OhForAGreavsie

I assume most people posting in this thread have seen a lot more of Fekir than I have, so bear that in mind when I say that I've never thought as highly of him as many here. From the first time I watched Fekir I likened him to Shaqiri, a player I regard as offering more flashy looking play than actual end product. When Fekir was linked to us during the transfer window before last I posted to say that I much preferred Malcolm, now of Barca. Whether it's because Chelsea did not have enough belief in Fekir, or because they were worried about his injury record, I can't say I'm disappointed by Aulas's revelation that we were never interested.

The women play their first league game of the 2018/19 season at home to Manchester City Sunday September 9th. That's the weekend the men won't be playing because of the international break. If you're going to be missing your football fix that week, why not get over to Kingsmeadow, in Kingston, to support the girls. There's a bus that stops right outside the ground and a train station nearby, plus free car parking at the stadium. If you're driving just slap KT1 3PB into your satnav. Tickets are £6 full price, £3 concessions and can be bought on the day or from the club in advance. Kick off is at 2:00pm. City finished second behind Chelsea in last season's Women's Super League so this is a massive game to kick off the campaign. We attracted a record crowd of over 3,300 when City visited Kingsmeadow in last season's FA Cup. That's more than attended some league two games but there's room for about 1500 more to watch what could turn out to be a pivotal fixture in the title race. See you down there if you can make it.

You must be trolling.

Sticking to the selection of transfer targets. Why do you think it is Graniskova and Tenenbaum who jointly select the targets and what evidence do you have for that belief?

To be clear the admission I spoke of was my own. Let me take a different tack. Tell me clearly, do you think Marina chooses transfer targets?

Well, I can't do that. What you might tell me as a result of that admission is up to you. What I'd like you to tell me is that I'm a logical person who is not prone to believing whatever the hell I want to believe based on nothing but a pile of unsubstantiated guesses.

None of which tells you who chooses the transfer targets, at which point in the process these names are chosen or updated, who determines the maximum spend for individual players, who sets the overall strategy, and who assigns the total budget. Yet, despite not knowing anything, you do know who is to blame. You're not being very convincing.

From the moment we were linked with Marcos I said that I thought he could help us and that I was in favour of signing him. I believe he has been an upgrade on what we had before, but I have also often said that there are better LBs out there who could upgrade us again. We need to make that step forward but, in the meantime, I don't understand all the stick Marcos gets. It's not his fault that he is Chelsea's starting left back. Until the club recruits a better one, we should support the left back we have.

It is certainly true that we have made too many poor transfer decisions, over too long a period. Ultimately someone must be to blame for this but I do not have enough information about the functions and responsibilities of the people involved to pinpoint exactly who that is. Nor do you.

I think this is a sound assessment though I confess to a sneaking feeling that Marcin may have saved the first goal. Sneaking feelings don't add up to much however and we will never know for sure. Let's be patient with Kepa and give him all the support he needs.

An acknowledgement that you had misunderstood my original post would have been nice. No I don't really think the club would have gone with an, in fact currently, 18 year old goalkeeper. I'm just saying what I would have done. As you may not know, I am an avid watcher of our development squads and have seen a great deal of Marcin. Enough to form the opinion I've offered. It is difficult however to contradict the opinion of coaches and officials who have seen more of both players than I have. It is also hard to deny the value of experience. I just hope the choice was not a lazy one, automatically ruling out the youngster simply because of his youth. Brave choices do pay off sometimes and this may have been one of those times. Perhaps we will never know.

