Mick

LuaLua is still only 18 (I think) so he needs games before he can really be judged, he looked effective at reserve team level and we'll only see what he's got to offer after 5 or 6 starts. Ryan Taylor is 6 years older and unlikely to get any better than he is currently so I'd take a chance and leave Taylor to cover at right back where he's adequate when needed and sometimes has something to offer with the dead ball. His free kicks were so bad yesterday that we stopped him from taking them towards the end because we were getting nothing from them. LuaLua may end up failing to make the grade but I’d rather see him given the chance to prove if he is or not. Yes, he's looked headless at times but I think that's understandable when a kid hasn't had time to settle in and feel like he's a part of the team.

We have nothing on the other side of the pitch so it's easy to defend against Jonas, Forrest had 3 players on him at times so he had nowhere to go.

We've got a winger in LuaLua but he needs a number of games before we will know what he can do. He has loads of pace and he's direct but he hasn't got the experience or bottle to shout at his team mates for the ball, which will only come with games. LuaLua would have defenders shitting if he used his pace to run at them. I’d play Jonas on the left wing as he’s the best we’ve got in that position and I think he’d play better if we had a threat on the other wing and we weren’t trying to play everything down one wing all of the time when we do play wide. I’d also play Ranger and Lovenkrands up front and keep Carroll and Harewood to come off the bench in the second half if needed. Ranger was playing really well and just needs his first goal to go in and then I think he’ll become a much more dangerous player. He’s going to gain nothing from sitting on the bench at this time in his career, he needs games. Lovenkrands seems to have more pace and control than both Harewood and Carroll and I’d expect him to do more with the ball if played to his feet than the other two. Our central midfield should be Smith and Guthrie from the start but Guthrie should be replaced in the second half as he doesn’t have the stamina to play 90 minutes. We’ve very little creativity in the centre of our midfield so we need something else to worry the opposition. The only thing we have to offer is playing the ball wide to spread play and we’re not doing that because of who we are playing.

Lovenkrands playing on the wing is totally different, Harewood was playing up front. Harewood had plenty of the ball and did nothing with it, including failing to connect with a ball about 4 yards from goal and would have flown into the net with any contact. Harewood had nothing today, he was slow and weak when he should have been winning the ball more often that he did, I'm not even sure that he's fit. For such a big bloke he loses out on far too many challenges.

Harewood was given plenty of the ball, its his fault that he couldn't do anything with it.

Hughton is awful and our play at the minute is reflecting that. I don't know what he's seen in Harewood to start him and give him so much time on the pitch. Hughton only changed things as a reaction to the Forrest changes, he should have made a triple substitution after 10 minutes of the second half but he's clueless. The biggest problem is that he'll remain here while the club is in limbo so what we've seen for the last 3 games will be repeated unless we get injuries to force changes on Hughton. Our midfield was shocking apart from Smith who wasn't very good either, he was just better than the others he was playing with. Nolan, Guthrie and Lovenkrands were absolutely shite yet only one of them went off and even then it was far too late. Harewood was shocking and Carroll was inept for most of the time. The only defender who did anything positive was Enrique and even he wasn’t as good as he usually is. We’ve now thrown away 7 points out of our last 9 and things don’t look like improving any time soon.

I didn't see them either so I guess I must also be a drama queen. Bristol City are a poor team but we gave them far too much time on the ball and the crowd were screaming at our players to get stuck in.

I thought we looked better with Carroll than without him, we should have made changes at half time and should not have waited until the 85th minute to bring Ranger on. I was amazed when Bristol had a throw in with minutes to go and Hughton picked up the ball and dropped it behind him which meant it took longer to get the ball back into play.

He didn't play very well, I thought he was playing in midfield in the first half as we looked like we were playing with 1 forward.

Hughton has proven once again that he has the balls the size of a gnat.

I can see one or two in these threads who look as if they are.

