Cronky

I saw him playing up front for the Under 21s when they had a striking problem. Admittedly it wasn't the best of circumstances, but it did expose certain problems for a striker who was supposed to be leading the line. He didn't have much of a football brain and he couldn't hold the ball up. He has that pace of course, but unless the opposition are chasing the game and leaving space for him to run into, a good defence will drop deep and limit his opportunities. Wenger hasn't been keen to play him up front, and I suspect those are the reasons.

I'd be fine with Campbell. He did okay last season and, more to the point, I don't have much faith in our other CBs, apart from Williamson.

Benitez has failed in the sense that he didn't win the League. However, that is now an extremely difficult task, as you have to finish above all three of Chelsea, Man United and Arsenal, so I don't see him as a bad manager. A lot this year was going to depend on Aquilani's ability to replace Alonso, and that's been Rafa's most costly misjudgement. Aquilani looks to have struggled, mentally and physically, with the English game. The other major question mark is this insistence on zonal marking at set pieces. Not many believe in that system, and I think it's cost them a few vital goals. That can make the difference between success and failure.

My friend actually has the ball, haven't kicked it around yet because we're too afraid to put something so sacred on such dirty ground. Whenever we do get around to it I'm interested to see how it moves. Whether it's dodgy or not, I don't agree with introducing an unfamiliar ball just before the start of the game's biggest tournament. Commercially it may make sense, but I don't think it's fair on the players.

Better than King? Are you on drugs? When he's fit King is arguably England's best centre half bar none Upson is dogshit though. Agree there. King didn't look too confident against Mexico, either before or after the game. He's under a lot more pressure now. Personally, I'd move Carragher to the CB position now. I've got more faith in him than the alternatives.

That's not my understanding of it. Just because they own the club doesn't mean they are personally liable for the company's debts. If the company goes bust, then the only assets that the creditors will be able to seize on are those that are part of the company. What's more, if they bought the company with money from the bank which was secured against the company's assets (which I think is the case), then it's the bank that's liable to lose out, not the owners. At the moment, the club is declining in value because the debt is increasing. In order to stem the debt, the club will have to sell its best players, which will affect its league position, which will lead to a further decline in value. So it's a vicious circle and neither the banks nor anyone else will be lending any more money in order to get the club out of it. What you need is some mega-rich football fan like Abramovich who is prepared to take on the mess, just for the status of being the owner of Liverpool FC. I'm sure that there is interest in buying the club, but it looks like they're circling the wagons, knowing that the current owners are sitting on a declining asset and will have to admit defeat at some time. The longer they wait, the cheaper the club is going to be. Trouble is, the owners are successful businessmen, and may not like admitting failure. There is some hope, in that the banks seem to have insisted on bringing in Broughton to oversee the sale of the club. But unless you get someone who is absolutely loaded, then the journey back up may be a long one. I am sure I read that they have this rolling 10% interest thing on the £100-odd million they put in to the club when they bought it. I think they also have a clause which means this debt is made payable immediately if the club changes hands. At this amount they will probably be holding out as long as they can until the bank calls in their loan (which they have no way of paying) which I also believe has a deadline in the not too distant future. The only way this 100-odd million plus rolling interest could be paid back is by selling their best players (assets). Of course they longer they hold on the more this amount will be so I guess they are just waiting until the bank makes their move to seize control then activate this clause which will need to be paid and then the banks will have to use what is left to settle the money owed to them. Bit bleak if you ask me. For those who are not aware Hicks and Gillette were involved in a pension scam involving Circatex / Viasystems in South Shields if I recall correctly where money was siphoned off / disappeared in a similar business model / set-up. They was an outcry of course but they just explored some loop holes. Which begs the question - what was the bank thinking about when it lent them that money under those conditions? It looks to me like the banks were, effectively, taking all the risks.

Good point. You could sell some players or maybe a training ground, but you'd end up with a club that was less valuable than the one you bought, so you'd be no further on. The only equivelent to the business model of asset stripping would be closing the company down and selling off the land. However, no local authority is going to give planning permission for the stadium to be torn down and the land used for other purposes. So the land without the club is likely to be worthless.

That's not my understanding of it. Just because they own the club doesn't mean they are personally liable for the company's debts. If the company goes bust, then the only assets that the creditors will be able to seize on are those that are part of the company. What's more, if they bought the company with money from the bank which was secured against the company's assets (which I think is the case), then it's the bank that's liable to lose out, not the owners. At the moment, the club is declining in value because the debt is increasing. In order to stem the debt, the club will have to sell its best players, which will affect its league position, which will lead to a further decline in value. So it's a vicious circle and neither the banks nor anyone else will be lending any more money in order to get the club out of it. What you need is some mega-rich football fan like Abramovich who is prepared to take on the mess, just for the status of being the owner of Liverpool FC. I'm sure that there is interest in buying the club, but it looks like they're circling the wagons, knowing that the current owners are sitting on a declining asset and will have to admit defeat at some time. The longer they wait, the cheaper the club is going to be. Trouble is, the owners are successful businessmen, and may not like admitting failure. There is some hope, in that the banks seem to have insisted on bringing in Broughton to oversee the sale of the club. But unless you get someone who is absolutely loaded, then the journey back up may be a long one.

