Gottlob

Exactly. Gary Neville was a weasel on the football pitch, a decent enough right back but protected for the better part of his career by the likes of Roy Keane and David Beckham, who was always the first to goad the opposition and harangue the referee whenever a decision didn't go in Manchester United's favour. He was unqualified for the Valencia job and took it surely knowing it would anger their fans, only being appointed owing to his personal relationship with Valencia's already distrusted owner. He was effectively their Alan Pardew, only he didn't speak the language and the club had the decency to get rid when he failed spectacularly. And yet he is feted in England for being brave and because he can speak more than a couple of coherent sentences on the telly.

It's not the team I would have picked: I'd have been tempted to start with all of De Jong, Perez, and Mitrovic, and I'd have liked Anita in the middle, though there isn't another obvious option at right back. Mitrovic versus Cisse is such a difficult decision at this point, because Mitrovic offers so much more in terms of his all-round play, but I can see why - given his experience and his movement in the box - you might fancy Cisse to make the most of scraps and come up with decisive finishes. It's another game where we look short of composure and intelligence in the attack, but at least dropping Shelvey feels like the right call, as we've been hopelessly weak in the midfield since his arrival.

I didn't see the game today, but there's barely a brain cell among the eleven players who started, and especially among the front six. We need to radically change our style of play: the side today should have offered pace and physicality, and it looks set up for the counter attack, but there are too many players who make poor decisions and run into blind alleys or simply repeat their one trick to no good effect. I'd be starting the next game with Anita in the midfield - probably alongside Tiote or Saivet, though I'd also consider dropping Sissoko back, because in truth we still don't have a good option in that position, with Shelvey offering nothing defensively and needing too much time to splay balls that don't help us sustain any sort of attacking rhythm and too often just come right back - De Jong behind Mitrovic, Perez on the left, and then one of Townsend or Wijnaldum on the right. It looks slow and a few of the players are seriously lacking in physicality, but at least we might show some intelligence on the pitch, and prove able to retain the ball and build moves. I know some people feel this way about Tiote too, but Taylor especially shouldn't be starting games for us even as a last resort. It's always bad news now when he is in the team, and I agree with those who say we should have gone with Lascelles.

Shelvey can play an exceptional long pass, but when he's not afforded time on the ball the game passes him by, and we've picked up fewer points per game since his signing: once again today, we're relinquishing the midfield, with nobody to press or play the short passes that can build moves and encourage some attacking structure. The full-backs have both been atrocious defensively and Colback has nothing to offer in any part of the pitch, Mitrovic is plodding as always, Wijnaldum has barely featured, and Perez is getting by on the bare minimum, with only Townsend doing anything to impress. We could do with five or six changes, but I'd consider shifting Shelvey and Colback for Saivet and Anita in some combination, bringing Sissoko back into the midfield with Wijnaldum behind the forward and Perez out wide, and then I'd look at bringing Mitrovic off for Cisse.

We don't know how McClaren would have us line up, but if it is Shelvey alongside Colback and Townsend in place of Perez, we will have spent £24 million on making our team somehow even worse than it already was. We'd have been better off bringing in Saivet and sticking with a combination of him/Tiote/Anita, with Wijnaldum ahead, while signing a proper left back to make that side of the pitch usable. And again, that's not to mention the fact that we let Abeid and Ameobi go at the start of the season: I'd question to what degree Shelvey and Townsend are an improvement, which says nothing about their respective potentials or the money we seem ready to spend, which obviously reduces the chance of signings for other positions. I think the Carr transfer regime has been more or less a failure, but I'd rather that than allowing McClaren to spend large sums on the fringes of a poor England squad. Townsend and Shelvey aren't proven Premier League players, and the argument that we need to buy British seems pretty hollow when you consider how many helped us towards relegation last time round.

If Tiote is fit and capable of being part of the squad, his last few performances show how valuable he can be for us, and it seems optimistic to think that two players who have played much of their careers higher up the pitch will be able to come in and match him in terms of physicality, ball winning, and positioning in front of the defence. It's a role we still need to fill even if we want more of an attacking contribution from our deeper midfielders. And I actually think that if his head is right and he is given the right sort of encouragement from the manager, and if there's a bit of movement ahead of him, he is a decent passer of the ball. I wouldn't sell him, and I'll be sorry to see him go presuming he does leave.

Yeah, good points. The last midfielder we had who could play a dangerous long pass was Cabaye, though ironically I remember Gouffran as the last player who really benefitted from it, going on a brief goalscoring run getting in down the left during the first half of 2013-14. I suppose I think that Anita and Tiote do sometimes look to play fairly sharp, short, and direct forward passes, only they struggle because our attack lacks movement, which is a product of confidence, insufficient coaching, and a lack of practise in possession. I also reckon Wijnaldum looks better surging forward with the ball at his feet, though certainly Sissoko can threaten running in behind. I'm no expert on Shelvey's game, but a lot of his passing looks quite deliberate to me: as though he can hit the ball with pace and accuracy over short or long distances, but it takes a bit of time for him to set himself up.

