Cronky

I don't think Llambias is that powerful a figure. Ashley sets out the strategy, all the major decisions are run past him, and Llambias carries them out. There's a danger of looking for complicated explanations when a simple one will do. The owner has made it publicly clear that he wants the club to be breaking even financially by a certain time, and that the wage bill needs to come down. That was always going to be a problem for players like Barton who were on larger salaries than the new regime feels can be sustained. Getting anyone in any walk of life to take a pay cut is not a simple matter. I'm not convinced that the offer is ridiculously low because we've seen other players of similar stature this season - Ben Arfa, Carroll, Tiote - sign up. So the question is - do you start to deviate from your strategy because it's Joey Barton? I don't think so.

I'm not so sure about this. As with Michael Owen in his final year, Joey is on more money than he'd get elsewhere. It'd be in his interests financially to see out his contract and then be a free agent. He's not going to care whether the club get a transfer fee and he can't be sold without his agreement. What's more, I don't think a club with better prospects than us are going to be in for him, so he may as well sit on the situation. We've heard a lot about how he'll sign if a) Nolan signs b) the club re-invest the Carroll transfer money c) he gets a 4 year contract and even d) if there's a change of ownership. (Is that last one true??) The club might well have said, no more if-ing and waiting to see what other people do. Sign now or we'll make plans for a future without you. I can also see the club being reluctant to offer a 4 year contract when he's spent much of the previous 3 years either injured, suspended or in jail. I'm disappointed at this, but I can see their point of view.

I think Barton himself said at a talk-in that he had been offered a new deal but the terms weren't very good. As you say, it's hard to tell what's been going on from either the club or Joey's point of view.

The 06-11 figure is a bit distorted because it doesn't include the Souness spending spree, and does include the Carroll money. I've seen tables from that source before, and I'm not completely convinced. Did Liverpool and Spurs both spend more than Chelsea over the last 5 years?

Exactly what sort of contract Nolan is worth is open to debate, but in any case that's down to the club to decide. For Joey to publicly say that Nolan's contract is the deal-breaker for him is a form of manipulation that's not good for the squad as a whole. The squad have to see that everyone's being assessed according to the same process. I'd agree with oldtype - the whole thing is in danger of getting out of hand.

The club has to be aware of a player's personal issues, but to offer his mentor a playing contract with that in mind, is going too far. Those two are starting to talk like they're the sole guardians of team spirit. Joey in particular always seems to get a round of applause when he starts telling the owner what he should be doing, and criticizing other players, but for me, he's getting too big for his boots. He should stop trying to run the club and concentrate on continuing to sort out his own contribution.

I agree. That's not playing the game.

Top four you mean? or Premiership? Erm.. Hernandez? Decent point about Hernandez. His heading ability, coupled with the quality in Man U's midfield, allows them to get away with it, I think. To be honest, if any of the challenging teams had got their act together Man U wouldn't have won the league. Chelsea lost their way, Arsenal were hampered by injuries, City weren't quite there, Liverpool aren't a force. All the top teams were vulnerable this season, but Man U held it together. My general point is that instead of seeing two strikers operating side by side in a 4-4-2, you tend to see one advanced striker, and one withdrawn. Players like Owen and Defoe don't really fit that pattern. PS - Robbie Keane is another one.

