sicsfingeredmong

Letting his ego override the needs of the 1st team/club. If so that closely mirrors Souness' ego driven trait, and therefore he can bugger off as well.

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions. If you're suggesting we were tapping them up before they handed their notice in I hope you're wrong. There are pretty serious consequences for that kind of thing in this situation, and I'm not talking about a couple of million quid donation to a charity. I wouldn't want us to be the ones to test the water. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be that stupid. Agree with the rest of it. If there's money left over because we've bought some bargains, then there's no reason why we have to wait a season to see if these bargains come good when we could additionally bring in a new quality striker for example and hopefully speed up the process of getting back up the table. Within reason of course, I'm not a fan of making too many changes to a squad at a time, and they'd have to be a player Keegan wants too, I'm not at all suggesting buying for buying's sake. UV i thought about posting this yesterday but never did - you've reminded me: ashley is renowned for upsetting the applecart in the business world right? doesn't mind pissing off the blue chips if he ends up successful; i just seriously hope he hasn't seen a niche in the game here, a way to pick good players up on the cheap by getting them to invoke the webster ruling all legal issues aside we'll be hated, utterly HATED throughout the game & people would simply not do business with us that is not something we want to become Valid point, especially if Ashley makes a habit of it. Hasn't Collocini's agent brought up the possibility of invoking the Webster ruling if Leindro continues to play hard-ball? IMO it's the reason as to why Jimenez was recruited. He is no Super Agent, as James has suggested, but he reportedly has plenty of contacts in the player-agent game in Spain and such information - ie. player contract details, expiry dates etc - would be easily obtained, and as you suggest form the basis, or place an emphasis on anyway, to our buying approach/strategy with regards to potential 'Webster' candidates abroad/in Spain.

Jesus Wept. To borrow Chez Given's line, JB's hardly a paedophile is he? And you must be naive if you believe that footballers are to be supposed role models, or something which comes close to the perfect role model. If anything the life of a professional footballer - ie. more free time one one's hands, more disposal income to piss down the drain - serves only to eccentuate whatever chinks, or character weaknesses, which exist in their psychological make-up.

Agree entirely. With regards to the last 4 words, also underlined. Most probably the same fans, or some of anyway, who cried out that Bellamy had to go because he bought shame on to the club & the city when he gave a certain manager a justafied '4-letter word' spray on national television amidst one particular & key substitution when 'that' game was there for the taking.

Would be a good signing - obviously has pedigree on his side and is good player in his own right, and with regards to South American defenders adapting to the EPL i do have a slight preference towards the Argentines. The likes of Alex - ie. the Brazilians - place a greater reliance on their recovery attributes because overall they're play much more of a free-wheeling/attack-minded game as opposed to the more regimented/disciplined Argentinian counterparts. You can see the spot the difference between the two nations' respective approach or mindsets at Youth International level, call it positional discipline for namesake. IMO players like Collocini, those who have come through a dominant Argentine youth system in the last decade, have had the idea of defending as a single phalanx/unit - or playing the part in maintaining the rearguard's defensive shape - from an early age. In other words they're well coached from the team aspect of defending, and overall they're a safer bet in our league where individuals, or risktaking orientated centrehalves who frequently abandon their line in search of the highlight reel tackle or interception ala Chelsea's Alex, are punished as teams employ a higher defensive line leaving more exploitable space behind when their risktaking goes balls-up. To get Collocini i think the pieces will have to fall into place in a similar manner which led to us signing Spiderman. Jimenez will try using his contacts in Spain as a means of determining 1. how long he has left on his current contract and 2. what his current wage demands are. If we are in for him i think we'll follow the same route as per Spiderman. At the moment i don't envision Ashley, who imo is running the club according to the spreadsheet bottom line, going the exta mile while rubberstamping a substantial outlay on a 26 year old with plenty of miles left on his contract, who in 3-4 years time will potentially have no resale value.

