Gottlob

Last season wasn't a fluke, but Ranieri and the players managed to get the most out of limited resources. I think only Kante and Mahrez looked like exceptional footballers, but Leicester found a counter attacking style that helped protect their slow defenders, and Vardy was hitting everything first time and routinely finding the net. This season they had nothing to play for in the league, and plenty of distractions in the form of the Champions League and the inevitable criticism and speculation once their league performances faltered. It is one thing to feel that you're part of a project, that you're striving to improve or that scrapping against relegation will constitute a successful season. But when you've so clearly peaked it must be hard to find motivation, and when you're unable to replicate last season's form you'll start questioning yourself and your teammates and your manager. I don't think Ranieri bought well in the summer. Slimani was almost too rational, a strong, all-round forward who hasn't suited their style of play, although that has dissipated through formation changes and now that teams sit back and allow them more possession. They certainly needed some younger, quicker defenders. But Leicester could have scraped survival last season and it might well have been regarded as a relative success, and their position this season would then have been met with little hysteria. Last season was simply exceptional. And Ranieri's sacking is a real shame for football, because it seems to reassert messages like 'Be careful what you wish for', 'Don't get ideas above your station', 'Europe is a distraction', etc., all those perspectives which rob fans of hope and excitement and which provide a fertile ground for managers like Allardyce and Pardew.

There's no questioning Benitez's diligence, experience, ambition, or integrity but there are plenty of things to criticise him for so far this season. Our summer transfer window was impressive for the extent of our business rather than for its quality, and though some have argued he successfully purchased a strong squad of players, for the most part he has been reluctant to use those on the fringe either to give key players a rest or to shake things up. As it stands we recycle the ball a lot around the defence, but tonight for instance only ever utilised three players, with the ball always ending up at Yedlin's feet because either as a strategy or through force of habit we rarely want to involve Dummett. Ritchie is too busy preempting a long diagonal from Shelvey to offer support, and Shelvey and Hayden aren't mobile enough in the centre of the midfield. When the ball does reach Shelvey he serves as our only method of attack. He either hits one of the wide players, who preferably have already reached the byline, or he places a pinpoint pass onto the foot of the striker. Otherwise we offer very little: we don't retain possession well in the final third, we lack pace and dribbling, the movement off the ball is poor, our crosses tend to be overhit or swing in to the keeper. So in short we are too reliant on Shelvey even when he is playing, and in that sense it sometimes feels like he's as much of a curse as a blessing, especially given his temper. Ritchie too is always in a radge about something, and as two of our most experienced and high profile players, I don't think they're always bringing out the best in those around them. I don't know whether the solution is a change of formation. Personally I think the 4-2-3-1 does suit our personnel, but there's no reason why we can't be more flexible. We looked better tonight when Ameobi came on for Murphy. Gouffran and Perez stretched the opposition defence, while Ameobi added width, dribbling, and a bit of composure: his languid style earns him plenty of criticism, but he is patient on the ball and can find a pass. I think he has to be a real option for the rest of the season. I'd also question who plays at left back, and whether the likes of Anita and Mbemba are worth a go in the middle. That focuses on the attacking side, ignoring the fact that even up against some abject forwards, we are conceding goals and far too many chances. And whatever happened over the transfer window, our failure to spend hasn't just left a flawed squad and robbed us of the chance to bed players in before next season - it has cast a pallor over an already tense campaign.

Perez is having a poor season, and I agree with those who suggest he looked best for us a few seasons ago playing up top. It's such a strange one because when he arrived, it was remarkable how someone so slight and without exceptional pace was able to go up against opposition defenders and consistently come away with the ball - he was determined, but he also showed good feet, and while he's always played too much with his head down he still seemed to have a decent awareness for his teammates. So I'm not sure it's so much a physical thing as a lack of interest and a lack of confidence stemming from a long run of poor form. His performances so far this season don't warrant a place in our first eleven when everyone is available, but our style of play also isn't conducive to bringing out his best, because with Shelvey we rely on long passes out to the wings or over the top, and without Shelvey we have no midfield, so either way the number 10 is bypassed. And at least for the next few games with Shelvey out and Diame away, Anita and Hayden with Perez in front seems like the obvious choice.

He put in some promising performances earlier in the season, but I think he's on a poor run. His inclination seems to be to drop deep and pick up the ball from the centre backs, but even when Shelvey's playing we are desperate for a more progressive midfielder, who can carry the ball and play short passes higher up the pitch. Perhaps Rafa's system comes into it too, and Hayden can sometimes look less comfortable in more attacking areas, but I think he's much more effective when he does push further forward. As it is he's hitting far too many long passes, and his all-round game has become sloppy. He's certainly someone to persist with in the long term, but I'd have gone with Diame and Anita in the middle yesterday, and if they're generally needed elsewhere a new central midfielder is a must.

