coup or a disaster if we let this run right to the deadline.

I think there's a bit of complacency that the player is going to sit on his hands and wait for the two clubs to find an agreeable fee. If another club comes in and offers the money Lille want then in the player's eyes that club is more determined to get him and values him higher. If we spend the whole summer haggling we may miss out on this one, let's not forget he's a France international on the market straight after an international tournament that put him in the shop window. As transfers happen elsewhere, other top clubs might lose their right backs and enter the fray. Are there any quotes where he says he wants to come to Newcastle? I've seen the local rags saying it but I haven't seen any actual quotes from the player saying that. I may have missed something, but it seems like an assumption that we're his first choice. I'm uneasy about playing a game of brinkmanship, we have done it to good effect before but we have also ended up with nothing, panic signings and relegation too. This is the one area of the first team we can improve without breaking the bank, it may be better all things considered to just get him in. Or at the very least, make a final unconditional offer to Lille and if they don't accept it, move onto another target.

Surely we've got to push this transfer through now. We want the player, the player wants to come, the club needs to sell. It seems all parties want a deal. With the Spurs game just a few weeks away you'd think we'll try and push it through this week and have him here for the Den Haag and Cardiff games.

He doesn't look ready. Would much rather have Harper as backup and send Elliott out on loan. Let him make his mistakes in the lower leagues and if he doesn't progress, get shot of him.

Dunno if it's been mentioned but quotes from Pardew in today's Chronicle saying he intends to pair Ba with Cisse next season up top. In other words we'll go 4-4-2 90% of the time. It would be easier to accommodate Carroll into that system than a 4-3-3, for the simple reasons that Cisse is undroppable and it's easier to rotate 3 players into 2 positions. Carroll can't play out wide. If we're switching to 4-4-2 anyway (as opposed to the 4-3-3 we used on our winning run) then Carroll's signing would make a bit more sense.

Good news for us if that deal falls collapses. IF we continue our form of last season then they are a potential rival. Last season he scored 1 and got 4 assists in our 5-0 defeat down there. He's a huge player for them and a big loss for them if the deal falls through.

Liverpool would rather sell to anyone but us. Firstly there's the potentially embarrassing scenario of him coming back at a fraction of the price and banging in goals again. And secondly they will view us a rival now that we've finished above them. That may not be the case as the season goes on but right now they will fear us as a rival and certainly won't want to strengthen our squad. The problem is the player may insist on a return home if his only alternatives are the likes of West Ham. We are banking on that being the case. Rodgers' latest comments are trying to repair the situation but you sense that the cat is already out of the bag and the player will feel he isn't wanted by the new coach. For a steal (e.g.12M or less) I would definitely want him but if we're talking in the 15-20M range, I think it's silly money for a player who doesn't even walk into our team. At that price he should. The other issue worrying me is that Ashley plays a game of brinkmanship and we end up empty handed with only Shola as cover. Ashley has history of that, his gambles have not always paid off and it would be a heavy price to pay if this drags until deadline day and Shola is our only backup option. Liverpool will let it drag on rather than sell for a pittance to a rival so it's not so unlikely.

Always thought Pardew's comments in the past about Carroll were diplomatic and designed to leave the door open. Rodgers has dropped a bollock by trying to peddle his player in public and we've sensed an opportunity to land a good, proven young English striker on the cheap. Whetherthe clubs can agree terms is nowt to do with Pardew. But I do reckon Pardew wants him and this isn't just a board decision.

Now THAT's what I call pessimistic. If we lose Ba we'll no doubt go for 2 strikers, as we would then only have Cisse and Shola left.. It is, and I don't think the club would be that foolish, but Ashley has a history of using brinkmanship when negotiating. We need to set Liverpool/ourselves our own deadline and then look elsewhere, well before the transfer deadline.

Worst case scenario: we lose Ba and play a game of brinkmanship with Liverpool until deadline day then end up empty handed or make a Sibierski/Kuqi style panic signing. This looks like it has the potential to drag on and while it does, we lose time to switch to other targets. Hopefully the club has set a deadline by which they move on, but Ashley has a history of brinkmanship negotiating.

It's possible we've put in a low bid knowing that the publicity will turn the player's head. He knows he's not wanted there. I think Rodgers made a mistake making it public knowledge he wants shot of him. I reckon we have pounced on that, knowing the player will put pressure on them. If he's an addition to Ba and Cisse and it's a loan deal, it does free up funds for elsewhere in the team. I do wonder how he will fit in with Cisse a guaranteed starter. I know what people are saying about the fixtures but if fit Cisse will start every game. We also seemed to play a 4-3-3 later in the season to good effect and Carroll wouldn't work in a wide role. So does he sit on the bench, a super sub who only starts in the cups? A more versatile forward could fight it out with Cisse but also adapt to the wide roles as Ba has.

