Mcsncfcmcs

This is the difference between managing from the stands, and actually being the manager. We can all rant and rave about Holt/Flem/Eddy not playing well enough to stay in the team. But Worthy has to deal with the real world in which for the past couple of months he hasn''t had any one else to play. This is why the whole "playing his favourites" thing doesn''t wash with me. Who else could he have played who would have improved us? Mullers has been terrible so you couldn''t drop Holt for him. I guess Stuart could have played there, but Jonson''s not done that well either (who would have gone on the right). I don''t think there is much to chose between Flem, Doc and Charlie, so at least sticking with the same partner for Shack helps him. With Helveg injured we had no one else to play right back other than Eddy.

You shouldn''t forget that when the figure £3m is stated, that''s not the fee we are paying but the estimated possible overall cost. Firstly there will be a transfer fee. Then there might be some sort of time structure to how that initial basic fee is paid (eg we pay £1m now, £1m next year). Then there is probably "X" amount if we stay up (could be as much as £500k according to some rumours). That fee might also include "X" amount if he scores so many goals. Then "X" amount depending on appearances. "X" amount if he gains a full England cap during the period of his contract etc etc etc. Rooney''s deal was worth something like a possible £30m, but Man Utd "only" paid £10m of that upfront. All of the rest comes in installments and performance related factors ("X" amount if they win the Champions League when he''s there etc). It''s the same in most players contracts. I remember the end of last season Leon not starting at Crewe, supposedly because in his deal we had to pay out an extra £50k if he scored 10 goals that season (and he was on 9). So it''s not a case of finding £3m right now. Also we know that we have been cautious this season financially. If we do go down we know what income we will get from the Prem parachute and such, so we would have a rough idea of how much transfer money there would be next summer without player sales (of which there would be a couple at least , Green, Damo, but not as many as some fear I believe,). There''s no reason why we wouldn''t look at this minimum level of guaranteed income and allocate some of that money now to go towards Ashton.

Nice idea. But it''s completely impractical.If the idea is; "gamble now and if we go down we can sell them" then its flawed right from the start. If we NEED to sell upon relegation, then you can forget making a profit, we would make a loss on the player because every club would know we needed to get money back quick. And more to the point, if you sign someone for £3m, then that player is going to want a lucrative and relatively long contract (say 3 and a half years). If you then go down 5 months later and say "we need to sell you", the player would quite rightly turn around and want us to pay up at least half of the money remaining on his contract, as we would be breaking it. So if we gambled £3m on Ashton, and gave him a 3 and a half year deal at £10k a week, chances are we would be forced to sell for at least a £500k loss (probably more like £1m) and would be forced to pay out at least £780k to the player for the rest of his contract. And another thing people don''t think about when they talk about players like Ashton. We would hope to attract them to our club by offering them Premier League football, so they might only agree to join us if we accepted a get out clause in the contract on condition of relegation (a fee for significantly less than we paid), which would be madness for us to agree to.

Sorry, but that''s just blatantly rewriting history to suit your own means. Doncaster said Hucks was too expensive when: a) Man City were asking for somewhere in the region of £2m, hoping that the club would overpay due to us fans being so desperate not to see him leave at the end of the loan spell. We didn''t buckle and let his loan spell come to an end, and as such (with Keegan wanting rid of him off their books during the transfer window) they had to accept lower fees from interested clubs including us. and b) when it was clear Hucks still had £1.5m owed to him on the rest of his Man City contract. We certainly couldn''t afford to pay it on top of a transfer fee and a contract for Hucks (basically what Man City were originally asking in their price). Had Hucks not been able to come to an arrangement over it (largely by losing out on some money himself to make the deal happen) then he WOULD have been too expensive for us. And of course on top of all this was the fact (though some tried to deny it at the time) that buying Hucks alone wouldn''t have been enough to take us up. We needed at least one other striker (two taking into account injuries, like the one Svenny got early on in his City career) to make it a worthwhile gamble.

By the way knowhatimean I submitted my reponse before your second post so I accept you are not really comparing 2004 to ''95. And my comments are more about the general clamour for spending money rather than particularly at odds with your thoughts. It''s just that your comments made me think a bit more about the situaion in general! We all want the best for the club that''s for sure.

