OhForAGreavsie

There are sometimes dissenting voices among Spurs fans about Moussaa Dembele but I’m a huge fan of his. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that his full rehabilitation into their side has seen them producing their best form of the season.

I'm going to dissent a little. Olivier displayed the great technique we knew about from Arsenal, showed the lack of pace we knew about from Arsenal and gave a clue or two about why he's here not there. He indulged in our 'flicks & tricks' offence that looks great when it comes off, but is low percentage and just an excuse for the lack of genuinely effective attacking options. He also gave the ball away a lot. That is certainly something that can be cured by increasing familiarity with his new teammates but it is far, far too early to declare his debut a roaring success. Edit: (After the 'like' by DYC) In short, I'm worried that we're at risk of falling into a honeymoon assessment of Olivier's first start. It would be wrong to deny the positives, but just as wrong to ignore the negatives.

I'd much rather see us go for Milinkovic Savic. Someone that could do a job long term rather than a year or two with a much larger wage. Agreed but is the Serb a realistic target for Chelsea?

This loan is vital for Charly. If Charly is going to take that next step, then his game has to make progress at Celtic Park. He has to focus on being efficient, over being brilliant. His displays must demonstrate that this penny has dropped. If not, even those still clinging to the myth that he was brilliant during his first spell at Betis will start to loose belief in a Chelsea future for Charly.

Was planning to go to The Hive on Sunday but helped my daughter with some gardening in the freezing rain on Saturday and made myself sick. There are goal highlights of the game here.

This isn’t true. City have been closely investigated by uefa’s FFP accountants and have passed the test. We may wonder how they’ve done that but the fact is that, up to the time of the last audit, City were not breaking the FFP rules as they stand. I fully expect them to pass future inspections too. They are far too professional an operation to mess up their sums. The only way City might fall foul of the FFP regs is if the definition of related entities is changed. Even then City might be able win the argument. On the other hand we don’t have access to the same value of sponsorship they book and of course we don’t have the global City group. The upshot of all this is that our FFP cap would be lower than theirs.

Why, and to whom, would Roman have to Justify an unwillingness to spend tens, or perhaps hundreds, of millions of pounds of his own money on our hobby? I think the correct attitude is for us to be glad he spent what he did in the first place, and to be totally understanding if he is no longer ready, be it temporarily or permanently, to do that. I know people like to infer, from our turnover figure, that Chelsea could afford to spend very large amounts but the equation is never that simple.

To non-Chelsea fans the thought of Chelsea supporters being unhappy at another club’s spending would seem funny or maybe even hypocritical. They’d just laugh at us.

The ladies currently lie second in the WSL 1 table, two points behind a Manchester City Women side who have won every game they have played this season. That includes domestic and European matches. City visit Chelsea this Thursday evening in what, even this early, could be a title decider. This is a must win fixture for the Blues. Defeat would see us fall five points behind a team which just doesn't look like it's going to drop 5 points all season. Even a draw would, realistically, leave us needing to win at City later in the season to retain any title hopes. If you're free on Thursday night and able to get down to Kingsmeadow to back the girls they could use your support. Tickets cost £6 adults, £3 children and concessions and can be bought from the box office from 5:30pm on the night. Kick off is at 7:00pm. There is free car parking at the stadium. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42853197 Kingsmeadow Stadium Details

OK then.

I would only change one word of the post I’m replying to. I’d take out thought, and insert hoped.

No, talking about the original comment to which I replied. The one wondering why Roman was just sitting back and not sacking the board who are making these decisions. In the end, the board is doing Roman’s bidding. If they didn’t, then they would certainly be out.

Whatever Roman!s plan is, he has reasons for it and it makes sense to him. He will certainly be aware of the potentially negative consequences of some decisions but if he believes the plan is necessary, then he has to follow it. We’re not able to speculate too much because we don’t know the whys and wherefores of the blueprint, but it’s only common sense that a boss shouldn’t start sacking people when all they are doing is carrying out the instructions they’ve been given.

Looks like Emenalo leaving has made no difference at all You’re right, it hasn’t. Instead of stopping and thinking, people have just taken to stupidly demonising someone else. People who once cast Michael Emenalo as the most useless person on the planet, now assign that role to some other lad, or more likely, lass. I’d say some people need fewer devices on which to interact with the internet, and more mirrors in which to take a long hard look at themselves.

When was the last time someone sacked themself? It has happened but not often. We don’t know the plan but there is one. We might not agree with that plan if we did know it, but Roman does. Indeed, even if he did not originate the plan he certainly signed off on it. He’s the person setting the policies and making the final decisions. Whatever is being done is what he wants done.

We have a way of making players, and teams, look good. When we’re in “can’t keep the ball mode”, as we were that night, the ball keeps coming at us. It comes at unexpected times, and from unexpected angles. This turns our game into a shambles which allows even ordinary opponents to perform at their best. I’m not saying Dzeko is an ordinary player. I’m just saying that it can be a mistake to give too much weight to performances against Chelsea.

Deleted. Point already made by another poster.

We only know what the report says. We can’t know that it’s any part of the truth, never mind the whole of it. For example, it might be that Antonio was given a shortlist of ‘affordable’ options and he selected from among those. It would then be accurate to say he ‘chose’ those players, but that wouldn’t be the whole story. Obviously this is a speculation. I’m just saying we can’t necessarily read too much into the report, even if it’s true in the first place.

I think Wenger has made it clear that getting nothing for either for their big stars isn't an issue. Agreed, and he might mean it, but that’s also exactly what he’d say if he secretly intended to take the money. All fun and games.

They want Eden?

Or walking away is a negotiating tactic because they know the player is only interested in joining them and will not move elsewhere. Arsenal are therefore left to chew over the choice between what City will stretch to now, or nothing in the summer.

Hello yuvala, It's obviously a thing that just gets to me. A lot of members do it and I confess it irritates me. As I would see it, if you don't mean it don't 'say' it. I've made comments like this myself but I'd usually put it something like, "If we're not in the market for this bloke then I'd be interested to know why. Putting it as you did plays in to the widespread condemnation of the board (Roman in reality), which is a point of view I don't share. People here have no idea of the background, have no idea whether, given the same circumstances. they'd be making exactly the same decisions. I accept of course, and accept completely, that people are free to read the runes differently to the way i do and decide that 'the board' are hugely at fault but, if that's so, then there are enough real things they do that they can be criticised for, without inventing things they have not done.

And allegedly 'fixed' Fulham games in order to aid Woolwich.

You are right of course but this is the problem. It's precisely because we lack the effective approach play that we end up having to rely on Marcos's goals. Those goals are, in effect, papering over the cracks. If we fix the underlying issue, then they become a luxury, rather than the necessity they are currently. All true but, leaving cost aside for a moment, to become the team we want to be, we need such players at every position. We need players who are the complete package. It's a reality that they are in great demand by the big clubs and are therefore hard to get, but recruiting such players must be our aim. To aim but fail is potentially understandable, to fail to aim at all would be unforgivable.

As the old joke goes, "Poor old Fulham. They aren't even the best team in Fulham." For those who may not know, Stamford Bridge is in Fulham and was redeveloped as a football stadium with the intention that it would be used by the team of that name. Chelsea Football club was founded only after the Cottagers balked at the price and refused to move to the ‘new’ stadium. They therefore repeated the same mistake Everton had made when they refused to pay the increased rent for Anfield and moved out. That forced the stadium owners to create a new team, Liverpool FC, to avoid their venue going to waste. I bet both Fulham and Everton wish they could revisit those decisions.