I see this as a brave move, opportunism, and evidence of the struggle to land our other targets. It's a gamble, but on a loan deal maybe worth it. If it doesn't work out we ship him back and he's their problem. If it does work out, he'll probably want to come back and the deal will surely have a fixed price agreed. Another big question is can the club afford the wages of Ba, Cisse and Carroll? Or is Carroll to be a replacement for Ba?

It's bound to be linked to the Simpson deal. Once we know we've got a buyer for Simpson, we will wrap up a deal for a right back, hopefully Debuchy. Can't be a coincidence SSN broke this story at the same time as Reading are in for Simpson.

Considering his contract is out in a year it's good money. I'm more concerned at the loss of Guthrie to be honest, hopefully Bigi or Amalfitano can step up. Anyway, if Simpson is wanting a starter's salary then he'll want a starting place in the team. The club won't pay him a first team wage just to sit on the bench and be cover. So he'll have to get his first team football (and wage) elsewhere. I'd happily keep him as backup if the player was up for that, I don't think he's a bad player, just average.

Basically a reserve lineup there. From that team you'd reckon only Williamson has a chance of starting against Spurs. Don't have a stream but there's no striker playing and only one centre back so we must have a few out of position. Also this German team has been playing for weeks while our lot have been on hols. The most important thing is no injuries. Our bench looks more experienced so second half we should play better.

5M is a little too much but he's not as bad as some are making out. For a promoted club he's the best they could hope for really. He's English, a good age, proven in the Premier League and hardly ever gets injured. When you put all that together and consider he played a full season first team and finished 5th last season, it's a good move by Reading. If they want to stay up he's the kind of proven player they'll be looking for. Would also be good news for us because this sale is probably what has held up the Debuchy deal. Simpson's not a bad player but if you're looking for a weak link where we could improve the first team, it would have to be him. He's definitely good enough for the Premier League but if we aspire to stay where we are we need to upgrade.

His ability shouldn't be in question. I think it's more the case that after the last minute Carroll sale and the carry on with Enrique, people are concerned Ba will string us along and then bugger off at the last minute, leaving us up sh*t creek. It's a valid concern and so far it looks like that's what he's doing. Perhaps he wants a better deal from NUFC or perhaps he's keeping his options open and that's why he's stalling on a new contract. Despite media stories other players have verbally committed to the club through the media but there seems to be total silence from the Ba camp which will remind many of Enrique 12 months ago. That and the fact he has a release fee clause in his contract will remind people of Owen. I can't think of any other players we've had with such a clause? His failure to sign a new deal, silence in the press and the clause in his contract don't paint the picture of a fully committed player. That's a factor behind people's feelings. We don't know what's going on but it doesn't smell good.

I hope you're right and should we lose Ba, I reckon we need two to come in. A striker and a versatile player capable of playing that wing-forward supporting role in a 4-3-3 or up front. Afterall we are said to be offloading Best and Ranger and have already let Lovenkrands go. Perhaps the hope is Sammy Ameobi or Ferguson will step up and Vuckic is also there but none of them are natural goalscorers. Problem would be keeping Ba, Cisse and a new player (for example De Jong) happy. Cisse looks undroppable as things stand and I just don't see Mike Ashley forking out 10m (give or take) for a player who will rotate with Ba. He has to come up with a solution though because I doubt we'll be lucky enough next time around that Senegal bomb out of the ACoN so early and losing them for 6 weeks or so could have a massive impact on our season. So the fear is Ba will go, De Jong (or someone else) will be a direct replacement who can see us through the ACoN and during that period Shola (!), or a youngster will pair up with the new striker to see us through that period or we will go 4-3-3 with Gutierrez and Ben Arfa out wide. Given the long season ahead that wouldn't be good enough, espescially if the kids and Obertan are our only cover for injuries. Whatever way you look at it we need Ba plus a new forward or two new forwards, given we're set to lose 3 of our backup forwards this summer and Ba and Cisse for a chunk of the season.