By the way knowhatimean I submitted my reponse before your second post so I accept you are not really comparing 2004 to ''95. And my comments are more about the general clamour for spending money rather than particularly at odds with your thoughts. It''s just that your comments made me think a bit more about the situaion in general! We all want the best for the club that''s for sure.

Firstly comparing this situation to 1995 is completely and utterly unjust in my opinion. Making the step up to the Prem from the first division (Championship as it is now!) is bigger than ever. We have had a very difficult time in the past 9 years battling back from the bottom and so sometimes I wonder how forgetful people can be. Is our club as a whole in a better position than even this time last year? Of course it is, and thats a very good start for ambition. The charge often levelled at the club is basically saying we don''t want to stay up, and I cannot see how anyone could believe that. Everyone wishes we had more money to spend. But that''s the same at every club bar Chelsea. AND the biggest factor which makes me shake my head in disbelief is that so many people moan about us needing to spend more money, whilst a team who spent more than us to go up, and have spent much, much more than us this season (from £4m for Earnshaw, to Kanu''s massive wages) are currently below us in the league. Who knows whether they will stay there, but the point remains that West Brom look little better than us. And how much money has been invested in the squads of Blackburn, Southampton, Birmingham and Fulham? Money is not the be all and end all and I think a lot of the time supporters can just use it as an excuse for their team not doing as well as they hope. It is a factor of course, but as we sit here now it''s easy to say "well if they spent £3m on a striker we would stay up", but no one can guarantee that. The crucial point is: If spending that money and not staying up would put us in a position where getting back up would be more difficult then you can understand why the club wouldn''t take that risk. And for all the jibes and claims of "not telling the truth" (which may have some truth to a degree as with any club), only the club truly knows whether this would be the case. As a fan it is easy to disregard this dilemma as we don''t have to accept responsibility for the consequences. If we spent £3m on a striker and still went down, chances are a few more players would have to leave and we would have less money to reinvest in the team next season. The same supporters angry now would be moaning just as much then, decrying a lack of ambition and such. Truth is, football club boards are on a hiding to nothing in many cases. As for the initial comment about our fans deserving to be in the Prem, of course I would agree with the sentiment. But don''t you think that Sunderland''s fans would say the same, or West Ham''s, or Leeds'', or Forest''s, or Sheffield Wednesday''s, or Derby''s, or Leicester''s, or Wolves'' etc. The cruel nature of the game is that everyone wants to win, but only a few can at any time. Every club around us will probably spend more money in January, but still 3 teams are going to have to go down. Hopefully we can get one or two new faces in with our limited money (perhaps one being a loan) which can just make the difference. It might not be good enough, but spending £3m might not be good enough either if you don''t buy the "right" player/s. A couple of new faces to give us a fighting chance would be enough for me, and I don''t think that''s being defeatist, but being realistic about our current position as a club.

I think the criticism of him is fair in a sense. But I think he was brought in on the basis that he had some quality about him. Now that''s a decent reason to add someone to your squad. But I don''t think it was ever really considered how he was going to fit into the team. Fact is, he is not a winger and thats where we always play him. He played behind the front two in the diamond, but the whole formation was flawed (playing Damo and Holt in roles they were not suited to for example) and so its hard to blame him too much for not shining at the time. Perhaps we could play him uprfont, just behind Leon, with Hucks and Jonson or Macca on the wings. Maybe that would give him better opportunities on the ball. I don''t think he is going to be very effective on the wing, and so maybe Worthy needs to find a way to accomodate him better. Otherwise he should play someone else. Personally so far this season I have seen nothing from Bentley or Jonson which makes me think either can do a better job on the wing than Macca, and I would go as far to say Macca is also a harder worker at both ends of the pitch. I''ve also been saying for a while that I would like to see Hucks on the right wing (say swapping flanks during the game to do something different) as he would be able to provide better service for the strikers from there I feel. He put in one good cross with his left foot on Saturday (when Jonson put the header wide) but I think he could do that much more often if he had the ball on his right foot from the off. Macca can perform on either flank, so you could swap the two over easily.