Apparently though, we should just throw more and more wages at them because we're not in Europe. Overpaid mercenaries, that's what we need! Well that was partly needed to secure Robert wasn't it, and that was a pivotal signing which played major part in converting us from being just a pedestrian mid-table team into a top-4 calibre outfit. With this in mind i have no objection with that/policy, and Parky was spot on with his post which deals with this very issue ie. sealing the deal for a player when we don't have European football to offer as a selling pitch, when we face competition from a European-qualified suitor. There's a difference between partly needed - which it is, of course, you have to pay the better players more than the lesser ones, on the whole - and it being a wider solution to our current predicament. Adding players we're prepared to go the extra mile for, no problem with that, but sometimes we won't land them, regardless of the money - when more of the other clubs can offer similar wages now. And if a player's already loaded, then the wages again won't be the be all and end all. When a key area in the team has been identified such as the 'creative playmaker' role, which i think is the case at the moment if our failed pursuits of Modric and Aimar are to go by, the club has to go the extra mile in order to address it. Just as we did in the case of Robert, when the club/team was sitting mid-table, and was in desperate need for a creative impact player, a difference maker. In the cases of both players the front office have failed: they allowed to Spurs to get in first/we ultimately tried to hijack the deal by offering better money when Spurs had probably sold a winning 'football related sales pitch' and as i've cited previously, and you're welcome to disagree with it, their winning pitch was put forward by sales team - ie. led by Levy - who have been in the caper of running a club's football front office longer than our corresponding heirachy. In the case of Aimar we allowed a Portugese club to get the better of us, whereas we should be able offer more in the way of 'financial clout' when pitted against a club from a league whose top teams are often 'feeder/seller clubs' for Europe's top echelon.

It's a scattershot & risky strategy.

The daily spreadsheets will ultimately look better though, and ultimately Ashley & Co. are spreadsheet guys. Football reality, and how the contract market operates. For top-line players entering contract negotiations in their late 20's, approaching the eve of their twighlight years in other words, this contract deal - ie. lets say 3 to 4 years - will most likely be their last 'big earner'. After this one, after the next deal expires, it's very much about lower contract lengths & lower wage packages as the next batch of top-liners emerge in the same 'wage earning' bracket as they step into the void created as the likes of Owen & Bergkamp. Owen has every right to tell the club to f*** off, while and Ashley & Co have no idea as to how the market operates with relation to paying the going rate and keeping your key players on board. On the other hand The Glaziers come from a football background, admittedly a different code, and previously they turned around a cellar franchise in the form of Tampa Bay. Looking at it from a slightly left of centre view they backed their football front-office/a new head coach by keeping their established top players on board - ie. Derek Brooks is one name, and a dominant defensive unit - when they could've allowed them to be picked off in the free agency market in the name of financially restructuring the club/franchise. In other words they payed the aforementioned 'going rate'. And they've done likewise at United. Utter crap, the Glazers took over the Bucs and played by the rules of their particular game, i.e. the salary cap, they couldn't replace Brooks for a similar or lower salary so they paid him the required amount needed to make him stay. As for Owen, whilst he is good, he's not worth £110,000 pw anymore - the likes of Ronaldo, etc are on £100kpw or more and MO just isn't in that class anymore. Also, none of our 'rivals' are paying anywhere near that amount for their top players, Spurs, Everton, Villa - we would like to be competing with that trio next season, but why are we paying almost twice as much as their top earners? This is just error-laden, I don't know where I should start - the comment about Jon Obi Mikel for one...the only agreement Chelsea had in place to sign Mikel was the one Kenyon brought with him from OT. There was no prior relationship with Lyn Once again though, you're comparing the club to the top trio of elite teams in the country, who have far greater spending power and are already established within Europe, which makes it easier when coming to sign players. While I'd love to see us challenging in that top 4 bracket, I'd rather see us progress in an timely and sustainable manner, as opposed to splashing out a couple of million in the hope of 'doing a Chelsea'. Just a flame, why bother? The Arsenals and the Chelsea's have still got their feelers in the talent pools which matter most, and these 'relationships' i speak with regards to Chelsea stem from Arnesson's influence, knowledge & dealings in some these lesser leagues, this is the angle i speak of and yes it takes money to both implement it & compete................... we on the otherhand are dipping our antennae to where, North of the Border. Viterre, having being a scout/talent spotter in the lower leagues would be well versed - ie. looking at low talent probability & but cost effective talent pools were the club implements a scattershot approach - when operating within the constraints of an extremely tight budget And Viterre's credentials have been massively overstated as well. The words 'Real & Madrid' have been bellowed when his resume has been presented, as a means of giving credibility to another Mort/Ashley masterstroke, long before the success of such moves can be gauged with any sort of accuracy. The same Real Madrid who have a proven pedigree when it comes to snapping up some of the top Spanish & South American youngsters going around, before & after Viterre's 6 month or so stint in Madrid.