You've missed the point that I favoured the radical solution of installing Marcin Bulka as our starting goalkeeper. Hey presto the possibility of £71m to put toward a different player in our starting XI, or at worst £71m in the bank to spend another time. For example, I don't believe that Icardi was ever gettable but, if he was, he would have been more affordable with just an extra £27m to find rather than another £98m. I'm not saying that I think Kepa is a bad keeper. Nor am I saying that he may not be better than Marcin. Time may show that he offers those extra bits of quality which justify the decision to sign him. The fact that we haven't seen this yet is neither here nor there. If he has it, he'll prove it and I hope he does. I am saying however that I believe in Marcin. He's young but he's talented and he has the physical tools. In two months he'll be 19, the same age at which Thibaut became the starting goalkeeper for one of the best teams in the world. I grant you that Thibaut was more experienced at that time than Marcin is now, but I'd have taken that gamble. The one direct comparison I'd make so far is that I think Marcin looks the better shot stopper. This opinion is based on very thin evidence of course, and it certainly isn't enough to suggest that Marcin is the better keeper overall. Not even close to enough, but it also doesn't rule out the possibility. In any case, Marcin does not need to be better to validate the gamble I'd have taken. He just needs to be good enough to deserve his place in the team and to satisfy the following inequality; (Marcin + another £71m worth of footballer) > Kepa.

The real question I suppose is do we now have an extra £71m pounds worth of goalkeeper? If we do we'll be happy.

No it's definitely £71m. Thibaut was going to be sold in either scenario. If we don't buy Kepa, and start Marcin instead, then we have £71m more in our bank account or £71m of additional player(s) running around on the pitch.

The comparison I look at, and can't reconcile myself to, is Kepa vs Marcin + £71m running about at full back, centre back, or striker. I am going to have to stop fretting about this decision sooner or later but I'm not there yet.

I have nothing to complain about in regard to Kepa. It's just that I just haven't gotten over the decision to spend so big on him. I know Marcin won't be 19 for another couple of months but I'd have bitten the bullet, made the youngster our starter, and used the £71m to strengthen elsewhere. Still, we are where we are.

No, I think it was a bad error. The mistake was marginal in that another quarter of a metre on the ball and it would have launched an attack but in that situation, playing the ball square with the press on, you have to get the weight of pass right. After that they were running at a wrong footed back four, and also benefitted from a deflection which fell perfectly for them. To cap it all, it looked to me like Kepa got a hand to the shot. One mistake doesn't determine the quality of a performance, but it was a mistake by Ross all the same. It's only a question of whether Willian compounded the problem, or if he was blameless.

I'll have to watch it again then but it looked to me like it was on Ross. At no point did I think Willian was to blame but maybe I'll see it differently with the replays.

Probably because he gave the ball away leading to their first goal. A lucky goal in the end for them, but started from Ross's error.

Or you could just think about it some more and agree that I'm right.

I get what you're saying but I'm willing to bet you a lot of money that seating will never be allowed in safe standing areas. Impractical, and far too dangerous.

There can't be a way to allow people to sit when they want to in a standing area while also guaranteeing that no one will stand in front of them. It also will not be safe. You and I remember the Shed and how it was then. Safe standing won't be the same as that was, but people will still go crazy at times. Seated people who can't move with the, lateral, wave just become obstacles for people to trip and fall over. It would happen all the time and there would be injuries, some serious. Because of this there is absolutely zero chance that clubs would get a licence to allow seated fans in safe standing areas. The video makes it quite clear that there is not even a proposal that seated and standing areas would be mixed. It makes clear that, once an area has been set up for safe standing, individual fans will not be able to lower the seat so they can sit in it. As you may remember, I'm strongly against the return of standing but the tide looks like its going against my point of view. If this happens, and a match going fan does not wish to, or feel able to, stand for two hours or so, then they are going to need to get tickets in seated areas. P.S. I notice you changed the video in your original post. Good work, the new one explains the safe standing method more clearly. People will see even better now that there is no provision for sitting in the safe standing areas.

Thanks UJ, That's exactly as I understood it then. If you want to sit you have to go to an all seated area; if you want to stand then you go to an all standing area. People who want to stand at high emotion moments, and sit during others, will have to buy tickets for all seated areas and 'break' the ground regs. Just like they do now.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you will have the option to sit in 'safe standing' areas. I think the area can be configured for everyone to stand or for everyone to sit, not both. A few hundred people choosing to sit, dotted around, would put paid to the 'safe' part of the safe standing system.