Billy Talbot

He doesn't do that for Chelsea though does he? He plays much better in a team that's got possession most of the time and has got a goal threat for him to work off. Titting about in midfield whilst all in front of him scrap for the ball or the other team has just won the ball back isn't his game at all. He's too easily nullified, his forward runs aren't utilised and he's left passing sideways with the odd hollywood ball that ends up back to square one.

Nah. I don't reckon. Though we'd have seen it, I think my version would have come to be regarded as the 1st XI. I don't for one second go along with Rafa wanting to sell Alonso to fund Barry. He wanted Barry and ended up being willing to sacrifice Alonso because the "poor" season he'd just had. What unfolded was the beginning of the end for Rafa here - and it wasn't even his doing. Signing Keane without Barry was stupid. It was either neither or both. Singing Keane for £19m then not having funds for Barry forcing the Alonso situation was Parry at his worst though ultimately Benitez must shoulder some of the blame for even considering it.

------------ Torres ------------ Keane - ------------ Gerrard ---- Barry ------ Alonso ------ --------- Mascherano -------- Dossena --------- Arbeloa ----- Agger ------ Carragher ----------- Reina --------------- 433 Hmmmm.....

I like Woy. But like most people I like... I'm mortified at the chance that he might manage Liverpool. However... I'm of the opinion that if circumstances are providing this unfortunate possibility, it's the circumstances that are more cruel. I'd be far happier with Dalglish. It would at least be interesting where we'd end up.

I just can't see it myself. If we do spend money, even the majority of proceeds of sales I'll be far happier than I think I'm going to be about what lies in wait for us this season. Purslow will tell us we've spent money. The accounts will be carefully crafted and the media briefed to try to appear like we've spent money. I saw a piece on lfc.tv the other day stating Aquilani cost £20m - which we all know is total nonsense. Drip drip though.

What on earth makes you believe we'll see a positive net spend this summer with the current status quo?

The difference being is that money which the club generates is being used to pay off RBS - whilst Hicks lends money from Kop Cayman to cover operating costs. That's massively different from Abramovich. Or anywhere else where the owner invests by lending money. When the club is sold someone will have to pay that £100m+ to Kop Cayman. That's £100m that the club has generated, that should have been spent on operating costs / servicing debt, which effectively been syphoned off. Obviously Hicks / Gillette would much rather have you think of that £100m theirs in the first place. But if you go down that route - where has all the money that the club has generated gone? If it's all gone on interest, that's interest on THEIR loans, not the clubs. They can't have it both ways. As it stands now, there's a company which they own which is £100m+ up.

The similarities between us and Corinthians and the methods used by Hicks and their exact effects aren't really that important. Hicks has a habit of gambling with his sports clubs. He banks on the best case scenarios and borrows money as though his best case scenario will come to pass. When his best laid plans turn to s***, he burns whatever resources and assets the sports club has in order to make his retreat with least personal loss. That's what he did at Corinthians, that's exactly what he's doing here. For me - the evidence that we're being asset stripped is already apparent by the existence of Kop Cayman and the clubs debt to it. One day that debt will be called in. Over £100m for what? Operating costs? So a club that should be perfectly profitable is being run at a loss so the owners can lend it money to pay operating costs? Yeah. Right on.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Or in this case, have it repeated on them.

I reckon that's to do with the non denial story on BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/8721942.stm It was a story for a bit this morning with a s***ty headline link.

I'm not sure Lucas is cut out to be a primarily holding midfielder. I've got high hopes for him still, but he needs to man up a bit more and take his game further up the pitch where the big boys hang out. The Premier League is full of yard dogs and he doesn't like mixing it with them enough... Yet.

Ggrrrrr.

A glimmer of a shimmer of a ray of hope...

I'd like to too. It's as comforting as thinking a small proportion of the summer sale money will be spent on transfers.

Tough opening games them. And b******s for our away support that Blackpool is Boxing Day.

Suffice to say, if I had the money, I'd have paid more for the club with Rafa in charge. Alas, thanks to me being a lazy f*cker, not knowing what time of day it is most of the time, never mind apparently not knowing what year I was born or when I became fully aware of the world around me, I've not got around to making enough money to be in a position to wake us up from this nightmare.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You should look at it from where I'm sitting.

Well, you see... I did contextualise it that way. Did you see that? Wow. The power of language.

You're a funny fish.

To be fair and with respect to those who felt it necessary for it to be re-expressed with a Crystal Mark, I would have thought it fairly clear to anyone with a reading age of 7+.

Are you after £5?

Either way, your instance that "lifetime" cannot be contextualised in the way I did in the first place (after nine cans of stout, thanks Rayman) makes you a pedant. And wrong

Don't worry, I'm not upset. I just getting used to having to spell everything out in plain English for people who are obviously intelligent enough to know what I mean, but are insistent that my use of English leaves no room for misinterpretation. By lifetime, I mean the period when I have been alive and during which I have been able to form an opinion on football managers. That was the original context in which I used the word "lifetime". In that context, the period before which I was able to form these opinions is therefore irrelevant to any discussion about the opinion expressed. I would have thought that obvious but apparently not.

Or perhaps qualify "pedant" as someone who ignores context. Not really. I can't remember what I didn't know in the first place.