Cronky

I'm surprised that anyone still takes what Shepherd says seriously. He can't be trusted. We were going to spend money during January, and then didn't - supposedly because of the Halls driving the prices up by talk of a takeover. The man is a bull$hitter.

Batty - top of the list. A talented player who became more and more conservative as his career went on. Always looked busy without really taking responsibility. Keegan - good player, but never the great one that people said. That chirpy manner always irritated me. Robert - selfish, and once his one or two tricks had been sussed out, quite limited. Despite his high opinion of himself, it's interesting to see how his career has nose-dived since he left here.

Tony Green, Gazza, Beardsley. Sub - Rob Lee.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry about this. I do get the impression that even if Roeder hasn't actually lost the entire dressing room, there's been a rift between him and a few of the players. Attempting to bring them into line by threatening to ship them out won't work at all. He'll only further lose their respect. The possibility that, on top of that, there's a rift between Chairman and Manager, can't be a surprise. Shepherd has fallen out with the last two managers, and is always very quick to find a scapegoat. As for Big Sam coming, that presupposes that we're still in the Premiership. If the Chairman, Manager and Playing squad are at odds with one another, we'll have great difficulty picking up points. I was interested to read that Given today was talking about the need for 'unity' - which strongly suggested that disunity was a problem at the moment.

Good point. The key question is - will this project produce a profitable return on such a massive investment? Or - what is the real demand for another hotel, more luxury apartments and a conference centre in the city? It didn't work with Chelsea, and I really don't trust Freddie's judgement. He's a bit of a dreamer and an optimist who thinks things are going to go the way he wants them to.

It seems to me that the team at the moment is being built around Parker and this attacking midfield role that he apparently prefers. That certainly dictates the choice of Butt behind him (no pun intended) and means we don't have much creativity or incisive passing from the centre. I sense that it also affects Dyer, who is a key player for us and who we should be building the side around. I sense that Parker and Dyer don't combine together nearly as well as Emre and Dyer would. This point about Parker has been made before, I know, but it feels like in this mini-crisis, Roeder is throwing his weight behind the wrong man.

Pretty much sums it up for me aswell. Only until the Man City game really, i wanted him to stay. But the recent run of results and pitiful performances from the manager have got me thinking otherwise. We're not going to go anywhere with him in charge. A few weeks ago i said he had the strengths and i thought he would get better, especially with his own squad, but i just don't think he's up to it. Like i say - we'll go nowhere with this man in charge. Give the money to someone competent to spend. I think Roeder needs to get a grip. Our net spending over the last three transfer windows has been £10 million, so the idea that he'll be able to clear out half the side and replace them with better players is just daft. I was a bit concerned at his reaction to the Alkmaar defeat, with the players locked in the dressing room whilst presumbly he had a go at them. They must have been feeling shitty and that was probably the last thing they needed. The problem that night wasn't a lack of effort, it was a lack of organisation. Then Bramble gets scapegoated, despite having put in some good performances in the games leading up. Nothing can break a team's faith in their manager more than a feeling that someone, or some players, are being victimised. Basically, I think Roeder's reaction has been all wrong. The players need a lift, but I think he's making them feel worse.

I didn't want Roeder to get the job, but I've always felt until recently that he's made a good fist of it in difficult circumstances. It's seemed that we've had a united squad and that the players have been playing for him, whatever their limitations. It sounds now like that solidarity and mutual faith has been broken, and that's a real worry. We're not out of danger yet.

I think it's been apparent from early on that he has his limitations - poor touch and poor reading of the game - but his pace and strength can make things happen. It looks like we'll be short of funds for any rebuilding, and personally I'd sell either him or Owen. They're similar in many respects, and I don't think they'll combine well. Crouch is a good player, but again similar to Shola, although far more developed as a player. I wouldn't have them both, and personally I'd like to see Shola given a proper chance when fit, and in a role that would suit him. It would also save on the £10 million that Crouch would cost.

Going by the Sky-lights, we looked like a team who needed a win. I'm just a bit worried that Roeder's confidence took a bad knock in the Alkmaar defeat, and that's communicated itself to the team, as happens. Dyer played a major part in our revival half way through the season, and at the moment he doesn't seem to be playing as well. Not badly, just not as well. We don't have anyone to get us going. Duff created a few things, and deserved a bit of credit. The atmosphere in the ground seemed absolutely dead, when it wasn't openly hostile.

There's nothing to be said for relegation, but I'd agree that the only way the club can move forward is for a change at the top. We've flirted with relegation at times in the last two years, and this could turn into a third successive dodgy season. If the situation continues, one year we're bound to get a bit unlucky and go down. Shepherd is a meddling fool who undermines his managers. He has somehow got a few people to believe that it's all been the fault of the Halls, pulling the strings behind the scenes, and that we'd be better off if the last minimal check on his powers was gone. All a bit scary.

Personally, I'm a cock-up theorist rather than a conspiracy theorist, and what has happened to our club does nothing to change my thinking. Freddie has been far too hands on, he's over-involved in the football side of things, he has a manipulative and secretive style of management and has made a serious of costly blunders.

Why did Shreeves overstep the mark? Since when did any of the "herd" have the b******s to stand up to Fergie? Ferguson is a truly great manager - probably one of the two or three best ever - but he can also be a complete f***** tit. Players do get accused of cheating now and then, but I just thought that Shreeves was far more persistent than was justified in the circumstances. At the end, after Ronaldo said that he was fouled, he asks him if he could have stayed on his feet. I've not heard any player being asked that question before, and it was a bit stupid. Firstly, a foul is a foul, whether you go over or not. Secondly, no professional player struggles to stay on their feet when they've been fouled in the penalty area. I just thought oh FFS, give it a rest. You're not being clever, despite what you think. Fergie is very protective of his younger players, and tends to react like he's their Dad and they've been picked on. He's got a fierce temper, and that's not an attractive side of his character, so as I say, he's at fault, all though in a different way.

