No improvement

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

@KingCanary

It looks like 3-4-3 might not be the first choice formation, so 4 CBs would probably be sufficient. I am yet to be convinced about Zimmerman yet, but if he is 4th choice in a team that will predominately 4 at the back, then I''m not overly worried about it.

I wouldn''t be surprised if a new RB comes in, I''m guessing Farke and Webber wanted to look at Godfrey and see if he is up to it - unfortunately due to injuries he hasn''t actually been able to play there so far at pre-season.

I doubt there will only be 2 more signings - although suspect that might again be dependant on players going out. I wouldn''t be at all surprised with some late loanees added to the squad to fill in gaps.

[Jack Flash 13]

I do not buy into this oft repeated criticism from the negative brigade that Zimmerman is a 4th tier player. That is total nonsense as he has played over 100 games for Borussia M''Gladbach and Borussia Dortmund IIs part of extremely strong teams similar to being at Chelsea, Man City etc. Thus access to top grade training techniques and rubbing shoulders with the best in the German leagues. Most on here would be excited at getting a young Chelsea squad player I presume?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Dortmund II isn''t the equivalent to the Chelsea youth team. The best young players at Dortmund will go from the U19s straight into the first team, with some being placed in Dortmund II if the club are unsure about them. Many players will be signed with the express intention that they will only ever appear for Dortmund II. It is like when Goran Maric signed from Barcelona II - they never had any intention of him being in the first team.

Players can''t be switched from Dortmund II and Dortmund during the season, so it isn''t like appearing for a youth team.

Zimmerman might turn out to be a gem, but in interviews even the player has admitted he is likely to be back up. I don''t expect more than 10 starts for him across the season in the league.

[Horse Renoir 1]

Kinda worried about the fans next year. So many of you are just toally off base with your expectations this year.

We''re now a Championship club with a just about top 10 budget. We''re not consolidating, we''re using all the means at our disposal to assemble the best squad possible, the moves we''re making are a result of our financial predicament.

We can''t just plunge the club into debt but I seriously doubt anyone at CR would be happy with a run in the Championship.

I seriously think some of you still haven''t gotten over the relegation and think we''re still a PL club. Last season was our chance to keep this run since 2009 going, we blew it, the main culprets have left and a new team is doing what they can.

Lower your expectations and try and get behind the club!

We''re definitely, 100% going to experience

some teething problems with this new set up but the pay off will be worth it. No club that we admire now like Swansea/Huddersfield/Soton etc got off to a flyer once changing their ethos. It took Swansea for example about 4 years and 3 managers to get where they are but look at them now!

I''m dreading a situation where we inevitably lose to Fulham then get beat by Sunderland because we''re still getting our head round this new style and the fans boo the team off 2nd game of the season which affects the players and the spirit Farke is trying to foster.

I''m totally behind this new regime but I''m expecting us to start quite poorly like Reading/Leeds did last year. I''m just praying other fans are sensible enough to understand the situation and can have some patience!

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Captain Haddock"]" again by common consent, the manager was tactically weak."stop making up stuff, there was no common consent, however what there is, is an understanding that all was not well within the squad and players were not commited - why, has not or I doubt will be fully explained but I very much doubt it was due to the manager being ''tactically weak.'' whatever that is[/quote]

I think I will somehow live with another of your allegations of making stuff up. I notice that on the EU thread the penny finally dropped that even you couldn''t keep on claiming I had lied when I said you believed May had not been politically weakened by the election result. Given that I provided the direct quote of yours which made it quite clear that was just what you were saying it had always been a tough ask, although you kept at it manfully for quite a while.As far as I am concerned do keep on accusing me of making stuff up or directly lying if that makes your day. As I said before, you only sue people you think might be taken seriously. But, given how frequently you throw that kind of accusation around here at other people, I would have a care if I were you. Not everyone is as insouciantly blasé about defamation as I am.

[Bill 1,788]

Perhaps before you start waffling on you might care to understand where the burden of proof lies in defamation - it is not in lying either

Example 1 "" again by common consent, the manager was tactically weak"Setting aside the rather odd ''tactically weak'' you stated ''common consent''. That is defined as "With the agreement of all.". You have no knowledge of what ''all'' think on this matter. That is mere conjecture on your part  ie made up

Example 2 "the only person on the planet who doesn''t think Theresa May has been weakened by the election result."whereas, what I actually stated was"Why would May be more weak if you claim, if supposedly the election votes were 82% for Leave parties, Why would the Tory government be weakened by having this supposed mandate ? "Caught out that I did not say what you claimed, you later amended it to what you thought I meant !You can interpret all you wish, there is no law against that, however to make accusations on the basis of more conjecture is straying over that line.Similarly you would do well to recognise that the words "the only person on the planet who doesn''t .... " is not too accurate either. In fact given that the definition of a lie is "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information."  I would have no problem defending my assertion that both comments were in fact lies.''Common consent'' and ''the only person on the planet''  would easily fall into the category of  "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information" as you can have no knowledge of who all are never mind their consent, nor what every other person on the planet thinks.So my suggestion to you would be to stop posting misleading posts and also to reply to what I have actually said, not what you imagine I must have thought.By all means use conjecture, but state it as such, not claim it to be fact.And maybe keep the reply to the actual thread, so allowing the reply to be seen.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Captain Haddock"]Perhaps before you start waffling on you might care to understand where the burden of proof lies in defamation - it is not in lying eitherExample 2 "the only person on the planet who doesn''t think Theresa May has been weakened by the election result."whereas, what I actually stated was"Why would May be more weak if you claim, if supposedly the election votes were 82% for Leave parties, Why would the Tory government be weakened by having this supposed mandate ? "Caught out that I did not say what you claimed, you later amended it to what you thought I meant ![/quote]Oh my eye - you''re giving a lecture on defamation. That is quite priceless. As to the May thing, I amended nothing. That is not true. What I did was give your full quote (which you understandably have not done  -  the amending has been done by you in leaving out the crucial first sentence) which showed you were indeed saying you did not think May had been weakened by the election:You become more confused by the day. Why

would May be more weak if you claim, if supposedly the election votes

were 82% for Leave parties, Why would the Tory government be weakened by

having this supposed mandate ?