This is going be memory, but I feel sure that when officials were talking about how the TV money is dished out, the basic agreement was based on each team getting at least 6 games on SKY, with each being worth between £245k (Pay per view games) and about £300k. We have already had 5 games live (Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Everton, Man City) and I believe that the Liverpool match (3rd Jan) has been chosen as a Sky game already (can''t find offical confirmation of that though!), so that would suggest that we are virtually certain to receive more TV money than we had originally budgetted for. This isn''t just because we are likely to be in a relegation fight (as someone mentioned above), but also because we play Chelsea in March, and both Man Utd and Arsenal in April, who''s games are much more likely to be shown regardless of the opposition as we know. So it''s possible that we could have another 3, maybe even 4 more games which could bring in between £750k to £1.2m exrta. I guess the real issue is when these TV schedules would be announced as planning for this money and then not getting it would be bad news for sure. It''s certainly worth thinking about. Not least because we are usually quite guarded over our transfers, a sensible policy as we don''t have much money and we need to make all of it count. If clubs know exactly what money you have to spend, they can push you into paying more or less all of it for a player. Therefore I would be surprised if we came out and said we had £1.2m to spend and we actually only had that amount! I would say there might be a bit more, perhaps closer to £2m (possibly more). Not a great amount, but look how much West Brom have spent this season and where they are. Money''s important, but not the be all and end all.

Hucks - very unlikely to go even if we get relegated. He''s made it clear he is happy here and he''s on a good contract so no worries about that. Damo - I''m glad he has been getting a lot of praise because he deserves it. In a funny way its a good thing that there are rumours about possible interest in him because it shows he is playing very well. But all they are is rumours. As for him leaving, no way will he go in January (particularly with his injury). If we get relegated then no doubt there will be interest in him from Prem clubs. One thing his new contract DOES mean is that any potential buyer would have to pay up to buy him (not like say Leicester who had to sell people like Thatcher and Dickov for next to nothing). If he was interested in a move to stay in the Prem and we were offered a good sum then he would probably be sold. But that''s just the nature of football for any club in our position. Green - all the rumours have been going on for so long, most of them complete fabrications created by people putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 (eg "the only reason Bentley signed on loan was because we have already done a deal with Arsenal for Green" - absolute rubbish!). But he''s a great young goalie and so clubs will be interested. I would be very surprised if anyone came up with a decent bid for Green in January to be honest. Man Utd for example spent their money on Rooney. Wenger doesn''t usually like to bring in many new people in January either. Clubs such as Middlesbrough might also be more likely to wait until the end of the season in the hope that we get relegated and therefore any move to a Prem club might be on Greeno''s mind. At the same time, if someone like Middlesbrough did come in for Greeno now, he might be more inclined to wait until the end of the season in the hope that one of the bigger teams were then interested. One thing is clear, if Greeno did leave in January then the money would go to our player budget. Whilst our forthcoming financial results won''t look good (due to the nature of our last financial year), we are no longer in a position where we have to sell our best players due to needing the money to stay afloat (eg as with the likes of Eadie and Bellers). We don''t need to sell Greeno and we don''t want to sell him. But everyone has a price, and every good player has ambitions to further their careers. If a team offers us good money and he wants to go then maybe a deal would go through. But a lot of things would have to come together to make it happen and I don''t think the month of January offers sufficient time to sort everything out. Not least the fact that we would only sell if we knew we had the time to reinvest the money into our squad in January as well. Staying in the Prem would bring massive financial reward, far, far outweighing any transfer fee we might get for Green (and I think people who believe we will get £5-6m are misjudging the current transfer market personally). So even from a basic financial standpoint it wouldn''t make sense to sell Green if we couldn''t reinvest in our squad to help us stay up. There will still be plenty of interest in Green next summer anyway. in truth I think most of the talk is just supporters worrying. I doubt anyone will go in January (well, any of our best players that is) and in all likelihood there will only be one or at the most two players coming in.

Thanks for the reply!

Looks like two good line-ups are going to be on show so it should be a good game. Hopefully Mullers can put in a good performance to start knocking on the door for the first team after his injury problems. Will be good to see the Doherty-Shack partnership as well. The report on here states that kick-off is at 19:00 rather than the normal 19:30 start. Just wondered if anyone knows whether that is a mistake or not!

