Cronky

Considering who's written the article, one should be a bit sceptical. But still, I feel that the story in someway reflects what did happen after the relegation. We had tons of mediocre players on heavy salaries. And the club was knee deep in debt. The most logical thing to do in that situation is offload the big earners to a reduced price. But sadly for us, few players impressed in our relegation season. That made it hard for us to unload Colo, Enrique, Caroll, Barton and Smith . This is quite ironic, because those players transformed their play in Wankership and became crucial in securing our promotion. So MA original strategy had to be dumped, Instead of offloading everything, he was forced to plow money into the club to pay the heavy salaries of Colo and co, hoping that they would take us straight back to PL. Luckily for us, that worked. In hindsight, I must say that the season in Wankership was good for the club. It forced us to get rid of the likes of Owen, Martins and Viduka. And it allowed Colo, Carroll and Enrique to develop into the players they are to day. It showed how important it is to have patience with players from abroad too. It takes time to settle in a new culture and into the frenzy of PL. Colo and Enrique went from rubbish to star performers. The relegation forced the club into the new path we're now onto. I'm inclined to think that without it, Colo and Enrique would not be half the players they are today. We would neither have sold Carroll for £35 mill with a 25% sell on clause (if we had stayed up, we still would have continued with Oba and Owen instead of the likes of Carroll) and we probably would not have appointed important staff such as Carr that led us to discover Tiote. It all hinged on us coming straight back up. If we hadn't, the downward momentum would have continued and we'd have done a Leeds, relying more on younger players and possibly facing another relegation. From all accounts, it was Smith and Nolan who united the squad behind the effort required. I know we've knocked them as players, but we owe them for that leadership they gave at the crucial time.

Credit to the bloke for sticking his neck out so bravely. Carroll isn't a £35m player, but that price was closely linked to the amount that Chelsea were prepared to pay to land Torres. Liverpool wouldn't have let Torres go without bringing in Carroll as a replacement. We were able to drive a very hard bargain, and effectively Chelsea financed the deal.

From what I've seen of Gradel, he wouldn't be much of an upgrade on Routledge. Lua Lua hasn't developed at the pace I was hoping, but he's still only 20. Potentially, he's far better than either of them.

Soon after I started watching football, England won the World Cup and three years later we won the Fairs Cup. I thought life was always going to be like that.

Ouch, wrong thread. I was wondering how far off the subject this thread was going to go. Views on Libya, anyone? You implying that we have a despotic leader who does not listen to his people. Seriously I wish I could stop posting in this thread so it could just die the death it deserves. There's a horrible fascination in re-visiting these old arguments. I'm old enough to know better but I can't help myself.

Ouch, wrong thread. I was wondering how far off the subject this thread was going to go. Views on Libya, anyone?

That statement has several unconvincing moments, but to take one - is it really fair for Keegan to say that he doesn't want to talk about what went on with Ashley and then to go on and say that there were lots of incidents that would really shock us? If he's got something to say, he should say it and give Ashley the chance to defend himself. you mean like he would in court? I don't know why you're introducing the idea of a court. In any walk of life, you don't go around saying in public that a person has done some terrible things but you'd rather not talk about them.

That statement has several unconvincing moments, but to take one - is it really fair for Keegan to say that he doesn't want to talk about what went on with Ashley and then to go on and say that there were lots of incidents that would really shock us? If he's got something to say, he should say it and give Ashley the chance to defend himself.

It was made explicit in the tribunal report. The £2 million that he ended up with was the severance pay specified in his contract, should the contract be terminated. Keegan attempted to have that clause annulled by the tribunal, but wasn't successful.

And why shouldn't he? Whether or not he was entitled to it, people can have their own view. But there have been a few posts which contrast Keegan's behaviour with other managers of supposedly lesser morals who have hung around in the hope of getting a big pay off. Just pointing out that Keegan worked for us for 8 months and sought £25 million at the end of it.

He did seek a pay-off. £25 million. Now I know that there are all sorts of views as to Keegan's motivation in seeking that sum. But he did seek a pay-off.

Keegan's problem is he's still very resentful at what happened and when you have that agenda within you it's not always sensible to attempt to answer the kind of loaded question that Gabby Logan threw at him.

Enrique True. Although like Johnson, I think Jose is better going forward.

The basis of any successful side is a strong defence, and I don't think Dalglish has got that. He doesn't even seem to be trying to address it, on the basis of the transfer rumours.

He's got a hell of a jump on him, not just for the disallowed goal but he outjumped Jaaskelainen for another header earlier on too. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. How many times does a striker outjump a keeper, in a clean contest? He's a superb athlete. There's no limit to what he can achieve, if he sets his mind to it.

For the record, Keegan did say that Pardew wasn't going to get 'any' of the 35 million. We can all judge for ourselves how likely that is to be correct, or in what kind of position Keegan is to make that call. But that's what he actually said.

Clearly there's no love lost between Keegan and Ashley, and that spilled out in his response.

It's the intention behind the clash, not the result, that the ref has to judge. So yeah, nothing would change if the player had got injured. You concede the fallibility inherent in the process, yet give no reason as to why you think it is important that process is maintained. Given the topic title, subsequent video footage should be one of the areas that empower the FA imo. Well, there's fallibility in that a ref doesn't have eyes in his arse and can't be expected to see everything that happens on the pitch. Then there's fallibility in the sense that a lot of a ref's decisions are one of opinion rather than fact, and have to be made from one angle and in a split second. I'm very wary of authorities trying to intervene on the second kind of incident. It comes down to where do you draw the line. We could end up with the FA reviewing nearly every red or yellow card after the match, plus every incident that might have been a red or yellow card. Not only are these judgements difficult to make with any certainty, we'd simply be wasting too much time.

I think the current rule makes sense. There's a significant difference between acting on something that the ref hasn't spotted at all, and over-turning his judgement on something that he has seen. The principle of upholding the ref's decision, fallible though it may be, is very important.

That's quite thought-provoking, because I'd agree, quite often Tiote holds on to the ball longer than you'd like. I think the difference is that Tiote holds on to it, looking for the best possible ball forward. Parker's movement tended to be more with the aim of keeping possession, and we'd end up with a short ball sideways. I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point. But Tiote just looks the more confident player.

Credit must go to Pardew for the subs. We had completely lost the initiative after the sending off and looked like losing. It wasn't apparent from the small screen, but he went to three at the back with Taylor, brought on Ranger's pace and still kept two up front. It was one of those occasions where attack is the best form of defence, and at the end we looked just as likely as Bolton to get the winner.

I know what you mean. I like to see defenders play the ball out properly, but it depends on the situation. With the goal, it felt like the players were passing the buck under pressure rather than playing it constructively.

A point would be fine indeed. If we're going to score, it'll be from a set piece, so Taylor makes sense.

If we're playing with only one up front, it should be Ranger. At least he has the pace to create something for himself.

Yes. We need to do something positive.