One of the reasons I'm sceptical about this story is it hasn't been reported in the media. If the club was firing off solicitors' letters about transfer rumours, then that would surely have interested the papers. They're not usually hesitant about poking fun at the club, and if these letters really have been sent, then they can't be done for libel.

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why? Surely if they don't own the land that the stadium is built on, then the stadium on its own is worthless from the point of view of collateral. The land is the real asset. The stadium is only valuable to a football club.

It certainly would be a surprise.

I completely disagree. This is comfortably our best chance of winning it since 1966, although we'd be in trouble if Rooney was injured. With Lampard, Gerrard, Joe Cole, SWP / Lennon, Rooney, and Johnson and Ashley Cole backing up down the wings, there's a lot of attacking flair, which is something England teams have been lacking in the past. Usually we come up short against the best teams, but this time we've got another gear to move into. Capello has been experimenting with fringe players over the last few games, so I wouldn't read much into those performances. Our best team is a very good one.

It was a bit of a surprise, because Capello seemed to be favouring Walcott over SWP in so many of his selections over the last couple of years. The decision is a bit of an about-turn, although well justified. Walcott has such blinding speed, that Capello was really hoping to include him. What I think he's found is that Walcott hasn't added that much to his game, and opponents have now sussed him out a bit. Basically, he's not very adaptable. Walcott's starts in the last two games seem to have been in order to give him a final chance to impress, rather than as a sign that he was first choice. Nobody was quite reading Capello there.

I know what you mean, but realistically who would he take? Bent and Carlton Cole aren't going to provide anything that isn't already there in the squad. Perhaps Cole has the ability but has only woken up too late in his career. It would have been nice to have included another creative, withdrawn striker but no-one particularly springs to mind, and Capello would have been aware that Joe Cole and Gerrard can fill in there.

I'm really, really, really pleased at SWP's inclusion over Walcott, and in a way impressed. It shows that Capello will make his own mind up, regardless of whichever way media opinion happens to be blowing. I'm a bit disappointed that Johnson isn't going, but realistically a centre back would have had to make way for his place and perhaps that's not sensible. Overall, a very good squad with lots of skill in the midfield, where there are no cloggers. Good to see.

It does look like Capello was using the two games to give time to the players who he thought were dodgy. A bit of an unorthodox way of making your mind up, but it makes sense.

Trying to use public pressure to get the club on the cheap. We've seen it ourselves.

I like that reasoning. The only changes I'd make is Baines for Huddlestone, because I wouldn't want to go in with only one left back. I'd also have Carrick for Walcott, because Barry looks the only anchor man at the moment. I doubt if King could play there, with his dodgy fitness. I like how you've managed to pack so much flair in the squad though.

My guess with Beckford is that he hasn't really pushed himself. He's preferred to be a big fish in a small pond. Everton will be a different challenge altogether and he may now be mature enough to rise to it.

Beckford's an under-achiever, and Moyes obviously thinks he can get that bit more out of him. He's certainly capable of moving up a level, if he puts his mind to it.

The club has to deal with Thommy House & the Sunday Sun is in Thommy House. Correct. I'm told the club lawyers contacted the Journal denying they wanted to buy Onuoha, citing the "no capital outlay" statement as evidence. Since when did a club's lawyers get involved in denying transfer rumours?

It does seem to be the owners who decide the transfer targets at that club, not the manager.

I'm hoping Capello is only going to take Ferdinand, Terry and King as specialist centre backs, because he'll have Carragher and Barry who can fill in there if necessary. In any case, I don't think the other contenders - Upson and Dawson - are any better. That would free up one more place in the midfield for SWP, who I really think should go.

I saw him talking about that the other day. His advice was to picture in advance the ball ending up in the back of the net, the cheering crowds and the hugs from team-mates. In other words, it was about approaching the kick in a relaxed and confident state. What probably helped him though was the gift that he had naturally - a hard and accurate shot.

A sea change in the performance in the second half. We had players who could shift the ball forward and open up space. Joe Cole will have convinced Capello that he should go. The selection that bothers me is out wide. I'm assuming he'll take two of Lennon, Walcott and SWP. Lennon is nailed on, but I worry he'll take Walcott, who is completely one dimensional and won't trouble decent defences. SWP, for all his faults, can be a threat at this level and should go.