We don't have a style of play. We've been heavily reliant this season on Shelvey putting the ball into dangerous areas, and Gayle making the most of the chances while conjuring some of his own through good movement and hard work. Otherwise what are we good at? Our pressing is okay, but we lack the sort of pace and athleticism which would allow us to press with intensity and capitalise consistently on defensive mistakes. We don't have anybody particularly adept at crossing the ball. Counter-attacking in this league isn't really an option. Our movement off the ball is poor. There's nobody in the squad capable of changing games via stunning strikes or mazy dribbles. And through the midfield we often struggle to retain possession, never mind building pressure through a sharp and and proactive short passing game. Mitrovic adds presence up top, but again we don't have the players to provide him consistent service, and it seems to me that especially after the Blackburn game, he lacks Rafa's trust. Otherwise I think the best short-term solution - in Shelvey's absence and without a big signing at the start of January - is Anita alongside Hayden in the middle, and Yedlin at right back. It gives us more pace out wide, and while Anita isn't creative, his short passing is sharp and accurate and can encourage us to build moves rather than lofting it forward and hoping for the best. I wonder though whether - despite valuing his diligence - Rafa insists on someone with more physical presence in the midfield. It's surely also worth trying Lazaar or Haidara instead of Dummett.

After going down it was always likely that we'd end up with a weaker first eleven. But in all we got good value for the players we sold, we now have a deeper, more balanced, and more competitive squad, and I think we have the players who should win us promotion, so in that sense it is job done plus a sizeable profit. I do think the window has been good rather than great however. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and it seems churlish to suggest it would have been nice to know about the players we failed to sign simply for the sake of the knowledge we were at least trying. But in the last promotion campaign, we relied on a body of players who had been more or less awful for us in the previous season, yet could still boast established careers in Europe's top leagues - players like Coloccini, Gutierrez, Enrique, Nolan, Lovenkrands, even Harper and Taylor. Then we were boosted by the emergence of Carroll and Guthrie, made a key signing in Routledge mid-way through the season, and bolstered the squad with a few loans. It feels like we have fewer established players this time round, and have focused more on Championship experience, which I don't think is always the best way to go about getting out of the division. The players we have kept, like Mitrovic, Perez, Mbemba, and especially Lascelles, still have a lot to prove. Ritchie looks like a fantastic signing, Hayden seems really promising and can provide a base for us in the midfield, and Diame and Gayle should be effective in this league. Without knowing enough about the two players, I'm excited by the addition of pace at full-back. With Shelvey and Colback still around I think it's a stretch to suggest we've got rid of all the dead wood or bad characters. And I'd have done without at least one of Clark, Hanley, and Gamez, plus Murphy, and given an opportunity to our own youngsters in Mbabu and Armstrong. There's a sense that we should have gone for a big attacking signing, but I think we've got just about enough given that we'll likely play with one striker, use Diame solely as an attacker, and consider Perez a potential wide option.

If we're not willing to give Armstrong a proper chance this season it's hard to see us ever giving him an opportunity should we return to the Premier League. What would it take? A record number of goals on loan somewhere in the Championship? A sudden growth spurt and a junkie's appetite for weights? There will always be an excuse, a reason to take a safety-first approach by signing someone more proven. Loan spells are often poor judges, and given that Armstrong made the best of his experience last year - and that we're the overwhelming favourites now only one league further up - he deserves a chance in a settled environment and should be shown a little faith.

At the moment Anita is pretty much our best player and should be the first name on the teamsheet given his ability and consistently high level of effort. He's intelligent and diligent and Rafa seems to trust him. Shelvey's supposed creativity is woefully limited. He can hit a well-weighted long pass if somebody has already made the right run. But he does nothing through clever movement or sharp and consistent short passing to conjure opportunities. And in that sense he's completely different to someone like Guthrie who had an excellent short passing game, and twisted and turned through the midfield despite his lack of physical qualities. Guthrie also played very well for us in the season we finished fifth. Perhaps we could look for that one creative midfielder who will be able to switch defense swiftly into attack and conjure goals out of very little. Otherwise we need a coherent system that allows all of our front players a bit of space and time on the ball. Part of that for me lies in us having at least one attacking full-back. I like Dummett and think he should have a part to play this season, but as competition at centre-back. I certainly don't like the idea of him at left-back and Gamez at right-back. The wide midfielders need some support.

I was the right age for it, nine years old when he signed, but I'm sure Ginola will always be my favourite player and his goal against Ferencváros my favourite goal: three different techniques, pushing the ball into the air with his knee, allowing it to drop before delicately lifting it with his right foot, then hammering a volley with his left, but all so seamless and instinctive. Beardsley and Ben Arfa could be surrounded and still beat their men, but nobody managed it as elegantly as Ginola. And as Odin says, I'm not sure I've seen anyone play as regularly or as effectively a long cross-field pass.

Shelvey's sole talent is the ability, given plenty of time and space, to spot and then hit crisply and accurately a long pass. It's a considerable talent, and we don't have anyone else in the squad who is similarly capable, but it's barely enough to make a footballer never mind a team. His short passing in the midfield is sloppy because, as with everything he does, it is compromised by slow thought and slow feet. His long range shooting is nothing special, and he doesn't have the legs to get into good attacking positions - in the last couple of seasons, having played the same number of games, Jack Colback has scored more goals than him. Defensively he doesn't have a clue and puts in zero effort, but infuriatingly points at others telling them to do what he won't. For me he's our worst central midfielder by some margin, an absolute drain in terms of his attitude, and comparisons to Danny Guthrie's success in our last Championship season miss the mark because their games couldn't be more opposed, Guthrie's all about recycling the ball and proactive short passes, Shelvey's about halting the play and hoping a long punt pays off. His appointment as captain was McClaren shamefully clutching at straws, Swansea restructured but never looked back after he left, and of all the inept, disinterested, and underperforming players in our squad this season, Shelvey and Taylor were the only two Benitez dropped.

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.