Joensuu

Alps, why shouldn't Mystic hold a mirror up to point out how others perceive certain posters. If you feel he's inaccurately portrayed you, perhaps you could consider moderating your posting style to allow us to all form a more accurate perspective? Just a thought.

I disagree. Don't think much is 'obvious'. We may get our ambitious targets, we may alternatively instead opt for a second choice player, or we may opt to buy nobody if we can't attract a big name. No evidence we are struggling, just that we have very ambitious targets and aren't taking the expected types of bland mid-ranking premier players that we used to ten years ago (anyone for a Kenton, McCann, or Higginbotham?)

Top trolling alps. The answer to the question you've posed is actually that both good and bad signings can be made both early and late in the transfer window. Generally, however, a highly regarded player will have multiple offers, and will want to consider their options before making a decision. I.e. generally only less well regarded players move earlier, unless they feel that the offer that they have received is better than they could hope to obtain elsewhere. As such, early window transfers tend to either be players nobody else wants, or players who have been offered contacts (or opportunities)nobody else is willing/able to match. In other words, if we want to compete for players above our current level we will normally have to wait until later in the window. Hope that helps

Gaston had a solid season last season. 5 goals in 25 appearances. Plenty of flair. Evidence of more to come. I can't understand why anyone would want shot of him. Probably our most promising young player (only Shaw rivals him).

Spot on. It's not bullying to point out when other posters are making arses of themselves. MLG might be pedantically annoying at times, but he is far more interesting than half of the sarcastic posters who spend all their time sneering or trying to intimidate other posters. Now that is bullying.

Superb post, couldn't agree more. Are you sure nobody has hacked your account?

Neither. Not sure why people don't understand that 2 players isn't enough to adequately cover 2 positions for a whole season. I'd suggest that three players could share c. 66% of the game time. This would keep all three players competing with each other. It would also help us to prevent injuries (like Cork's last season) from costing us points. It also would work out to be c. 25 games each - about the same amount that Jos, Shaw or Ramirez played last season (in fact, Cork only managed 28 games last season). As such, all three players would get plenty of opportunities to play, and we would have adequate cover in the defensive midfield slot. Why do people think either Morgan or Cork need to be dropped?

Three young players with a heck of a lot of potential. Any one of them could make the grade, any one of them could fail. One thing though, 'Gastón' doesn't have a 'h' in it.

He 'might' come here as we are one of only a few clubs in the world getting close to meeting the asking price. He might come here if he wants improved wages, and a chance to play in Europe. He won't come here if he's happy to wait for a better offer.

I'm confused. I thought Cheese was Dune, and he's now spamming as Barry. If so who was Orange? And why is TDD pretending he's from Camden?

We have 5 good options at centre back, if we buy Wanyama it will not be to play there. We have only 2 defensive midfield options. If Cork or Morgan is injured we have to try to shoehorn JWP or Davis into the position. Wanyama is being targetted to add competition to this position. My guess is Cork would initially give way. That's not to say Vork won't get game time, he'd almost certainly be on the bench and get plenty of starts. Wanyama is not centre back.

We all agree that Fox isn't up to the role. The problem I have is finding anyone who would be willing to replace him, who is better. There is no way that Warnock or Hibbert would come to saints to play second fiddle to Shaw. I'm sure they'd consider the move if Shaw were the backup player. Our options for replacing Fox are really quite limited. Either we try to find a slightly better player who is willing to give up a guaranteed starting role elsewhere, or we would need to find someone of equal or greater ability than Shaw. I can't see the first option happening. Simply put, Fox isn't actually as bad as people make out, he's better than half the left backs in the Championship. There are a very small group of 'slightly' better players, who might just about consider moving up a division - but I personally can't see that many of them will want to exchange their current roles for a position on our bench. Even those who would are unlikely to be much of an improvement. The second option is equally risky. Bring in someone to challenge Shaw is likely to expedite his wish to move the Chelsea. The one thing we currently have to offer Shaw is a first team position - threaten to remove that from him, and his agent will quickly be trying to stir up interest in the capital. So what choice do we have here. The only type of player who I can see possibly meeting our requirements is someone towards the end of their career, who's played at the top level. Someone who probably couldn't hold down a starting role in the Prem, but is looking for one last opportunity to shine. Personally, I'd have taken a closer look at Bridge last month. He might well be capable of playing better than Fox; he might well be interested in the pay; he might also wish to return to us; but we can't offer him a starting role, and if he's after game time we might not have been in the running. I can't think of many other players who would be a better fit. As such, unless we are willing to risk loosing Shaw by splashing £5m+ on an international left back, I think we're going to have to get used to Fox playing backup for another season.