Unfortunately as everyone knows, at every ground there are always sections of the crowd who like to pick on players for no real reason. They move from one target to the next as they kill each one off by sapping the players'' confidence (as shown in Iwan''s book). God knows why they do it. Take Svenny. He got abuse from the moment he arrived off some people despite the fact that he played for quite a while when he wasn''t fully fit, and despite the fact that he contributed a lot to our promotion when the pressure was on in the run-in. Some people were calling for Iwan every time he got the ball against Wigan before he shut them up with his fantastic goal. The same select idiots screamed abuse at Svenny as soon as anyone so much as looked like passing it to him against Palace (a couple sat near me unfortunately). Same has happened to Holt this year. He did have a few poor games at the start of the season no doubt, but in the last few he has improved and seems to be picking up the tempo of the Prem. Despite this, a bloke sitting near me during the Pompey match started moaning every time he got near the ball. When he struck the cross bar all he could say was, "well, I still think he''s a w+++++" and then stayed quiet for the rest of the match! In no way whatsoever were "the fans" on Hendo''s back, it was just the same small group of mindless idiots who seemingly have a compulsive need to victimize certain players (which can create the sheep like response from others as Marty states). If you think they were doing it as a result of an intelligent assessment whereby they looked at the players performance, considered all surrounding circumstances (eg a youngster playing out of position) and then made their decision then you are sadly mistaken. The very fact that some idiots booed Hendo was not because they were rationally criticising and giving an honest footballing opinion, it was because they are stupid, and consequrently that is a useless way to judge a players performance (which is why I said to look at the DVD, something you seem to find funny for some reason - honestly if you are subjective you will be surprised). Truth is, anyone can see that Hendo is not "crap" as you put it. Is he as good as Rooney? No, of course not. Does playing for the U-20''s mean he will represent the full England side in the future? Not necessarily, and chances are it''s not likely. Are we saying that Hendo is the greatest talent ever to pull on a yellow shirt? No we are not. All people on here are saying is that he is a player of genuine promise who despite still having a lot to learn, made a significant contribution last season when called on despite getting undeserved stick from some quarters. He might not go on to be a club great, but he has done well so far which suggests he has every chance to become a regular first teamer in the future with hard work and more experience. People getting on his back for no reason will not help him progress, and it won''t help NCFC as a result either. Thats the end of me on the subject as it''s clear you have your own personal agenda on this topic for some reason.

[quote]Let me put it this way: Hendo is now, what 20? This is a similar age as players like D Bent, Westlake and Bowditch - I know they''re all binners and I don''t like admitting this but Hendo is not even on...[/quote] But that last point is just your opinion, and personally I (as do many others) completely disagree with it. Like I said in my previous post, go and watch the season DVD and see how big a part Hendo played last year in helping us gain promotion. If you watch it and still cannot see it then I give up, you must have a personal agenda at stake. I''m particularly pleased you mentioned the likes of D Bent, Westlake and Bowditch because those without some sort of bias would have to agree that Hendo was one of the main reasons we beat them at home last season. It was he who lit the fires by going straight through Magilton (not the actions of "a little boy"!). And more importantly it was Hendo''s "penetrating" work down the right which won us both free kicks which resulted in Malky''s two goals, crucial moments as we were playing very poorly before hand (thats just a fact whch you cannot deny). "offers you nothing other than a lot of running"? What about in that dire home game against Forest. The one piece of genuine quality we showed, and what won us the game, was an excellent cross by Hendo which Svenny got on the end of (even you cannot deny the quality of that cross). And he also stuck a few goals away, not least the two against Millwal you mentioned, both of which were far from easy chances and showed his abliity in front of goal. How you can say he was wasteful on the ball is a mystery to me. Yes he did give the ball away at times, but a 19 year old playing out of position on the wing is going to make such mistakes. It''s part of the learning curve which all young players go through (some said it about Bentley''s performance against Villa for example). Most of the time fans got at him was when he didn''t waste the ball, and played a simple pass to make sure we kept posession rather taking on a defender or two with little support ahead of him. Hendo is certainly not the finished article, and with young players you can never quite tell how they will develop over time (and Jarvis would be a good example of this, as despite his greater talent he seems to have taken only a few steps forward over the past year, but I''m sure he will get back on track and come good for us over the next couple of seasons). But he has showed a lot of potential and to claim his performances last season were "dire" couldn''t be further from the truth in my opinion. Like I said, go and watch the season review. That provides conclusive proof that your opinon is wrong in my book.