Harper 6 - Has done a decent enough job. Krul 6.5 - Promising. Great shot-stopping ability, but like most young keepers, his decision-making about when to come for crosses, when to catch, when to punch etc, needs working on. Now needs an extended run in the side. Enrique 7.5 - Great attacking player, and has improved defensively, if prone to the odd lapse. Perch 4 - Yet to impress. Looks nervous. Coloccini 7.5 - Improved a lot and makes some great interceptions and interventions. Occasionally exposed for lack of pace and strength though. Not quite as good as most crack him up to be IMO. Williamson 7 - Has risen to the occasion very well. A decent all rounder. S Taylor 6.5 - His problems have always been between his ears, and lately it looks like Pardew has helped in that area. Despite his experience, he's a work in progress. Simpson 5.5 - Improved, but still doesn't look confident enough. Seems more scared of making a mistake than making something happen. Jonas 7.5 - At times, a vital outlet for us. Not the most elegant of players, but one you can rely on for 100% effort. Ferguson 7 - Has come from nowhere to be our brightest prospect. Shows no nerves. Looks classy. Nolan 6.5 - As usual, has weighed in with important goals, but his lack of pace leaves him a spectator against the better sides. Guthrie 6 - Has improved, but still doesn't look strong enough. Shows the right attitude though. R Taylor 5 - Doesn't seem to have the ability to be more than a stand-in. Tiote 8.5 - Outstanding for his energy and commitment to the cause. Barton 8 - At last, he's shown his real quality. I think he's lost a bit focus since the turn of the year though, when all the speculation about a move started. Routledge 4.5 - Found out at Premiership level, not for the first time. Lovenkrands 5.5 - Tries his best, but that's not enough. Ameobi 7 - Has done a decent job as target man, when called on, and can be a handful. Seems fated to be only judged on his mistakes. Ranger 6 - Incredibly frustrating to watch. Has all the attributes but doesn't seem to work hard enough on his game and fluffs his lines too many times. When on song, he can really lift the side. Carroll 8 - Looked fantastic in the air, and useful on the deck. Probably already England's best target man, but target men shouldn't go for £35m. Best 6 - Looks good in the air, and has done better than I thought he would. Still seems quite limited and unlikely to be more than a stand-in. Hughton 7 - Kept things rolling and I didn't want to see him go. Pardew 8 - Done well in a difficult situation. No particular weaknesses as a manager, that I can see. He now has the chance to make his mark.

Defoe is a good finisher, inside and outside the box. For that, he needs to play right up on the last defenders, but at the same time, like Owen, he's not great at holding the ball up. That kind of striker isn't so much in favour at the top level any more.

Based on a Dennis-style scouting mission, he looks fine to me. I don't think Nolan would get many games if we sign him.

Was definitely Figueroa. Yeah. The co-commentator on Sky wrongly identified the player as Zoggy, and I don't think his colleague was sufficiently sure of his ground to correct him. The mistake has been perpetuated by the likes of the Beeb. I'd agree with TRon, that the strengths and weaknesses of his play that we saw before are still there. His control of the ball when moving forward isn't that secure, and while he can open a defence up by getting past his man, he's just as liable to lose it completely. If we're going to pay £10m +, I think we can get someone who's more the complete package.

His performance yesterday reminded me of how he often used to perform for us - wandering around like a lost soul, tentative, mentally not switched on. The occasion seemed to get to him. My fear is that he's been doing well playing in a free role, as a big fish in a small pond, without the pressure of playing for a big club. Take him out of that and it'd be a different story.

Very impressed again by young Shane Ferguson. Quick, decisive and skilful in what he does.

There's been some great times for sure. Things are looking up. Ever since Sir Bob's departure we've been struggling to put a positive face on the future, but I think we can start doing that now.

Wigan have been shocking. Zoggy anonymous. I think an advantage of a 4-4-2 is it's easier for players to know what they're supposed to be doing, so it holds up more easily under pressure. Wigan seem to be trying to play a 4-3-3, but they've got no shape at all. Their only consolation must be they can't be any worse in the second half.

Yes. But normal.

Some French-African bloke who I've never heard of but who turns out to be quite good.

i honestly think sturridge could do it in an andy cole type way. Quite possibly. He's a handful, but I'm not sure how good he is with his back to goal. I've only really seen him moving forward with the ball. If he doesn't really have any 'target man' qualities, it would be like we were committing ourselves completely to an Arsenal / Barca style, which verges on a 4-6-0. Every attacking player, including the full backs, would need to be comfortable with the ball and we're some way away from that.