I don't dislike Dummett and think he could still have a long-term future with us in the centre, and he gave one of his better performances at left back today even before the goal. He was still tucking in too much and allowing Man Utd too much space down the right, but on those occasions where he was caught wider and had to face Martial one-on-one, he tended to come out on top. Still it's a bit painful how restricted we are down the left with him at full back: it seems that our tactics involve deliberately refusing to pass him the ball, so everything has to go down our right or through the centre. I wonder how much better we would be regardless of any other changes if we simply had a reliable left back who would run the flank and could whip in a good cross.

I'm really uncertain about this one. Certainly Anita, Colback, and Tiote don't possess his long-range passing ability, and he has a decent shot from outside the area, although my understanding is that since being moved back into the centre of midfield, he has played around the same number of games and scored the same number of goals as Colback. He is big and physical, but Swansea fans seem critical of his defensive contribution, and he was being called out for laziness by Monk over a year ago. Is long passing a vital component missing from our attack? Would we be better instead with someone who presses and can play quick short balls through the midfield to Wijnaldum and Sissoko? My inclination is the latter. Maybe Saivet is tidy and energetic and can complement Shelvey well, but I really don't want to see some arrogant lug constantly playing Hollywood balls, taking long shots, and shouting at more hardworking teammates. I guess I'm cautiously pessimistic about the transfer.

I don't think McClaren is a bad person, but in his own way he's just as much of a fraud as Pardew was, and he's getting worse results. This is after all a man whose first act upon becoming England manager was hiring Max Clifford and whitening his teeth, and whose last act was skulking under an umbrella as the side crashed out of the Euros; a man who has been sacked or pushed to resign from his last four jobs; a man who turned us down until he was tossed by Derby and managed to negotiate an unusually comfortable deal. We have an awful squad, unbalanced, lacking in experience, and without a lot of quality in any position, but we are playing in a poor version of the Premier League, and the players don't seem to have conviction in anything they're doing. The formation doesn't work, we don't have a style of play, and against Leicester and Crystal Palace in particular we have conjured some of the most disgraceful performances that I've ever seen. And after two defeats and three shots on target over the last two games, with the team languishing in the relegation zone, he comes out and praises our performances as 'magnificent'. That's utterly contemptuous in my view. There's nothing to praise McClaren for at this point, but while he's happy to boast Riviere as like a new signing, it's worth reiterating how he treated our younger players from the start of this campaign. Perez and Aarons were our only decent players in the pre-season, yet both started the season outside the first eleven, while he hastily got rid of Sammy Ameobi and Mehdi Abeid. With only two other active central midfielders in the squad, Abeid was an obvious keeper. And this might earn me the scorn of many posters, but while it wasn't hard and he wasn't very good, I still thought Sammy Ameobi was one of our better performers last season, at least maintaining his position down the left side, helping out the full back, and I reckon he'd be the best crosser and creative passer in our side: he can play a patient through ball, which is something nobody in our current squad can muster.

Thanks quayside and Offshore. So is it right to say that a player, bought for £10 million, will potentially constitute £20 million worth of loss on the profit and loss accounts over a period of time? £10 million being lost when the player is paid for (whether that is all in one go or over a period); £10 million being lost through his depreciation as an asset? And I presume of the two scenarios I outline, it is the latter - the depreciation of the asset - which is amortisation? Thanks again for the help.

I don't have much knowledge when it comes to finances and accounts, so a sincere thank you to quayside and to everyone who has helped people like me in this thread thus far. I was just wondering if any of you could clarify a few things? Regarding amortisation, I'm inclined to understand it, from what I've read in this thread, in one of two ways. Either: it is where the money spent on buying a player (the player's transfer fee) is drawn out and shown bit by bit on the profit and loss accounts, over the period of the player's contract. So a player is bought for £10 million on a four year contract, and this £10 million spent is shown, on the profit and loss accounts, as a £2.5 million loss for each of four years. The money may go out immediately, as a lump sum, but it is drawn out as a cost for the purposes of the accounts. In this case, the club has lost actual money - money has been spent, and its loss has been drawn out on the accounts. Or: it is where a player is simply valued by the club as an asset, with the valuation of the player equating to the amount spent on buying him, and the loss shown on the profit and loss accounts is based on the player theoretically (in accordance with financial practice or whatever) losing value over the years of his contract. So a player is valued at £10 million, and his value decreases by £2.5 million for each of four years, until he's finally valued at nothing. In this case, the club doesn't lose actual money - the £10 million they've actually spent is a seperate issue - this amortisation involves only the loss it suffers in terms of the valuation of its assets. If anyone can specify which of these two options amortisation is, or can point out where and why I'm entirely wrong with both options, I will be really grateful.