Yep everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some aren''t worth listening to! Barely want to rise to that comment above! Shows you know sod all about football though. Not good enough for the First Division? That comment is completely insane. Just go and watch the season DVD of last year and note how many times Hendo played a key role in us scoring. I think even supporters of Hendo (which should be everyone as far as I''m concerned, you should never moan at your own players during a game, especially youngsters who will always make the odd mistake) would be surprised at how big a part he played when you look back. And all this whilst playing out of position on the right wing! 99% of the time some "supporters" had a go at Hendo last season was when he was actually doing exactly what Worthy wanted him to do, i.e. don''t bother tring to take on people if there is little support ahead, just put your foot on the ball and play it simple so that we keep possession and can build from there. Bottom line is, if you cannot tell the difference between a player like Hendo and players like Che Wilson, you must really be struggling! He played very well for the U-20s at the weekend, as he has done so far in the reserve games I have seen this season (he was excellent against Pompey reserves, best player on the pitch). I also thought he was our best player when he came off the bench against Everton in the cup last season, so I don''t think the step-up would bother him. I know Worthy and the coaching staff rate him very highly (thats why he got a new contract this summer) and the fact that he is moving so easily through the England youth ranks suggests that they rate him highly too. I really look forward to Hendo proving you completely and utterly wrong in the next few years! And I would have to agree that out of the two Hendo has been a lot more impressive than Jarv. I think Iwan noted this in his book, that Hendo just has a bit more desire to make it. Always shows in the performances. Any City fan would want both to do well though and thats why I can never understand such mindless criticism.

Can''t say I''ve got all the answers, but a few points to make. Regarding the money brought in by being in the Prem, lots of the figures quoted are wildly optimisitc and take into account many different things. Some people put the figure at say £30m+ but that includes the two parachute payments of £7.5m(?) when you go down, money you obviously cannot budget for as part of this season in the Prem. The biggest factor you have to take into account (and is not taken into account when figures of the money are made) is how you get the money, and when you get it. You don''t just get one load of money at the start of the season (I believe you get something like £9m up front in the summer but that might be wrong). The rest of the money comes from appearances on the tele (guaranteed to be on 6 times - and we''ve been on 5 times so far so would should exceed that limit) as well as the money you get according to where you finish in the league (which clearly you only get at the end of the season, and you cannot really budget for how much you are going to get). Sponsorship money can be difficult to generalise about. For instance, signing a shirt sponsorship deal as a Prem club would bring you more money (as people predict), but that''s only an option if your current deal expires at the end of the season you get promoted (although I believe our deal with Proton does rise when we are a Prem club). All in all I think the Sky money comes to about £14m guaranteed over the course of the year. The Jarrold Stand was built partly on the back of the land sale (which came to £6m - the stand cost £8m with the extra money covered by stand sponsorship and the executive/matchday facilities). Effectively the building was paid for as part of the securitisation deal, with the land sale paying part of it off (rather than the land sale directly paying for the building). I believe we get the £6m in two instalments of £3m, and I presume we have only received one part of that so far. One crucial thing you have to take into account as regards to the building of the South Stand on last years figures is the massive loss of match day revenue the club incurred. For example 4,000 less tickets sold for 15 home games than the previous year (lets say an average of £11 a ticket taking into account kids and adult prices would total £660k lost) plus the subsequent loss in food and drinks, match day club shop purchases, programmes, etc. The pitch was undoubtedly a necessary investment. The in-fill is also needed for the future growth of our club. In time that will be paid off by the extra revenue selling those seats will bring in over the next 5 or 6 seasons. I don''t know how the cost is initiall met though (whether Prem money is spent - or was the money loaned?). As for the rest, firstly I wouldn''t underestimate how much the wage bill has gone up this season as every player is on a divisional related contract (very sensible practice mind you). The signing of new contracts also are a worthy expense, but an expense nonetheless (eg Greeno''s wages have probably increased a lot - but that at least secures him/ or a good transfer fee for the future). The wages of Prem signings are also probably likely to be high for us and you have to take them into account when you consider how much money we have spent this summer (especially people like Helveg who came in on a free). If the wage bill was about £6m last year, it will probably be at least £10m this year (thats just a guess though), which would be atleast another £4m you have to find just for wages from your Prem money. People also forget how much money we have had to pay out this summer for previous transfers in the form of extra installments as a result of obtaining Prem status. I''m not sure on any firm facts here but I think we had to pay another £250k for Svenny, another £250k for Hucks, another "six figure sum" for Drury (allegedly another £300k). Leon''s deal was something like £300k upfront, but

