Lotus

Do you think?

You'd never know tbf...

Santon's biggest weakness is that too many crosses come in from his side.

This. Pointless discussion Thought we were discussing what Ron wants tbh

Or we could just keep Santon in his best position and let Haidara earn his chance. And play thin air at right back. Good choice. I'd play Anita there. Problem? Tiote in the middle against Norwich?? Where the hell else would he play like? Eeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssyyyyyy son!!! Big Ron doesn't like the idea of playing Tiote against teams where we need to control the play or open them up. He'd rather have Anita in there i think for that. Against Norwich (i would hope) that CM would be a more influential part of the game then RB so i'm surprised he'd advocate moving Anita out there. Given we have FBs (all be it not on there natural side) and also the option of MYM i would have thought Ron would have preferred that option. Somthing like this... .........................Krul....................... MYM.........Willo...........Colo......Santon ...............Sissoko......Anita............... HBA................Cabay................Remy ...................Gouf/Cisse.................... ....is all i'm saying!

Or we could just keep Santon in his best position and let Haidara earn his chance. And play thin air at right back. Good choice. I'd play Anita there. Problem? Tiote in the middle against Norwich??

Quite similar actually, our lot are nowhere near as intelligent as the Arsenal duo though. Mapou is. I've never seen a defender run away from a ball but I won't start that again. John Terry when we played them. It happens quite often actually even though coaches always say go to the man. You probs don't get to watch any games. I've been to over 100 football matches in the last 5 years. I've never seen a defender run away from a long ball straight down the middle. Yawn.

Do we ask our strikers to cover one of their central midfielders? Probably tbf

I actually think Ashley's involvement with NUFC has done very little to add anything to the Sports Direct brand. If anything it has a negative effect, most people you talk to about the club think he's a bit of dick and that what he has done to our stadium is brainless. It seems unlikely that its led to more punters going to his shops. Clearly the advertising space at SJP has some monetary value but its limited imo. Why do you think he bought us then? Or why hasn't he sold us? It can't be keeping the club because it's a gas and he's having loads of fun....

Quite similar actually, our lot are nowhere near as intelligent as the Arsenal duo though. Mapou is. I've never seen a defender run away from a ball but I won't start that again. John Terry when we played them. It happens quite often actually even though coaches always say go to the man. You probs don't get to watch any games.

Course not, no. Expenditure should be balanced between on-pitch success while safeguarding our financial future. I was responding to the idea that NUFC should be 'allowed to spend its own money'. As we're in profit, what's wrong with that?

You're surely not suggesting that the club have to pay back it's own price of purchase before he can consider spending money on transfers?

You're an odd one, Ian. Now we're making losses every year and are no longer an ongoing concern without Mashley keeping us afloat.......

Not good positionally imo. Has pace to make up for that. Anita will be much more useful in midfield against Norwich anyway along Sissoko and Cabaye. Either Santon or MYM at RB for this.

Me too.

Rather play a defender in the back 4. We've got 2 weeks to sort this out.

Hopefully he's been displaying teamwork tendencies in training and will get a start against Norwich. If he's still trying to do it all on his own i'd rather he watch us win from the bench so he can have a think he could get in the team.

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still. I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position. In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO. Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points? That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player. Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players? Why are you trying to simplify the argument to such a degree? I'm not saying spending never leads to improvement, or that it's not likely to lead to improvement. I'm saying (in response to Kevo's post) that it's far from as easy as saying 'we're £20m away from being really good'. Sorry, when you said you could spend £50M at not improve at all i thought you suggested just that. Wasn't being a pedant, just think that, unless you spend it all one massive duffer, it's quite clear that spending money on players isn't so much a correlation but a causation of a better sports team and that's clearly demonstrated around the sports world where teams are, by and large, owned by businessmen who obviously see it as a causation.

Aye. All depends if Blackpool are daft. They could hold out for more in compensation than they are likely to get in Jan How is compensation defined? As in how much, i know that the word means....

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still. I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position. In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO. Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points? That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player. Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players?

I'm not suggesting an alternative that is, I'm saying that hanging on for dear life isn't. I'm suggesting that there's one sure fire way to do it, I'm suggesting that there's a better way of doing it than we are now. First half against Spurs was a very good way to do it, and a way that I thought would be a good idea after seeing them recently. Second half we hung on for dear life and defended our lead. Why? What happens at half time? We can only play well for 45 minutes as a rule.

Won't Tom Ince have 6 months left on his contract?

Well, at least we've got someone who's good for those battling type of games!

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/bertstare/grand/bertstare-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-2177.gif Love a Bimpy gif I laughed too much at that.

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still. I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position. In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO. Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?