The daily spreadsheets will ultimately look better though, and ultimately Ashley & Co. are spreadsheet guys. Football reality, and how the contract market operates. For top-line players entering contract negotiations in their late 20's, approaching the eve of their twighlight years in other words, this contract deal - ie. lets say 3 to 4 years - will most likely be their last 'big earner'. After this one, after the next deal expires, it's very much about lower contract lengths & lower wage packages as the next batch of top-liners emerge in the same 'wage earning' bracket as they step into the void created as the likes of Owen & Bergkamp. Owen has every right to tell the club to f*** off, while and Ashley & Co have no idea as to how the market operates with relation to paying the going rate and keeping your key players on board. On the other hand The Glaziers come from a football background, admittedly a different code, and previously they turned around a cellar franchise in the form of Tampa Bay. Looking at it from a slightly left of centre view they backed their football front-office/a new head coach by keeping their established top players on board - ie. Derek Brooks is one name, and a dominant defensive unit - when they could've allowed them to be picked off in the free agency market in the name of financially restructuring the club/franchise. In other words they payed the aforementioned 'going rate'. And they've done likewise at United. Utter crap, the Glazers took over the Bucs and played by the rules of their particular game, i.e. the salary cap, they couldn't replace Brooks for a similar or lower salary so they paid him the required amount needed to make him stay. As for Owen, whilst he is good, he's not worth £110,000 pw anymore - the likes of Ronaldo, etc are on £100kpw or more and MO just isn't in that class anymore. Also, none of our 'rivals' are paying anywhere near that amount for their top players, Spurs, Everton, Villa - we would like to be competing with that trio next season, but why are we paying almost twice as much as their top earners? This is just error-laden, I don't know where I should start - the comment about Jon Obi Mikel for one...the only agreement Chelsea had in place to sign Mikel was the one Kenyon brought with him from OT. There was no prior relationship with Lyn Once again though, you're comparing the club to the top trio of elite teams in the country, who have far greater spending power and are already established within Europe, which makes it easier when coming to sign players. While I'd love to see us challenging in that top 4 bracket, I'd rather see us progress in an timely and sustainable manner, as opposed to splashing out a couple of million in the hope of 'doing a Chelsea'. Just a flame, why bother? With regards to the Bucs and the Glazier's impact in Tampa, and the point about Brooks and the salary cap. They could have just have just let him and some of their other key defensive stars go - and they only let Sapp go when he was past his best - as opposed to not filling up their salary cap as per the Bidwells for many a year in Pheonix, while opting for the draft option as opposed to keeping the team's best players, *filling the cap, and chasing silverware. That's called having 'ambition'. *and there are owners in the United States who regularly stay well below the cap and the Glaziers could have done likeweise. Just counted their pennys, and the miserly Bidwells are the notable example and are the reason as to why the Cardinals went nowhere fast, akin to McKeag imo. Club owners in the US can use the salary cap game for two separate benefits: 1. fill the cap/keep your impact playing veterans - ie. the 5-10 year stars on board - and challenge over a 3 to 4 period unitl it reaches the point where they have to break up some areas of the team when they can no longer squeeze all of them in or 2. travel down the Pheonix Route for many a year: consistently leave a sizeable & unfilled vacaum in their cap, and count their pennies year after year as the team flounders in the lower echelon of the competition. And i didn't mention have the team play in a shitty stadium, as other teams made such advances off the field long before them.

Apparently though, we should just throw more and more wages at them because we're not in Europe. Overpaid mercenaries, that's what we need! Well that was partly needed to secure Robert wasn't it, and that was a pivotal signing which played major part in converting us from being just a pedestrian mid-table team into a top-4 calibre outfit. With this in mind i have no objection with that/policy, and Parky was spot on with his post which deals with this very issue ie. sealing the deal for a player when we don't have European football to offer as a selling pitch, when we face competition from a European-qualified suitor.

Completely agree This has been banged on about by a few here, and deservedly so............. but dissenting voices from those who harbor doubts pertaining to the current front-office set-up haven't exactly been well received.