Not being a shareholder myself, I admit my comments might be off the mark. But personally I have no problem at all with it. It''s easy to say "now we are in the Prem" etc but just being in it for one year doesn''t solve much financially (particularly with the large projected losses for the last financial year). And of course the whole point is that while your revenue goes up consderably in the Prem, your outgoings go up just as much as well. There is always a myth ready and waiting in the wings for supporters to claim that there is money available but the Board won''t spend it, rather than accepting that the money we have spent is all the money we can afford. No fan wants to see us spend money we haven''t got, particularly in an attempt to stay up, which would be in no way guaranteed even if we did spend some money on a striker in January. So there are then two alternatives. One is just to sit back and accept things. The other is to work hard to find ways to raise extra money. So I''ve no problem with it. At least the Board are trying to do something positive and constructive (and they are prepared to put in as well) rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying there is no more money so we have to accept our limitations. If you are a shareholder and you want the money then fair enough, you''ve supported the club in the past. But I''m sure most will be only to happy to see money which they haven''t actually got yet going back into the club they love to raise more cash for the transfer kitty. Like I said, at the least the Board are given fans the option to directly help the playing budget.

Defintiely should be changes, but that''s why I''m not wallowing in doom and gloom at the moment. There are still plenty of points to win. Even if we are still down in the bottom three at Xmas (which is likely to be fair) getting on a run of wins can be enough to inch your way out of the relegation zone like Pompey did. We''ve lost to Man Utd (a) Arsenal (h) and Liverpool (h). For a team in our position that''s hardly disastrous. Maybe I''m being overly optimistic but I really do believe we have a number of decent options we can try. Personally I see no reason why Leon can''t be given a go up front with Hucks (and he should get a run of games, not a one-off). But if not, Jonson could do a job there, or even Svenny. He had a bad day at Man Utd but that''s no reason to give up on him (Worthy didn''t give up on Holt when he played so poorly against Man Utd and Newcastle- and consequently he has improved over the last few games even if he isn''t comfortable in his current role) and I would fancy him to stick chances away much more than Doherty. Perhaps move Hucks to the left (as mentioned above) to play Leon upfront with someone else (even the Doc). Jonson has so much potential that given a run of games I''m sure he will come good either on the right wing or upfront. Bentley has done very well considering that for all the hype around him, he''s still an inexperienced youngster (great to see that he always wants the ball and is prepared to have a go even if it didn''t work out the last time he had the ball) and he will only get better. Francis playing in the centre of midfield was immense in the first few games and he can recapture that form if played in the right postion. Safri has looked decent and could really use his passing skills to great effect if he was receiving the ball higher up the pitch, playing in a traditional central midfield role. Macca is always likely to offer something wherever you play him, or just coming off the bench. Mullers is close to fitness and has that extra bit of quality to create chances at this level (how many times did he change the course of a game last sesaon coming off the bench?!). Even the likes of Jarvis and Hendo could provide something different coming off the bench if given the chance. It''s going to be a long, tough season like we always knew it would be. But we have lots of options and as far as I''m concerned we''ve got to give it a go. A load of draws will not keep us up, but with three points for a win you can soon make up ground on other teams (even if it means losing two and winning one, rather than drawing three in a row). I agree with the Man in the Stands column. If we are going to go down (I''m in no way saying we have no chance of staying up, but we have to accept that is the most likely outcome for this season with the money we have to spend this time around) then at least go down playing attacking football. AND the key point is that by playing attacking football, you always will be in with a chance of getting three points, which WILL give us a chance of avoiding the drop.