As before, bit irritated by some of Joey's comments. He's let the club and the fans down with his behaviour before, and he shouldn't be criticising other players. He shouldn't also be publicly involving himself in the issue of Nolan's contract. It's like he's trying to pressure the club into offering his mate a good deal. Either that, or he's reluctant to take responsibility for his own decision.

Blackpool and Birmingham have the toughest fixtures, so them. Stoke's season is over, so I'd fancy Wigan to get at least a draw.

Very good point, although I think the parachute payment is a bit unfair on the teams in the Championship, I can see why it's needed. The different in income between the two divisions, and then again for Champions League, seems crazy. Very difficult to run a business stably when a penalty, missed offside decision or a couple of unlucky injuries could reduce you income by over half. Clubs get criticised for taking risks, but the way things are set up, there's enormous pressure to take a risk. Owners are often their own worst enemies. If they're in the CL or the Premiership, they want to maintain those financial rewards, but it's like they're acting in some parallel universe where nothing goes wrong and they're never going to drop out of the top four or get relegated. When that happens, they're in trouble. I can't see it changing unfortunately, because clubs tend to act out of their own, short-term interests, but a more equitable distribution of TV money (as I think happens in American sports) would make life a lot easier all round.

weren't the spurs board making noises to the effect that they'd have to trim a few things if they failed to reach the champs league ? It's extremely difficult for clubs to reach financial stability when there are such huge financial consequences either for missing out on a CL place, or for getting relegated from the Premiership. Looking at us, our turnover slumped suddenly from 101m to 52m. No self-supporting business can survive that without subsidies, especially when chance and ill luck plays such a part in competitive sport.

I don't think it'll work like that, because of the top clubs, only Man City and Chelsea look like failing to meet the rules. It'll be in the interests of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool etc - who don't have wealthy benefactors - to see that the rules are enforced. They won't break ranks and form a Euro League where they'll be at a disadvantage. As I said, more likely is that City and Chelsea will try to cheat unilaterally.

Our gate receipts are pretty impressive considering we are in Championship. Turnover for the coming year could be close to 90m excluding Carroll's money. And seems like Liverpool would be in deep deep trouble for the coming year's figures. 121m wages are terrible for a club with only Europa places this year and no Euro competitions next year. They may have to sell before buy. Liverpool still have a pretty solid turnover though, even considering the loss in income due to missing out on Europe. The key for them will be Fenway, who are surely in for the long haul. They've already ploughed in some serious money. I did think our wage bill would be higher, keeping it at 56% was a surprise. We need to offload a handful of high earners this year, as "extra" players' wages (Gallas, VDV) will have been offset by the CL revenue and other clubs picking up at least some of the tab on people like Keane and Bentley. Pleasantly surprised by the figures shown. I thought that that 156M for property development for Arsenal was included the last time Conn did this? I just do not get Man City or Chelsea. Honestly. They must know something we don't about the new financial constraints. Man City's commercial activities magically increasing to 53M? More than Arsenal's, and not far off Liverpool's? If the fair play regulations mean even a tiny fraction of what they're supposed to mean then they'll get laughed out of Europe. Unless UEFA specifically states that "related party transactions" will be excluded in calculating the financial fairplay rule, they would not have any trouble. Say, Man City invited to play a match in Dubai for 500m. Done. Neither club seems to be preparing themselves for the new rules, and that's a worry. It's like they're not taking it seriously, or thinking that the rules are so open to interpretation that they won't stand up to a legal challenge. Or they're used to money meaning power, pure and simple. From what I understand, UEFA are well aware of the possibility of clubs earning spurious amounts of money from sponsorship or whatever, where there's some connection between the club and the other party. Clubs' accounts will be monitored on a regular basis, with advice given at various stages about which transactions are acceptable and which aren't. As I said, it may well all depend on how robust the rules are from the legal point of view, and what appetite UEFA will have to defend themselves.