Cronky

Not necessarily. They're going to be touring around, and you don't want a player with a ligament injury travelling from place to place, hopping on and off planes, in and out of hotels etc. He needs rest, stability and regular treatment.

Well presumably because we don't want to potentially waste a lot of money in transfer fees and wages on a player who'll end up as a reserve and who is only then going to block the progress of the promising young left back that we've already got. I know you like Shane Ferguson, but as a defender he is completely unproven. Enrique has the speed and power to stop any attacker whatever his attributes, whereas Ferguson looks like he could be knocked over by a gust of wind. In fact he's already been knocked out of our optimistic hopes he could play this role through injury in the pre-season friendlies. Thank the lucky stars I say. Despite his appearance, I don't think Ferguson is that much of a pushover. But my point is that if he's the number 3 left back, he won't get the right opportunities.

He had a poor season by his standards last time - either due to injuries or being distracted by the Barca-transfer saga, I'm not sure. But at his best, mentally and physically, he's a great player and would get a place in any side in the world. It looks like he's come to the end of the road with Arsenal though. It's gone on too long now.

Well presumably because we don't want to potentially waste a lot of money in transfer fees and wages on a player who'll end up as a reserve and who is only then going to block the progress of the promising young left back that we've already got.

Brazil transfer window ends Tonight so no time to make a deal. Or is it? I'm surprised this transfer hasn't received more attention. City will be desperate to offload the player, if for no other reason that they've got to start trying to maximise their income with Financial Fair Play kicking in. However, it's difficult to get a big fee with the player saying he wants to be closer to his family in South America. Then we have a Brazilian club offering a fee which is nearly four times the South American record - a sum that would have been considered totally out of their reach before. City announce that the deal is done, only for the Brazilians to withdraw, saying that it may get revived in January, presumably if the terms are right. I can't be the only one wondering what's going on.

It seems to me that, while the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool might be interested in signing Jose, he wouldn't be their first preference and they'd only turn to him once they'd exhausted their other options. In that event, would it really be a good move for the player? He'd surely be better off with a club that really wanted him.

Barmy decision IMO to give the captaincy to someone who's just put in a transfer request.

Not a great buy for Swansea. If you buy Championship standard players, that's where you'll end up.

The way I see it, we have tried to get another striker, and were willing to pay the appropriate fee for Gervinho or Gameiro. They both turned us down in order to join clubs whose prospects seemed better. Fair enough. Do we then lower our sights and go for a striker who's not quite in that bracket? Trouble is, we may want to upgrade in a year's time, when we may be in a position to attract a better player, but the money will already have been committed. We could go for a more expensive striker, but that could mean over-paying them to overcome their reluctance to join. That could backfire as well. Building a team needs a long-term plan, however tempting it may be to cut corners.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events). But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference. He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess. This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on. Healthier balance sheet but short on playing staff of right quality. But why worry about squad ability, its only a football club. Your putting words in my mouth there, I do worry about the overall squad ability. Try not to take my post out of the context in which it was made. edit: or should I say, I have concerns. I don't worry about it. There are two aspects to the club. Finance, yes we are in a better position. Team, we are a poorer side than the one he bought. Fundamentally I'd want to be enthused by the football rather than the annual release of accounts. That remains to be seen, but I suspect you'll be proved wrong on that. Even without the two more signings that will probably happen, I think we're stronger now than we've been for some time. If you gave me the option of Kevin Nolan and Andy Carrol in a straight swap for Cabaye and Demba I'm afradi that I would say we were in a worse position... Time will tell? Well I wouldn't agree, and particularly if you add in the returns of Ben Arfa and Gosling, and the arrivals of Marveaux and perhaps Abeid as well. Carroll and Nolan did lead to us playing in a certain way, which was fine for getting promotion and sticking out the first season, but if we want to kick on we need to change our style. The important thing about the new signings is that they'll enable us to play through the midfield a bit more and keep possession more easily. Comparing individual players with one another misses that overall picture. I think this will turn out to be our best side since the Sir Bob days.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events). But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference. He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess. This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on. Healthier balance sheet but short on playing staff of right quality. But why worry about squad ability, its only a football club. Your putting words in my mouth there, I do worry about the overall squad ability. Try not to take my post out of the context in which it was made. edit: or should I say, I have concerns. I don't worry about it. There are two aspects to the club. Finance, yes we are in a better position. Team, we are a poorer side than the one he bought. Fundamentally I'd want to be enthused by the football rather than the annual release of accounts. That remains to be seen, but I suspect you'll be proved wrong on that. Even without the two more signings that will probably happen, I think we're stronger now than we've been for some time.