Like anything it has positives and negatives. In theory it seems a good idea. Especially against the better teams in the Prem (and I would include Spurs and Villa in that group) we could do with a bit more cover defensively and having Safri at the base of a diamond offers us that cover, along with Holt and Francis. But personally I do not just see the diamond as a defensive measure. In theory it addresses a couple of problems we have faced in attack. Firstly, we all know how Hucks likes to play, drifiting out to the left wing. It''s very effective, but does then see Hucks taking the space which a left winger would normally occupy (closing down the left wingers space somewhat). Therefore playing the diamond allows Hucks to drift wide, although strangely against Bristol Rovers he seemed to do it less than in any game since he joined (more a case of the uninspiring nature of the game rather than the system I feel). The other consequence of Hucks'' play is that with most of the many chances he creates, because he is so quick there is often only the other striker in the box to try to get on the end of his great work. By playing someone behind the front two, this should immediately give Hucks another option to pick out in the box. However it seems as though that part hasn''t really worked, with Bentley and Macca generally picking up the ball outside the penalty area rather than getting on the end of chances inside it. So I do think there are good ideas behind it. I would certainly never criticise Worthy for trying something different tactically, indeed I applaud him for doing so. And it has to be said for all the overall negative reaction from supporters we have gained two good results in the league with it. But I would have to agree with most fans that I would prefer something different. Like everyone else I would question any team and formation which sees Holt on the left wing at times because (as it sounds he has admitted himself) it doesn''t suit his game at all. The role Francis is being asked to play also doesn''t suit him, and considering the form he was showing in the first four games this season (he really was immense against Newcastle) it seems crazy to treat him this way. The diamond undoubtedly suits Safri''s game, as well as Bentley, but then it is also putting two other players out of position negating the positive aspect behind it. I haven''t seen a great deal of Safri, but what I have heard about him (and what I have seen in the last couple of games) makes me think he is what I always wanted in our team. Someone who combines the strengths of Holt and Mullers to play alongside Francis in the middle. So I would love to see us play four across the middle with Bentley on the left (although prepared to go inside and into the box when Hucks comes across), Safri and Francis in the middle and Jonson or Macca on the right. But thats just my opinion and like I said, you cannot fault Worthy for trying something different (although he has to be ready to change if it isn''t working- and will Worthy ever drop Holt, even if it''s just for tactical reasons rather than him not playing well?). I think what will cause change is that Safri is the only player we have who can play at the base of the diamond, and with both international commitments and his tendency to pick up yellow cards, he will be missing in some games. Having said all that, if we get three points with it tomorrow we won''t care! Lets hope it happens.

I think it depends on the side we put out really. To be honest I was disappointed with how we lined up last night. I take the point of wanting to play your strongest team, but for my mind playing a few more of the squad members from the start would have produced a better performance because they would have been more committed as they have a point to prove. We do have enough decent players to warrant putting say 5 different ones in for cup games (unlike the Div One teams you mentioned) and I think it would help everyone if we did so. I suppose from Worthy''s viewpoint he wanted to let the players get a bit more used to the diamond formation last night (any formation which finds Holt on the left wing is wrong in my book, and no wonder Damo had an average game last night - after four games when he was our best player, he has now been shunted to a role which doesn''t suit him at all). So if we played a few of the squad members (why didn''t Ward get 90 minutes of competitive footy?) it would be fine. The only problem with a cup run is injuries and tiredness, which would be negated if we played more squad members. A team made up of the likes of Brennan, Shack, Macca, Svenny, Jonson, Mullers and Leon when fit, Jarv and Hendo, Ward would be good enough to beat most non-Prem teams in my opinion anyway. I don''t think a cup run would be bad for us because we could do with winning a few games to raise the confidence around the club. Most specifically, a couple of bigger games (possibly another Sky match as well) would bring in a bit more money on top of the standard minimum income which we budget for (eg going out in the first round of participation in both cups) which all helps when January comes around.