Think I'd plump for: Radiohead - The Bends Pink Floyd - DSOTM Nirvana - In Utero Queens of the Stone Age - Rated R System of a Down - Toxicity

If true, Glascow should receive some form of ITK badge. If false, he should promise now to never post again. Fair deal?

Not exactly - your wall analogy assumes we aren't being selective in out transfer policy. Who knows whether we are just casting a net and seeing what we catch, or whether we are selecting targets, and focusing on them, while in the background drumming up an aura of quality and ambition. If you were a, say, Europa, or lower Champions League level player, who we've selectively targeted, wouldn't you be slightly more inclined to sign for a lower Premiership club if they are being linked with such ambitious targets? Your point about agents is an interesting one, as I'm sure that many agents will now see us as a potential pawn in their games. This could just see us linked to even more quality players, many of whom we aren't considering. In other words, the agents will help generate further clamour, generally to the benefit of the club. The only time agents become an obstacle is when the agent you are currently negotiating with gets ideas of a pay day. I'm sure our reputation of playing hardball with agents will now be fairly common knowledge in agent circles. Finally, you make an interesting point regarding the potential negatives of being frequently rejected. I can see what you mean, but on balance feel that being linked and rejected is better overall than to not be linked at all. As Wilde (Oscar not Michael) once said 'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about'.

Not the first time Horton Skate has mentioned Duncan's book completely out of context to try and 'prove' that he's not from the wrong end of the M27. I find it a strange ploy; anyone have an idea what point he's trying to make?

If you get linked to enough top players the perception of the size, ambition and stature of the club will change -eventually one of these top targets will come.

http://humorousfunnyjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/polo-shirt-not.jpg

Find this 'Adidas Tiro 13 SS University R/W Shirt' remarkably familiar - http://www.discountfootballkits.com/productimage.php?proCatImg=w53887l.jpg (Hoping that this was the basis for a 'fake' - doubt it!)

Zoom in close. There is obvious pixelatation on the black image. The red one looks far more likely to be a real photo. I'm fairly certain that the black one is a photoshop of the red original image. However even on the red shirt there are three key areas of slight pixelatation, all significantly around the three logos - these slightly pixalated areas have been blurred slightly, but I'm a bit suspicious that the red shirt is also fake - albeit somewhat of a better photoshop attempt if it is fake!

Me too, hence my use of quotes around 'record'. I can't remember what the club claimed it had set a record for - but I'm sure they said it was the fastest or highest grossing or something. Perhaps they forgot to tell us (since 2006). Or perhaps it's a fudge caused by releasing the kit later than normal - resulting in 'fast' selling before the season began. Either way, I doubt that this season actually saw the huge numbers the club sold it as - largely because the shirt is not 'saints' and it's not an outstanding design. Xerox; Stripes; Sash; or something new that is actually well designed please. Only think I don't want to see is a new design that looks half or poorly designed (e.g. gold/yellow details on a red background, using an off the peg template). The curvy Xerox-esque mock up a few pages back, was by far the best looking new design I've seen for a while.

Hypo et al. have established that the kit will sell in bulk irrespective of the design. I agree, but think that clubs will still be able to monitor year on year trends in sales. Last year we had 'record' sales of a rather divisive kit. I can't believe the kit itself provoked these 'record' sales - IMO the return to the top flight was probably a more significant factor. This year, would another slightly divisive kit manage to repeat last years figures? I'm somewhat skeptical. Release a Xerox a clean stripes, or another sash and IMO the sales would far exceed those of a plain red kit. As an aside, i'm wondering if this move away from stripes is actually related to advertising in some way - it's far easier to make a corporate logo work on a plain background than against a multicoloured background. Generally the logo will either need to be solid black - or needs to be sat on a 'panel' of a plain colour, which often makes the shirt look even worse. Would advertisers even possibly pay more teams willing to place the logos on a plain background?

I'd buy that (and I don't own a single replica - only have retro kit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR35 ?