MFletcher

This is my main concern. The whole Carroll thing indicated to me a lack of tactical flexibility. I'm all for good, passing football, but sometimes it doesn't work and you need to do something different. We have a load of midgets up front now, so we're basically stuck with attempting to pass our way through two banks of four or scoring from a set piece. We commit a lot of players forward, but have no-one to put the ball in the net and a player on the right hand side (Borini) who isn't actually very good out there. We lose the ball, we have too many forward and they're suddenly getting straight at us. This was how we conceded first today. A lot of players forward, trying to pass the ball about, but completely f***ed when we lost the ball and had them move it forward quickly. I worry whether we're just going to keep trying and trying and trying Plan A whenever it isn't working. Principles are fine and commendable, but you have to be willing to change it about whenever it isn't working. The loaning out of Carroll indicated to me that he probably isn't willing to do that. Given the next two games, and the general disillusionment it could fuel if we play s*** and/or get s*** results against a very competent team away and a very good team at Anfield, I'm worried. It's going to be a long season.

Still to score a goal from open play in the league.

Pre-empting future s*** performances with "there will be s*** performances in the future" does not excuse it. We had a very good first XI out there today.

It's a big problem that our most effective attacker is a 17 year old chucked in for a genuine lack of options. My concerns more stem from the fact that we've played three games in the league and two of them have seen us nowhere near the required standard over 90 minutes.

Which is a huge concern.

We've also got Sunderland (A), United (H), Norwich (A) before October. We could well be knocking on a couple more at least without a f***ing win in the league.

That was dire. I'd drop Gerrard for Shelvey, move Suarez to the wing, play Borini up front, hope nothing happens to the rest of the team. I don't really know what the overall plan is, because passing the ball around in triangles before losing it and running back quickly as they counter-attack in droves isn't working especially well at present.

In terms of buying players, we have been unrelentingly s*** from an admin perspective for as long as I can remember.

It's a direct response to your assertions that I "don't like the guy" and "can barely hide it". That doesn't constitute paranoia. It would be handy if you tried growing up instead of going on these continually laboured attempts to wind people up.

Dempsey's not a striker. We needed some sort of Huntelaar character who'd nut the ball into the net from six yards. And you really can f*** off with this "you can barely hide the dislike". He has huge credit in the bank simply on account of being from Northern Ireland. He has the right ideas. I don't agree with the handling of Carroll. This does not mean I dislike him. This does not mean I want him to fail. This does not mean I want us to do s*** and score no goals so I can point the finger and say "if Carroll had stayed..." and it does you no favours attempting to twist the views of people to suit your own bizarre wind up attempts.

Some of Kenny's decision making last year was bizarre in the extreme and I'm not even going to attempt to explain it. Because I can't. I was gutted when he left because I was desperate for him to do well, but the phrase "spiralled out of control" was probably the best way to describe our season and the team selections and tactical decisions that went with it.

You'll have to stop with things like "you don't like the guy" whenever people suggest he might have made an error of judgement. Carroll should still be here. That's the crux of the matter and it was ultimately his call to let him go. Dempsey wasn't an adequate replacement regardless, it needed to be Dempsey + Carroll's replacement if he was going.

The reason he wanted him out in the first place was because he didn't fit the system. I don't think that's sufficient justification for a loan deal, regardless of what happens thereafter.

I'm not having the story in the Echo that Bruce thought they could get £4M and we walked in and offered £14M off the bat. Just no way.

I think the handling of Carroll this window was, by and large, appalling and the fact we've sent him on f***ing loan without signing anyone to replace him as exacerbated matters to the point I'm content to call it a huge, unrelenting f*** up of unrivalled stupidity. If we'd signed someone to replace him, I might have been convinced it was an okay move in the circumstances. As it stands, we've sent a £35M striker out on loan because the manager seemingly has some aversion to working with him for reasons best known to himself. That he doesn't fit the system isn't justification and suggests a lack of tactical flexibility. I'm happy enough with the options at the back and in midfield, but up front is going to be a shambles if anything happens to Suarez.

Working to figures at the minute in that we haven't sold Adam (yet) and the money for Aquilani is basically subsidising his wages. Probably should include it in if we're looking solely at transfer fees though. That said, we've spent a lot of money and we've chosen to focus it on Borini and Allen. If we're left without a striker, we shouldn't have loaned Carroll out. Ultimately that's what it comes down to.

We've spent about £30M net. Granted we're making savings on wages, but it's not as if we're selling to buy here. Money has been made available and spent elsewhere. We can't plead poverty.

We're not Man City though. He's chosen to spend £25.6M on Borini and Allen. It's not like he can claim he has got no money. We've sold no-one of consequence either, so the fabled net spend is still big enough. I think you'd have to question the way it was allocated. Borini's a good player, but is it worth spending £10.6M on a striker so you can play him on the wing instead? Things like that. We've had money. We've just spent it already.

So we've effectively valued Henderson at £7M. Mental.

It sounds too implausible to be legitimate. We'd be valuing Henderson at about £6M. There's just no way that can be right, but with both Bascombe and Barrett saying we offered Henderson it's clear we have.

Fulham agreed to sell the American for cash plus Jordan Henderson, but the Liverpool midfielder turned down the move. From the Telegraph. What in the hell sort of value were we putting on Dempsey? f***ing terrifying.

Seemingly so. It could well be a ploy to make Henderson realise he needs to get better. Offer him, know full well that he'll reject it and wait for him to react properly. Either that or we're mental.

It's in the Times, not a Twitter story.

Henderson? Weird, weird, weird.