I can't see how anybody can take the clubs side in any of this. They haven't only ripped the piss out of Keegan, they've ripped the piss out of everybody and they're directly responsible for us playing Bristol City today through the actions which they have taken. If Keegan had stayed we would still be playing in the Premiership, they made his job impossible to do and the direct result it us playing in the 2nd division. I find it unbelievable that anybody can defend that and I was always prepared to give them a chance.

I think the opposite, I think it has proven that Keegan did use it as an opportunity to quit but I also think he had no other option. It was either quit or have the final say on players removed from him and handed over to Wise. Keegan had to walk or he would have been a puppet manager who had no say on players coming or going.

I don't think any of the above was ever going to come out because it had nothing to do with the case. The fact that the club didn't use the Lampard stuff tells its own story as they've tried everything else to win. Including happily being seen as liars not only to Keegan but the fans and I find that staggering.

The claim has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the case, it's proven that Keegan was right to walk and that's all that matters. His claim will not be something which he came up with, he will have been advised what to go for and will have had to follow legal advice.

I don't see any gaps, at least none that matter.

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

I find it hard to believe that anybody could take the side of the club over Keegan on this issue, it's proven who was in the wrong and it wasn't Keegan. He gave them every chance to take a step backwards before signing a player who Keegan clearly didn't want yet they pushed on with the signing and got what they deserved. Keegan was promised final say on all transfers and they know it, they are a bunch of lying bastards and have no place at this club. Anybody who defends the club over this is fighting a losing battle and should just give up. I’m sure that Keegan did have a promise of final say on transfers and the lies were not when they told us that. The lies have come since then to try and cover up for Keegan being forced out as they’ve tried to prevent him from getting his pay-off. I wouldn't be bothered if Keegan had claimed £250 million, the point is that he felt he was right to walk and an independent panel have agreed with him. The lies from within the club are far worse than anything Keegan claimed and making an issue of Keegans claim is a strange thing to focus on.

Probably as I think safer alternatives are what's needed to give us stability and I don't think Hughton or Shearer offers anything close to a guarantee of that. This club needs stability from top to bottom and the quicker we go for it the better. We're in the right league now if we're going to go through change again. We've had no stability since Bobby left the club and we're desperate for it, with the right people in the club obviously.

I'd rather have Shearer than Hughton if it was a straight choice between the two. Hughton reminds me very much of Roeder but he's got an advantage that he's in a weaker league with a set of players who are better than anything else in the league. Hughton would fail miserably in the Premier because he's not good enough. We worry about bringing in our kids to cover injuries but they are probably better than a lot of the reserves at other clubs. Hughton playing Nicky Butt for 90 minutes against Ipswich was pathetic and something which I think will be typical of him. I hope he proves me wrong if given the change but I doubt that he will, I don’t think he’s got the bottle to stick up for himself either if he came up against a chairman or MD, I think he’d roll over. Shearer on the other hand would be a massive gamble, he'll either fail miserably or he'll do spectacularly well because he's single minded. If things work out for him then he'll go from strength to strength, if things turn bad then he'll fail terribly and could turn out to be Souness mark 2. Shearer dropping Owen last season was a massive decision from him and the right one, I was surprised and delighted that he made it, I doubt Hughton would have done so. It will be interesting to see how Hughtons team selection goes when the out of form Joey Barton, the knacker Nicky Butt and others are fit. I wouldn’t be surprised to see both Barton and Butt are playing and both struggling. If the club is taken over then getting in a manager should be the biggest priority so that the new manager has time to work with the players in a league which isn’t very good and the manager, whoever he is should be able to bring his own players in to build his own team. If Hughton is still here next season as manager then I’d expect him to be sacked before the end of November because of poor results. As I said, I think Shearer is a gamble, I think Hughton will fail at the highest level although I think he’s done enough to remain here no matter who comes in because we owe him for what he’s done.

Locking doors will not help anybody.

Nothing.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7430/starsintheireyes2.jpg

27-30 was fine just before kick off. Just a couple of retards who couldn't fathom out which way to put the ticket into the scanner.... Liam O should have said, I would have helped you both out.