Corky

Dean Smith was here for eight weeks, came in with a good attitude and yet he sounded fed up six weeks in. The club is not in a good place.

Far too much game time and money for his ability.

That should bring in at least £90.

This Gary O'Neil story is rather odd. Why would he give up a managerial role for a coaching one?

For a "competitive" league you need one of two of the top 6 to bugger up and allow some of the rest a chance. The new reported regulations don't appear to be much better and the likes of Brighton, like ourselves previously, need Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea to fail. If they don't it will be become closed.

Ward when he lets a pen in

Wardy lovin this

Ward actually is ok against penalties, isn't he? Early on he saved a few and naturally he had to replace Kasper according to the masses.

Southgate is crocking Man City's defence

Schwarzer only came in because Hamer was crap. Only ever a temporary solution until Schmeichel returned.

Southgate even has us arguing which channel the Wales game is on. Cheers, mate. Just go.

Surely you must be allowed to sell players? I get you may not be able to spend on transfers but stopping clubs making money makes their existence pointless.

We had a totally avoidable relegation and a totally avoidable breach of financial rules and nobody significant left their roles behind the scenes. Nothing will change.

The hardest thing is to look at yourself and admit wrongdoing. Very easy to scream and accuse others. The fact is, we lost £92 million in one year in a period we were permitted to lose £105 million over three. The Premier League, EFL, Big 6, cartel or whoever is next to blame did not force us to do that. We could have halved that loss and probably complied. We chose not to sell a player and risked it. That is our doing. The rules are restrictive but that is what they are. We managed to cope for nearly a decade before it without fuss. I feel this posturing will deflect from the bigger issue that we need serious reform within.

But the rules brought in during 2013 were clearly designed to punish us for winning the league three years later. Anyone can see that.

This would hold much more weight if the rules hadn't been in place before our title winning season and other clubs who have been nowhere near winning the league weren't being punished as well. This isn't some grand plan to stop Leicester City alone, we aren't that important.

Yeah, a lot of this is noise and posturing. They may have valid points but the facts are we are in this mess through our own actions. If it goes wrong we are going to be severely hit. Grim.

Cannot see a positive future under this ownership. We have been dreadfully run for at least three years, maybe more. That £92 million loss in one year was alarming. Think we are in for a painful time.

Shambles. Absolutely no excuses.

Who was the last club to be KICKED OUT of the top flight? This "threat" comes around now and then and nothing ever happens.

Anyone thinking the clappers are in any way positive is living in 2016. Bringing them back to every seat is pointless as you can get one as you go in. Tinpot club.

I get the arguments about Wembley semi finals taking the edge off the final but not having Villa Park as a better venue. The allocation wouldn't even cover our season ticket holders and we are nowhere near the biggest club around. If football is about the fans then getting the most in is the priority. If Old Trafford matches Wembley's capacity in the future then play there.

Isn't our issue the huge loss made two years ago? I may be wrong but I don't think the losses will be staggering this year but we needed to make a healthy profit to get under the limit. It may well be the January gamble was the difference, I don't know.

I agree with their point that having to sell a player early in the window contradicts the sustainability part when you need to generate your own revenue and reducing the amount you could make. That has to change.

It seems to be personal with him. Managers getting arsey is nothing new but he seems to focus on the interviewer as well as the questioning.