Newcastle United.............. present tense. Mike Ashley and his 'front office team' = Newcastle United punching well below our listed weight as a 'big club'.

so which is it NE5? I'm not a fence sitter myself, but it appears you're swinging your views back and forth as it suits. Please clarify if you've got the time. Thanks its quite simple. We failed to sign a player the manager wanted, and in this case, he wasn't even first choice. well, let's assume KK wanted Aimar, and agreed with Wise and co to go for him. We put in a bid, which was accepted by all "press" accounts. Let's also say that said club and player had other offers on the table. Doesn't said player then get to choose which club he wants to play for? naturally factoring in his own ambition, the club's ambition, wages, european football, city, climate etc...etc... what if the player really did turn us down in favour of Benfica? why does that automatically indicate failure on our part? he's south american remember, and has been a relatively big name charlie for a few yrs now. There may be several reasons why he would choose Benfica over us, and none of them have to be automatically due to our club failing at boardroom/Wise level. just the same way you accuse people of having an agenda against the old board, you clearly use every chance you get to criticize the new board, even when factual information is scarce and all that's available is unsubstantiated drivel written up by some 2 bit journo. the club are missing out on managers targets for not showing ambition/having the setup to persuade them to come/not being urgent enough to go and get them, whatever the reason, and making noises about putting in place a policy that I basically think is the wrong way to get among the top clubs and you think they shouldn't be criticised ? You bet your arse I'll criticise mate, and whats more its justified as well. Agreed. It was only 7 years ago - ie. the Summer leading into the 01/02 campaign - that we were able to poach Robert from under the nose of Barcelona, despite the club undergoing, or going through a rebuilding/transitional phase similar to Keegan's current predicament. With regards to the the points i have underlined the Shepherd deserves his plaudits: 1. prepared to pay the going rate/personal terms. 2. They got in early & threw some decisive punches, before Barcelona completed the same decisive blows and 3. Robson at that stage was fully utilised in the negotiation process - to my recollection Robert had a telephone conversation with Wenger also, or somebody at Arsenal anyway, and that played a part in sealing the deal, but nonetheless we were effectively in the ballpark. Admittedly though, and this is a fault on the part of the previous board's part, SBR became more of a peripheral figure in this 'negotiating process' later on, or left in the dark as Robson has previously put it or 'underutilised' as KK currently is. Even so we still would've secured Rooney's signature, if it hadn't been for United reconfiguring their finances in order to accomodate Rooney's transfer a year ahead of their planned schedule. At the time we were butting heads with United in the transfer market, and previously by backing the manager's judgment we outpunched AC Milan - and other interested Serie A suitors - in the race for Viana, Robert has already been mentioned, and we got in early and secured Jenas & payed the going rate for Jenas when a cashed-up Leeds were sniffing around............... that's a good looking CV for a supposedly shitehouse chairman re-Shepherd.

As long as his front office is able to close the deals - re: KK's top targets, those players who will immediately strengthen the first 11, and this doesn't apply to Guthrie imo - and he financially backs his manager, his chosen manager in the form of Keegan............ otherwise i couldn't give a rat's arse as to whether he sits in the stands or not.

SWP has scored 4 in 81 for Chelsea in the Premiership btw... He on the otherhand is premiership-proven btw. Surely his record at Man City, where he was a starter and likewise had a regular role within the team's on-field structure as opposed to being more of a utility/substitute type at Cheslea, holds weight. Of course there was going to be drop off in numbers, when compared to his career at City.

Maybe because the press knowing about our transfer dealings and the quality of the players involved are logically related? Do you really think we will sign top quality, high profile players without the press having a clue until it happens? A relatively unknown Argentinian and a low profile Liverpool youth/squad player yes, but somebody being courted by other big clubs? If so, what went wrong in the Modric (no) deal? he won't answer this. Unbelievable's point is the best one yet on our transfers this summer - when we sign a 10m+ player this summer under the noses of the press i'll listen and doff my cap accordingly, til then i'm finding it unlikely there are reams of journalists hanging about liverpools training ground to see who their reserves are signing for, and we managed to keep it from them more likely no-one gives a flying f*** whether danny guthrie signs for bolton or newcastle (his reported choices) 'cause it's not newsworthy Agree entirely.

