Cronky

I'm not so sure. There's an imbalance, in that four out of the five are basically target men. I think Hughton will be looking for a better player than Lovenkrands for the more secondary striker role.

I still think he wants a move to AC Milan and the club and the agent are just trying to drum up competitive interest elsewhere so that Milan have to up their offer, in terms of transfer fee and wages. Milan believe that they're in the driving seat and are playing it cool. Both Hoffenheim and NUFC have been reported as getting into talks and then mysteriously nothing comes of it. It all feels like a game to me.

Apparently the deal has already been done. Say more.

It does raise questions, yet again, about who makes the decisions about transfers at that club. They've had a recent history there of friction between players, and between players and manager. Mancini is still trying to establish himself, and there will be lots of new faces anyway who will need to be knitted together into a team. Why bring in Balotelli? Not only is he a difficult player to manage, he actually seems to take pride in being difficult.

Cleverley is a busy and skilful player, and I reckon he could play in that free role between striker and midfield. So Lovenkrands / Nolan, basically.

It was an interesting read, but they do tend to confuse things by making simple ideas complicated. As standards have improved, top teams can't afford to have, in that anchor role, a ball winner who can't pass or a playmaker who can't tackle. So you get a player who can do both and/or you have an extra man in CM - hence the rise of all the 4-5-1 type formations.

He doesn't sound too bright. Note the following quotes from that article - 'I always want to be the centre of attention. That's how I am.' followed by - 'Whatever I do, people always talk about me. They keep at it non-stop. Balotelli here, Balotelli there. Why?"

We don't have a player of that type in the squad, so I think he'd be a good buy. It's not 100% clear from that article who's making the running though - whether it's Penarol or the agent eager to find a club, or whether it's us eager to sign him. Bit like the Ben Arfa story.

At risk of ending up on someone's signature, if that transfer goes through, it would be the daftest of the summer.

I'm hoping Cleverley can play in that role between striker and midfield (assuming we get him, of course) Lovenkrands isn't quite good enough.

And subsequently, he signed an extended contract with Arsenal, something that your club don't seem to respect at all.

Why Ben Arfa is not it regular? This is THE question. In potential, yes ... True qu'Hatem was eager to participate in this game, I decided to bring him back as a wildcard, I know he can do things he did on two or three actions. Starting the game on the athletic level is currently difficult for him. If he can do in 90 minutes what he does in 20 minutes, it changes many things ... "(AFP) If he's struggling physically in the French league, he'll find it tougher in the Premiership. And we're not going to be one of the better sides, so it'll be all hands to the pump this season.

I think the policy is against signing older players for large fees, where they'd have no re-sale value at the end of their contracts and the fee couldn't be recouped. As Campbell is on a free, it doesn't really apply.

My favourite Sol Campbell insight - The opponent who Ian Wright least enjoyed playing against was Campbell. Wright would spend all game talking to the opposition centre back, putting him off and winding him up. However, no matter what he said, Campbell would completely ignore him. Not the slightest flicker of a response, and Wright would end up driving himself mad.

Harper won't go on for much longer, and Krul obviously thinks he's got a chance of stepping into his shoes. I'm very pleased, because he looks very talented. All he needs is the composure that comes from experience.

I'd love to join in, but it would mean agreeing with Ronaldo.

I agree. Get in a good anchor man in midfield and we'll be larffing.

It sounds like Marseilles are desperate to get rid of this guy. Can we not be careful what we wish for?

Williamson, deffo. He's not the greatest athlete, but he's a cool head and reads the game well. The other two are unreliable, each in their own way.

It would solve a problem, because there are doubts about the existing candidates. Nolan and Smith might not hold down a first team place in the Premiership. Barton has his wild moments. I don't think there's anyone else. If someone's going to lose their job, it may be better if it's not to someone from within. Richard Dunne outpacing him at 0:30. Dennis would never have allowed him to sign for us based on damning evidence like that. I think his slow pace could be a serious problem for us. Coloccini is slow as well. Two slow defenders are not good omen. And can our fitness regime keep Campbell fit and agile ? I appreciate that he is still an excellent game reader and a real physical presence. But we don't have anyone to cover his pace. Hopefully I am just being too pessimistic I really wouldn't say Campbell is slow, not like Colo is slow. The other significant thing with that video is that when a player did get past him, he somehow managed to nick the ball, or get his body in the way. When Colo is beaten, he stays beaten.

if it was arteta cahill or jagielka you can be damn sure they'd have put it in writing They haven't put a written offer to Pienaar either. Do we want rid of him? I think we just do business like it's still the 60's and your word is good tbh. bit of a difference tbh, any written offer given by everton (even just a £1 payrise) would have meant a tribunal fee if it was rejected by gosling Exactly. It's a completely different situation. Pienaar still has a year left on his contract. If he was to agree an extension now, would Everton be happy to let that go unsigned till the end of the season, knowing they had a verbal / gentleman's agreement? When this story first broke, I had a bit of sympathy for Everton. I assumed that Gosling had agreed a contract quite recently, and that the paperwork was a formality. It turns out that all Everton had was a verbal indication from the agent last November that a proposed contract offer would be 'fine', and an understanding from 3 years ago that, if Gosling did well, they'd offer him an extension. Over the last few months, Gosling had told the manager that he wasn't happy with his position in the squad, and the manager had told him that it wouldn't change. My bet is that Moyes knew the player wasn't happy, but probably wasn't aware of the lack of a written offer and its implications. It's the sort of cock-up through lack of communication that can happen in any large organisation.

That would explain why he's still here.

Like a lot of centre backs, he has a long stride, and therefore doesn't accelerate or change pace with quite the same ease as a shorter player. However, he can catch them up.

An interesting response from Everton, but there's a faint whiff of bollocks. I didn't realise that this so called 'gentleman's agreement' dated back three years, to when he first signed for the club. Would Everton still have felt obliged to offer him that 2 year contract extension if he hadn't made the grade in the meantime, just because there was a 'gentleman's agreement'? I don't think so. They made a verbal offer in November, but didn't put it in writing. It's still not clear why not, because they have to put it in writing at some time. In the meantime, it seems that Gosling made it clear he wasn't happy at not being used in CM, but Moyes told him he wouldn't use him in that role. Isn't that an indication that any so-called verbal agreement might need firming up, or the player could leave for nothing? If they'd really wanted the player, they wouldn't have let the situation drift like that.

Now now.