I think forcing English teams to have a quota of English players will benefit us to an extent by creating a larger pool of players with experience at the top level. It also forces English teams to make more efforts to either improve their academies or sign more players from the lower leagues and blood them in the Prem. But I think many people are exaggerating the benefits of this alone. Spain have only turned great in the last 4 or 5 years. Before that they were consistent underperformers despite having a top league full of Spanish players. Could it be that they simply have a good generation of players this time around who happen to all play for the same club for 9 months of the year? I support the attempts to try and blood more English players in the Prem from a younger age but I think we have a poorer generation of players. It's a cyclical thing. In recent history we have got to quarters and semis enough times to say we've not been a failure but we just weren't quite good enough to beat the top teams. I don't think it can all be traced to grassroots coaching or the number of foreigners in the Prem. I think a lot of factors have limited us in tournaments; we haven't always been a fully united camp, our managers have been victims of the media more than in other countries and the weight of history has weighed us down at times I feel. There seems a desire to try and change grassroots coaching and the Prem rules so I hope this will bear fruit but the other factors that have held us back will probably continue to be there. It's probably for the best that we didn't play a fully fresh German team after a gruelling 120 minutes against Italy. As it is we leave the tournament with some dignity, unbeaten in normal time including games against France and Italy and a respectable if unspectacular last 8 finish. It's something to build upon for 2014 by which time new blood will come through and we'll hopefully have a stronger squad. I think Hodgson is a good choice to take us there and I hope we are a united front going into that tournament without the media out to get him before a ball is kicked.

We've had just the same type of displays at previous tournaments when Lampard was in the side playing at his supposed peak. It's complete bollocks to think he'd have made any difference now when he's nowhere near the player he was. Don't think he'd have made much difference because we were outplayed across the field. But we lacked any composure in midfield which was actually my point. It maybe your point but it's not what you wrote. Yes it is, you've even highlighted it in bold. We needed someone else in midfield, a cool head capable of a defence splitting pass, switching the play quickly or striking from distance. Pirlo was the difference in that respect but I'm not saying Lampard would have filled that gap. It was merely another injury loss England didn't need in a tough game and Hodgson made best of what he had available. We rode our luck a bit and fought hard but we just didn't have the quality espescially in midfield. Which you said was Lampard ffs. "We missed his presence"...He "ticks the boxes" Hang on what's your point exactly? I don't think Lampard's the player he was, nor do I think he'd have made much of a difference in this match in all honesty. But I do think we missed him, we were desperate for a cool head in possession, someone with the technique to control a ball in tight space, take shots from distance and spray the ball out wide and for all his flaws, Lampard does that well. We could have done with Barry ahead of Henderson as well. My point was obvious, and has been repeated twice now. I can't be arsed repeating it again.

We've had just the same type of displays at previous tournaments when Lampard was in the side playing at his supposed peak. It's complete bollocks to think he'd have made any difference now when he's nowhere near the player he was. Don't think he'd have made much difference because we were outplayed across the field. But we lacked any composure in midfield which was actually my point. It maybe your point but it's not what you wrote. Yes it is, you've even highlighted it in bold. We needed someone else in midfield, a cool head capable of a defence splitting pass, switching the play quickly or striking from distance. Pirlo was the difference in that respect but I'm not saying Lampard would have filled that gap. It was merely another injury loss England didn't need in a tough game and Hodgson made best of what he had available. We rode our luck a bit and fought hard but we just didn't have the quality espescially in midfield.

Clubs that have put the breaks on spend of late like Spurs and Arsenal are developing more Eng players it's a fact. Spurs have put the breaks on spending? I haven't seen the figures but in recent years I'd say they've spent more than all but a few teams. Adebayor is on loan and Modric is being sold. Kyle Walker came through as has Rose cause they haven't been instant cash heavy purchases in defence. Modric cost a bomb and his and Van der Vaart's wages would have been massive, not to mention Adebayor's. Their bench at times last season was full of expensive international talent. As Sewelly said their spending has been higher than ever. Yet still Walker broke through.

Clubs that have put the breaks on spend of late like Spurs and Arsenal are developing more Eng players it's a fact. Spurs have put the breaks on spending? I haven't seen the figures but in recent years I'd say they've spent more than all but a few teams. I wonder if that is coincidence or perhaps due to the new rules coming in regarding homegrown players. I do think those rules will help a bit but the sad truth is we are not producing players good enough to challenge these foreigners for a place in the team. It's not that they don't get a chance to improve but that they're not good enough. We could have given Ramage or Huntington a thousand games but they'd never have been as good as Coloccini or Enrique. So to use Newcastle as an example our English kids just weren't talented enough so we got the chequebook out and scouted abroad. I do take the point our youngsters need more gametime but they might be better off getting that gametime in the Championship, proving their ability and then a Prem team will take the punt. Plenty have gone that route.

We've had just the same type of displays at previous tournaments when Lampard was in the side playing at his supposed peak. It's complete bollocks to think he'd have made any difference now when he's nowhere near the player he was. Don't think he'd have made much difference because we were outplayed across the field. But we lacked any composure in midfield which was actually my point.