It's not usual for South American clubs to be spending £40m plus on a player. Very convenient for Man City, with the Ffp rules coming up though. PS - Previous record for a South American club is £12m.

It looks like we're looking at players that can go straight into the first team now. I also imagine that West Ham would be far more keen to offload their high earners rather than their promising youngsters. He might not go cheap. If I remember right, he was in the first team at 18, and he was one of those players who you instantly clock as having talent. I think his development has been blighted by injury, so he might not be the right kind of risk for us at this moment. He needs first team football, and I assume he'll get it where he is now.

Most 18 year olds still look a bit scrawny, but he seems to have already filled out. It'd be a great bonus if he emerges as first team quality at this stage.

Yeah, he'd very much fit in with the other players we've bought, and the new style we're aiming for. The new guy at Chelsea obviously wants to take a bit of time to look at the squad that he's got. Sturridge is still a bit raw, so it depends on whether he's got the patience and backing to give him that experience. At Chelsea, there's so much pressure to produce instant results. In the Abramovic era, I can't think of any player who you could say has 'come through the ranks'. One young player I'd be keeping an eye on is Junior Stanislas at West Ham.

The question that those morons should have asked themselves. Well, that, and whether bullying is anything to be proud of.

True, but I haven't noticed the tiniest spark of jealousy over Sunderland on this forum so far. And I reckon that's because despite their expenditure, they haven't moved significantly forward.

Yeah, I love the way he dismisses the issue of the quality of the players right at the start, as though it's a minor consideration. In fact, it's crucial. It's very easy to spend lots of money and end up no better off. Villa, Sunderland and Liverpool will find that, I suspect. Another big assumption is that an owner who is 'in love' with the club is going to make better decisions. Shepherd was a real fan but his judgement was often clouded by emotion and impatience, he got over-involved in the football side, and many decisions were idiotic.

He has to face the fact that he hasn't convinced the bigger clubs of his quality. I don't think he'll get a better offer than the one he's got from us. I don't mean financially, I mean his future prospects. That's unless he'd rather move from the area, but there's no suggestion of that.

They seem to be over-paying for their players, and that can't go on forever. Underlying it all is the problem with their stadium. It looks like they can't afford to either upgrade Anfield or build a new one. Unless they're prepared to build a shared ground with Everton, they're stuck financially.

If 'fight for his place' means work harder in training, then great. My hope is that Ranger will have learned that he's not indispensable. It could be the kick up the arse that he's needed.

If true, it's only an opening bid, and we'll be prepared to go higher, although not as high as £9m, I suspect. I do believe that, for various reasons, the player really wants to come here, and we've got the upper hand.

Looking at the way Ashley runs his business, cost cutting and looking for bargains is a major part, but you don't get to where he has without a competitive streak and a desire to win. In pursuit of that, he likes the odd gamble, and pitting his judgement against his competitors. The idea that he's only interested in money and will sell anyone when the chance of a profit comes along is misreading the situation. A decision that marks him out is the one to give a five year contract to a loan player with a badly broken leg who'd only played 4 games. We could well reap big rewards in terms of the player's performance and our reputation in France, which I think has helped in player recruitment.

Sounds like Swansea don't fancy their chances at a tribunal. If they can give him another contract with a release clause, he'll have the opportunity of Premiership football right away rather than spending an indeterminate time on the bench at a bigger club. It might well be the right move for the player.

It makes financially planning a bit more predictable, so there are advantages for the clubs who are already part of the league. But ultimately - no, it's unfair on the clubs who are on the outside. The dream of being promoted to the very top is a dream that has to be kept alive for a number of clubs. What would be a useful reform is evening out the distribution of TV and other income between the Premiership and the Championship. Relegation and Promotion have too large an impact plus and minus, and proper financial planning becomes impossible.