One things for sure, seeing Svenny have a good game and getting a goal or two tonight would be great for us. Nevermind the standard of opposition, players thrive on confidence. If Svenny could improve his hold-up play then he could still be a big asset for us. He didn''t get a chance against Palace or Man Utd in front of goal really, but I always feel that he is capable of sticking chances away when he is feeling confident. Seeing Jonson tear Bristol apart and firing in some crosses for Svenny to get on the end of would be perfect! Personally I think we will play a standard 4-4-2 tonight as Bristol are likely to pack the midfield so we don''t want to be too narrow and to give them too much space. Get Jonson and Bentley giving us some width and we will be fine with any two from Francis, Safri and Holt in the centre.

Thanks for posting that. Will be interesting to see exactly how it will join up to the Jarrolds Stand from the inside. Seems as though with all these sort of buildings once the ground work has been laid, the rest starts to shape up fairly quickly.

Probably because spending £2m on a player who isn''t a proven goal scorer in the Prem would have been utter madness for us this summer. Had we been able to sign him for a lower fee (£1m at the most) then I would have been happy to have seen him re-join, but £2m was way above what he is worth. The fee was a reflection on how Villa drastically overspent on him rather than what he is worth. A guy who didn''t figure much for Villa last season (and don''t forget how small their squad was/is in Prem terms) and who was sent out on loan to a Div One side (quality though that side was!!!) is not worth £2m. Worthy was completely right not to spend that sort of money on Crouchy. This topic makes me a bit mad to be honest! Jonson is a player of genuine quality who before the Spurs game had only had something like 5 full training sessions with his new team mates so far due to international commitments. Couple that with adjusting to life with a new club, a new league and in a new country and it is hardly surprising that it is taking him a bit of time to adjust. But he will come good and prove to be an excellent player for us. I hate the way some people like to write off on our players without giving them a chance. With a bit of time and support Jonson could prove crucial in our attempts to stay up, so why do some "supporters" not want to give them their full backing? The fact we spent what was in fact somehting like £700k up front on Jonson, a current Swedish international, makes £2m for Crouch look even more ridiculous. In fact this topic shows exactly why Worthy has done well this summer with his budget. Spend £2m on Crouch, or a combined £1.3m (est.) on a quality Swedish international who can play upfront or on the right wing and a 24 yr old Republic of Ireland interntational who can play upfront or in central defence. Top work Worthy, just like buying Charlton for £250k and selling Malky for £300k.

Obviously the key with the idea about a release clause is the fact that Greeno only had one year left on his old deal and could have just played this season out and then walked for nothing at the end of it. Therefore whilst a fee of something like £3m might not seem much, compared to the alternative (eg nothing- in the sense that his agent would not have agreed a new deal unless the clause was there) it would still be good business. But having said that, the clause is only a rumour. Worthy''s comments on the official site contradict the idea that''s for sure. If there was a release clause you wouldn''t expect Worthy to come out and say something like that (only accepting big money) because it would just come back to haunt him. Other clubs would know about a clause (probably unofficially through his agent) and wouldn''t pay a penny more because they would know that Greeno would be interested in a move to a top club, and if a player wants to go then keeping them helps nobody. It''s not an issue for a few months anyway, so no point worrying about it.

In regards to the post about Notman''s match, as soon as he announced his retirement I thought a match against Man Utd would be on the cards. For all of the many reasons to dislike them, Man Utd always seem to be very good at supporting testimonial/benefit causes, and it wouldn''t surprise me in the least if Ferguson himself would be keen to help out the little Scottish lad who learned his trade there. I thought that gaining Prem staus might rule it out, as my initial thought was to do it in pre-season, and you wouldn''t normally play a side from your own league in pre-season. But perhaps something can be worked out as even a Man Utd eleven with 5-6 "name" players would probably draw a much bigger crowd than an ex-Ippo team (although fair play to them for wanting to be involved). Having a load of kids supporting Man Utd would be annoying (like at Bryan Gunn''s testimonial- I can remember the shreiks which went up every time Cantona got the ball- although I was booing myself after what he did to Polston!), but it''s about raising some money for Notman, so for one night only I would be glad if a load of glory hunters came through the turnstiles to bump up the crowd.