It is a shame and shows what can go wrong when potential deals are made public, all the more reason to keep them quiet. Leaks to the press will 'inadvertantly' occur when an in-demand player is the subject of a transfer move, agents and the selling club are usually the main culprits as they hope to seal a better financial cut for themselves. It's natural when we pursue somebody like Martins it will enter into the public domain. It doesn't excuse Mort/Jimenez/Ashley for not being able to sell a better 'footballing future' than what Spurs were able to offer. It's about selling a better 'footballing future/alternative' than your immediate rivals when the likes of Modric are up for grabs, and our current front-office have not been very good at it. BTW i seem to recall the 'Viana transfer' going through very little press fanfare, in comparison with the Martins' deal. Add Woodgate as well. Courses for horses Mick

The daily spreadsheets will ultimately look better though, and ultimately Ashley & Co. are spreadsheet guys. Football reality, and how the contract market operates. For top-line players entering contract negotiations in their late 20's, approaching the eve of their twighlight years in other words, this contract deal - ie. lets say 3 to 4 years - will most likely be their last 'big earner'. After this one, after the next deal expires, it's very much about lower contract lengths & lower wage packages as the next batch of top-liners emerge in the same 'wage earning' bracket as they step into the void created as the likes of Owen & Bergkamp. Owen has every right to tell the club to f*** off, while and Ashley & Co have no idea as to how the market operates with relation to paying the going rate and keeping your key players on board. On the other hand The Glaziers come from a football background, admittedly a different code, and previously they turned around a cellar franchise in the form of Tampa Bay. Looking at it from a slightly left of centre view they backed their football front-office/a new head coach by keeping their established top players on board - ie. Derek Brooks is one name, and a dominant defensive unit - when they could've allowed them to be picked off in the free agency market in the name of financially restructuring the club/franchise. In other words they payed the aforementioned 'going rate'. And they've done likewise at United. United strike a healthy relationship with Sporting Lisbon as a source for unearthing their next generation of potential first teamers. The likes of Arsenal & Chelsea have similar agreements/co-existences in Belgium and the like, leagues which are more often than not the first port of call for African talent trying to find a for themselves in Europe. Mikel is an example. We on the other hand travel, in a bid to keep as much of Ashley's cash in his pocket as possible, travel down a cost-effective route just across the Scottish border as reported by Nial & Biffa - a prodigious talent pool.... my arse. The club's talk of emulating the model & example established at Arsenal is PR rubbish. Pure Spread Sheeters, like Ashley, have no place in football.

I think Unbelievable has made some valid and good points. Why personal attack? This kind of comments are not welcomed; go sleep! Mike Ashley, in addition to his football front office, are simply untouchable in many peoples' eyes.

It´s a quote from a dodgy chairman (http://www.mallorcacharteredsurveyors.com/en-news.asp?id=28) desperate to recoup some money to make up for his failings whilst in the process of selling up the club. It sounds rather like whinging to me, and I don´t know what to make of it.. Anyway, as I´ve said before, it´s not about this particular signing that I am increasingly concerned, it´s about our comparative low spending and our cost cutting culture compared to our competitors. Agree completely. The low spending thing might well stand up I suppose, but where is the 'cost cutting culture' info coming from? Just the rags from what I can see, and they've demonstrated in the last week exactly how much they know about us. It's just rumour at this stage. Well there was a rumour posted last night that the salary cap thing is bollocks, why not believe that instead? It'll all come out in the wash. Let's judge at the close of the transfer window and then how we do next season. If it was all purely about how much we spend, we'd have done a hell of a lot better under the last lot* than we did. *Not a criticism before anyone starts... Despite Emre and Carr's wage packages of the books, and our negotiators still won't match our most important striker's - ie. Owen - current deal. Just like the former board re-signing Dyer for the benefit of Souness and the said player was supposed to be Clueless' answer to Bellamy & he did declare that Dyer would score more goals than Bellamy in the wake of the so-called Welsh prick's departure, re-signing Owen for Keegan represents a vitally important piece of business for the manager's on-field building plans. So far there's been in a stark difference with respect to both sets of negotiating materializing/failing to materialize. These murmurings, in relation to cost cutting/razor cutting, hold some degree of merit imo.

