Rayvin

But presumably someone sat down and said "Right so, this is how much we'll earn for promotion back into the SPL over a 3 year plan, this is how much we're planning to budget for it, and this is what we have." Like any sensible business would. It's not like they missed a step getting back is it? They've been promoted each year. Which means that they've either not sat down and worked out how much revenue they'd make over the course of that period, or they've massively overestimated attendance revenue. Either way someone needs shooting.

They'll get it from somewhere, there's no way they're going to let it end up in Administration again. Saying that, how are they still in the shit? Wasn't the whole going bust thing supposed to sort this out?

He's taken the ground and a few other assets as a security against his loan but I don't know if that would mean transfer of ownership... although the effect might be quite similar.

I think he's just being opportunistic with Rangers - doesn't sound like any of it has been very well thought through.

I'm not sure if I should find that offensive It's coming across as complimentary though.

That is brilliant. Squires seems to go for Liverpool quite frequently, and it's always enjoyable. He did a good one on Mourinho a little while back as well.

Dummett seems to have done quite well - would he get on ahead of Taylor though? I'd say Colo and Taylor are our best CB pairing. I don't think our poor performances were all down to Williamson, but I'd agree he's the least accomplished of our defenders. I think Pardew's tactics of inviting pressure made things much harder than they had to be in a number of games, and that this also contributed. I suspect Pardew could regularly lose 4-0 with some of the best defenders on the planet to be honest.

It's been a quiet morning tbf.

A dutch mackem perhaps.

I think our defence can actually play very well sometimes - what we've always lacked for is consistency really. We can be god awful one game, and impenetrable the next. Not saying that has anything to do with Carver though. The thing is he just doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to come up with set plays, reactive tactics, the formulation of a playing style that works to our strengths, etc. Apparently he must be an alright man manager since the team are behind him currently, but that's about it really.

That's extremely annoying - if I watched SkyNews in the first place I'd probably stop watching it over this. Fucking pathetic response that treats both muslims and non-muslims alike as nothing more than children.

Then...why are you commenting?

Carver isn't going to be able to do anything constructive with us, he'll get found out very quickly and quite possibly sacked before the end of the season depending on how results go. Even if that is their plan, it's a fucking stupid plan.

I'm sure that's the cost of his £80k/week wages over a 3.5 year contract. Dave mentioned that he actually cost about £7m in fees. It's still absurd of course.

FFS he's had a really shit year.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm merely suggesting that this appears to be how Roma are thinking. They've dropped him for no reason at all, much to the shock of their fans, and this would appear to be the widely accepted thinking behind it. The fact that this strategy is misguided is not the point, in this instance. Ultimately, I don't think they're going to give him back.

Hang on, isn't Altidore going the other way? So when you factor in his value, they're really only paying £7.199999m.

I think the idea is that they know we need to sell before we can buy, and that unless we sell him, we're unlikely to get anyone else through the door. We might settle for a lower fee if it means we can get one of our own targets over the line. What they clearly don't realise, is that we have no targets.

Having read up on it, it doesn't look as if they're about to send him back to us. Looks more like they're trying to force our hand in agreeing a lower fee. They're still going to keep him and fully intend to buy him, by all accounts.

Villa and Sunderland aren't going to go down, they're just going to keep floating to the surface regardless of how many times they get flushed.

We still have Colo though, and I thought the main issue there was that they're too similar to play together. Not sure I ever saw this proven in fairness, but I remember it being said.

So the clause was that if he played another game, they'd have to buy him for £5.5m? I thought he was doing well there, why the sudden about face?