DJ Barry Hammond

I don’t think this is true. These Macquire loans are specifically advanced against guaranteed future income to the extent the monies due to be received from the Premier League can be assigned over to the bank so it goes directly to them (this is different from EFL rules that don’t allow this to be done for TV / Prize Money). The only Macquire loan the club may have had that wasn’t secured against future income might have been the funds used to support the Seagrave development; but I think from memory King Power have since squared that debt via debt/equity swaps (I’m not looking through pages and pages of the clubs accounts again right now to confirm, but I’m almost certain this was confirmed by the club previously).

It’d be a straight swap with Skipp 😏

This player (cat) is the better player to pick because we don’t know whether they’re bad (dead) or not, because we’ve not seen them in the team (box). Simple enough.

All this waffle. Your example doesn’t carry weight because you’re quoting brands that you will have prior awareness of - you have additional knowledge to make an informed choice on a preference and could state detailed reasoning for that choice without direct experience. Now you could, in theory, do that with the Souttar / Lascelles claim; “I’ve watched them play for Newcastle / Stoke respectively and think they’re styles of defending and skill sets would be well suited as a partnership.” But the reality is, there was no evidence from the OP for the stated preference other than; they’re not the players currently playing there - which brings us to a Schrödinger’s cat style of desired team selection when a team or player is not performing - see the Thomas / Kristensen (or Skipp 😏) at left back debate and the “should Wink’s play?” for further examples of this. Now that sort of debate is quite empty; it offers little value within the context of a public forum; so why not question it?

So I’m looking for a better standard of debate? If I see a claim that is wild, I am minded to call it out - such as the recently offered “try Skipp at left back” opinion. If you’re going to make a contribution to a public forum; at least put some thought into it!

The model changed based on “having a go” at becoming a permanent fixture inside the top 8 - something these boards were all for in the moment. But even if we had maintained the player trading model (and to a degree we have since) - there was no guarantee to continued success with that, which is what you claimed. There is a very big ‘bubble’ on these boards that overlooks the massively changed landscape of the Premier League from 15/16 onwards, that coincides with the implementation of PSR. Those financial requirements have massively benefited the clubs with strong revenue streams, with maybe the outliers being Brentford and Bournemouth in the current day… yet they may find a cyclical nature to their club’s relative performance over the coming years too.

Much better. I assume the whole point of you voicing an opinion is to gain an idea of agreement / acceptance amongst others - so how can anyone view any worth in an opinion that states a “preferred option” based on absolutely no evidence? It just shows someone that shoots in the wind.

You can have an opinion - but I’ve asked you to quantify it because of your chosen wording. There’s a distinct difference between saying “I’d like to see how Souttar and Lascelles perform together, if/when fit” than stating them as a “preferred partnership.”

This is nonsense. The ‘player trading’ model is rife with clubs having dramatic peaks and troughs in overall team performance - and has no grounding in “guaranteeing success.” Southampton were doing ‘player trading’ long before we started it - and look at their history of promotions / relegations etc. Also pay attention to what’s happening at Palace, Brighton and Wolves at the moment - all clubs that have regularly cashed in on prominent players assets and are showing signs of going through the growing pains of that process.

What playing evidence are you basing that opinion on? How can you have a ‘preferred partnership’ of two players that have both; 1.) not played together 2.) hardly played over the last 2 years It’s a nonsensical statement.

Looks a proper snake oil salesman here.

Why this stupid idea keep appearing on these boards? If any manager actually did this, you’d call them insane and want them sacked immediately! You know - it’s not like we’re drastically short on central midfielders at the moment? So yeah, let’s chuck the only one we have with the water carrier skill set in at left back and stack our central midfield with pretty passers!

I reckon that will happen reasonably often with Rowett - it’s a thing he likes to do.

WHY!?!?! This is just an insane opinion - I have no idea of the logic. Skipp’s right footed by the way too!

This forum does love to slag off a fullback.

NO! Neither of those crosses today were ones a keeper could be expected to come and claim. Both were hit with pace, meaning there was no time to get into position to claim the cross. Creswell’s cross had a bit of flight to it before dipping into the six yard box, but it was in no way one that ANY keeper would be trying to claim - it was in the six yard box by the time Begovic had taken a half step to his left. The second on the other hand was a flatter delivery at around head height, adding extra difficulty to claiming it (if you’re coming to claim, you need to be sure you can get it before an attacker can get their head on it). I also checked Begovic’s starting positions on each and he’s exactly where he should be for each.

They tried to make it work with him… which given the success we had in the previous seasons and the rumoured contract release terms; that’s a reasonably understandable position to take. What was equally unfortunate was we’d had a little upturn in form before the World Cup break that year; that bought Rodgers more time than his attitude deserved.

Susan Whelan was at the club for the £90 million loss year (22/23 season). That - and the unthinkable relegation season - has been the issue the club has been trying to rectify ever since. The other thing that seems quite clear now - the signings of Kristensen, Tete and Soutar in that seasons window were clearly a financial punt that was made on a basis of staying in the Premier league, further compounding the clubs PSR issues.

He tweaked the pressing structure second half - had Monga sit on the wingback more and pressed with three instead of the 442 shape that was being used in the first half I believe. His using Aribo wide didn’t surprise me either - my understanding is he likes to use a more central midfielder on one flank to give a bit of flexibility in terms of shape - I reckon we’ll see more of that going forward.

Personally, I don’t really want my winger back that far in open play like that. You can cope with an extra man in the box if your defenders and keeper defend their aerial zones correctly. It also helps to put pressure on the ball before it is delivered into the box rather than stand 5 yards off.

I’d argue Nelson has to forget about his man when he sees the flight of the cross and just win the header - ultimately you defend the ball first. Equally - we allowed the cross to come in far too easily - a common theme when we’re defending (especially leads) where we seem to think standing in front of a player 5 yards deep is adequate defence.

Surely that was written for Thomas to score there!

You can’t defend like that. Absolutely no pressure on the crosser again and ideally Nelson see’s that cross and thinks, **** my man, I’m heading that.

That’s why I said at halftime - you don’t dare take him off yet because there was very little chance he’d be as bad again.

Him and Thomas.