Before i start i still would've preferred SWP. Overstating the player's credentials. Bassedas likewise was a fringe player - ie. something like 20 appearances over a 5 year frame, give or take a year, while he was in their selction frame - at international level for Argentina before we signed him and i wasn't jumping for joy when we signed him for what was still at the time a modest fee. I have a great deal of respect for the current crop of Argentianian internationals - both at senior & youth levels - and hopefully he fits into the same category as D'Alessandro as being one of those whose talent might begin to find their feet during their mid-20's after not exactly setting the world on fire in the wake of them moving from Argentina to the Continent, and lets admit that 5 goals in ninety-something appearances isn't productive in a league which has great depth when it comes to goal scoring & creative wingers. I hope he pans out for us, but at the moment my level of enthusiasm in the wake of this signing matches that of when when we signed Bassedas who was really a 'reach buy' at the time ie. fringe Argentine interantional and relatively cheap, although the circumstances differ between Bassedas' transfer fee and us taking advantage of a contractual loophole in this current instance. I'd be more enthused if we had signed the productive Rodriguez from Athletico Madrid, while showing similar guile in the negotiation process. Although under a similar process having to buy out Rodriguez's remaining contract would have cost substantially more. My summary of this signing: obviously it's good a piece of business for the club and a bloke/Ashley who is a 'daily spreadsheet man' and who runs a tight ship accordingly, as just as Mort declared the twin signings of Viduka & Ashley approximately one year ago with regards to our first month of activity in the previous Summer's transfer market it's been good business for the club. But 5 goals in 90 appearances for Mallorca doesn't bode well for what has been a problem area for us in the wake of Solano's best years. If somebody is going to get the best out him it's going to be Keegan and he might take to the end-to-end pattern and tempo/pace of the EPL , but at the moment it stands in the realm of being a cheap 'reach buy' just as the Bassedas signing was.

It´s a quote from a dodgy chairman (http://www.mallorcacharteredsurveyors.com/en-news.asp?id=28) desperate to recoup some money to make up for his failings whilst in the process of selling up the club. It sounds rather like whinging to me, and I don´t know what to make of it.. Anyway, as I´ve said before, it´s not about this particular signing that I am increasingly concerned, it´s about our comparative low spending and our cost cutting culture compared to our competitors. Agree completely.

If someone was to give him 420 million and he refused, I would seriously think he is crazy. My guess is that someone did approach us and he priced the Toon so high that hopefully no one else comes around. This sounds the most feasible option if indeed these yanks did approach our Ash. Anyway, I hope he doesn't sell, he's been a breath of fresh air since he's arrived! Decent PR certainly helps, namely sharing a few ales with the everyday matchgoer/the so-called 'commoner' and likewise posing for photos outside the ground. What now? ..................... a few will be addressing as 'Wor Ash' soon.

Far better player, as a defensive midfielder who used the ball instinctively as well as being efficient, as opposed to the highly praised '6m: Captain Scott Parker' who was often a w*** material source for a number of BBC pundits & commentators.

Likewise, he offers more than Viduka in terms of being able play laterally across the defensive rearguard as the 'anchor' in the three pronged attack. And he offers consistent workrate to compliment his physical attributes, ie. strength & pace, and the highlighted two are missing from Viduka's game regardless of injury or not. Right now Viduka doesn't drag centre halves out of position, and his lack of movement - ie. into the defensive zones in either outside channel wide of the penalty area - doesn't cause any assignment switches on the part of the opposition defensive line. Too much is expected of both Martins & Owen, in terms of being able to create their own space in the hole, against a structurally settled & stabile defensive unit.... especially against a team which has a smart & able, with the sideline-to-sideline engine to compliment, defensive midfielder patrolling the 'the hole' behind the anchor striker. The attacking trio seen towards the end of last season flourished against teams at the lower end of the table, simply because such opposition didn't have the defensive armory - ie. a rock solid deep playing midfielder/ a game reader - needed to combat the twin threat of Martins & Owen while their centrehalves largely contained Viduka through the middle. We treaded water, in terms of being able to paper over Viduka's weakness', and got away with it towards the end of last season but i see us continuing to struggle against the top 6 ie. those teams who are as mentioned 'defensively equipped' in terms of having in particular the midfielders who are both postionally adaptable and have the discipline to be constantly aware of & be able to diffuse any dangerous build-up play involving either Viduka, Owen or Martins. Somebody like Baptista would pose some structural problems for any defensive outfield, and relieve the pressure & reliance currently heaped upon Owen & Martins and this will continue to apply if & when Viduka returns from his injury hiatus. ..................... apologies go out for polluting the board with more more 'verbal liquid s***'