Both men at fault. Shreeves's questioning of Ronaldo overstepped the mark, and Ferguson was wrong to lose his rag like that. At the end of the day though, I've got far more admiration for a guy who's really achieved something than for someone who's just a critic on the sidelines who follows the herd and decides to have a pop at an easy target.

I don't think he's the only player that needed to apologise to Sir Bob. I've read a previous interview in which he gives a fuller picture of the incident. During half-time at a previous game, Sir Bob had wanted to make some changes, and wanted a player to go out of position for the sake of the team. The player refused and there was a massive row. Eventually Dyer volunteered to play in that position in order to move things on. A few months later, he gets asked to do something similar, and gets it in his head that he's become a soft touch. He acted wrongly, but there were other things going on at the time which undermined Sir Bob's position, and which puts it in perspective. He didn't name the player who refused to play out of position, but I wouldn't be totally astonished if it was Bellamy. On top of it all, the Captain had threatened to leave the club unless he was given a regular first-team place, and had made a public fuss when he had been dropped for one game. Hardly the right example.

He told you this did he? Do you need to be told? It's obvious from the way they play. (Just going for the record for the longest delay between post and reply.) Interesting to see it all again. I thought Solano was finished, but he's had a new lease of life at full back. I was banking on Shola doing well, but he's not had the chance. I thought Duff would shine, but he's been hampered by injury. I think he's coming good now though.

It's a very good quote. It happens a lot in football, teams not being mentally prepared for a contest because previous success has relaxed them too much. The great thing about Ferguson is that season after season, game after game, he's managed to send his teams out hungry and ready for battle.

The Halls total shareholding - father and son - is about 45%. They don't even have a majority. On the question of bids, what happened was there was a long period of negotiation, but everyone failed to come to an agreement. That doesn't suggest that Polygon's or Belgravia's bids weren't tempting, to the Halls at least, because otherwise they'd have been rejected out of hand. Shepherd then challenges Sir John Hall to stop trying to sell his shares to 'time-wasters', which is pretty insulting. SJH is a successful businessman and he's as well capable of spotting a timewaster as Shepherd. The directors of Liverpool, Villa and West Ham have seen this as a good time to sell, and I can't see that the Halls are any different. It's clear now that there's a division between the Halls, who want out, and Shepherd, who wants to stay. It really looks like Shepherd is rejecting any bids simply because he wants to take over the club himself. He's a proven incompetent who's taken the club downwards since he took over, there's no sign that he'd be able to bring in any fresh investment, and it's not in the club's interests short-term or long-term. To return to the question, I'd be pretty disgusted if it happened. Really disillusioned. I wouldn't stop being a supporter, but I think my interest would wane.

Absolutely right. I think he has struggled for fitness as well, but in the last few games he's looked a lot sharper and has often been getting past his man or winning a free kick. But ultimately yes, he's ending up in static situations where he's having to try to create something on his own. Duff is a very, very good player. His ability hasn't disappeared as a result of Mourinho or anything else. It's still there for anyone to see. But you have to a) look at the way he's playing now, not the way he was playing when he first came, and b) look at the context in which he's having to play.

It sounds like a very sad situation. The way I see it - The Halls want out, but Shepherd can block any potential bidder, because although he can't stop them getting a majority shareholding, with 29% of the shares he can stop anyone getting the 75% needed to take complete control. That makes us a far less attractive proposition to any investor. So effectively he's trying to put himself in a position where he's the only possible buyer for the shares, and can drive the price down. It also means that other potential owners who might be able to bring in more investment than Freddie are being blocked.

We won't move forward while Shepherd remains in charge, regardless of who the manager is. It's all gone quiet on the Hall front, and I hope that they're waiting until the end of the season, when they'll sell up and a take-over will get launched. That's our only hope.

Let's not forget that it was Roeder who took usfrom 15th to 7th place, through the Intertoto and through the UEFA group stage to get us this far. I don't think he called it right last night, and maybe one of our previous managers could have done better, but let's keep it in perspective. He decided to play virtually the same team as won the first leg, which is understandable, and which I think most of the others would have done. I don't think he reacted quickly enough or correctly when it became clear the plan wasn't working.

The penalty decision in the first leg was terrible, and it gave them a lifeline, but we knew what we had to do in the second leg, the opposition weren't of a higher standard than us, and we failed to do it.

If you really want to gain some insight into how transfers are organised at our club, read Sir Bob's book.

How has he done a good job? Transfers - why did he completely ignore our most desperate requirements. Tactically - inept Substitutions - NOT PATTINSON YOU ARSE! Motivation - seemingly zero On transfers, I think Roeder has the same problem as Robson and Souness - a Chairman who's secretive, difficult to work with and tries to make his own mind up rather than relying on the judgement of his manager. Motivation - I think the players generally play for Roeder. Tactics and team selection - usually okay, although not at his best last night. I think there's an issue of expectations here. Following the Robson era, we still expect to see a top four side, but we're not any more. That's been chucked away and it'll take a long while before we get back up there. But I admit, last night was a cock-up. As Roeder himself said, no-one played particularly well, and that's an indication that the team as a whole wasn't set up right.