HolteExile

Yes, because most clubs have the bulk of their incoming and outgoing deals done by early July. St Ettiene and Nantes are keen on Veretout. Neither of those sides have money to burn, so they might be waiting to offload players or just playing for time and hoping the price comes down later in the summer. There is interest in Amavi from Sevilla and a few other sides, so it's unlikely to be Sevilla or no one. Gil is probably the other one who might attract something approximating a decent fee. For the rest, Richards, Hutton or whoever, I'd expect them to depart towards the end of the window- if they depart at all. Which is why it wasn't particularly clever to box ourselves in and tell the world and his wife we need to sell to buy, but that's a different story.

That's spot on. Apart from: -The French lads plus Ayew (Ghanaian- but Fracophone) all being our better players in that dog turd of a season -And the same quartet all showing more heart and professionalism than our experienced ex Inger lund internationals (who really should have been leading the way) You've got them bang to rights.

At 33, his age isn't a huge concern. Particularly when we have just signed 57 year-old John Terry. But the type of injury he had (herniated disk in his neck) is obviously an issue. For mere mortals doing an everyday job, with the right physio and rest it might be one of those things you can eventually work around. A centre half who will spend a fair chunk of his week heading a football might not get that luxury. He looks in good shape physically, but can understand Bruce being cautious.

Terry on his very best day is like McGrath on a below average day. God knows this, so I wouldn't fret.

That looks like a hybrid of two stories. Marseille were (perhaps still are) interested. But as a loan deal only. The £25 million offer was from China.

I don't think it was Ferdinand taking it to court, as such. From memory it was a member of the public who reported it to the Beek.

It tripped off the tongue quite easily for him though, didn't it? His defence centered around this idea that he was clarifying (angrily) what Anton Ferdinand may have misheard. That level of civility -asking 'do you think I called you a fxcking black cxnt?' (at least twice) seems out of kilter with an angry exchange.

Aye. On that basis, they should be able to keep on going into their mid 40s then. No big deal. Or-as we have seen very recently and should know by now- players who never relied on pace (such as Joe Cole) still get to a point where their legs go. It's an inevitable part of the game. If you're a touch player, you might never lose that. But the stamina required for actual match fitness and sharpness will recede. You can only go to the well so many times. From a different era: Dion Dublin and Steve Staunton were never sprint champions. But by their mid 30's they were so slow and immobile they were stuck in reverse.

Who is honestly going to give us a cleaner for Richards. A few bags of cement (gone hard) - maybe.

Not to be downplayed, with the amount of sloths we currently have in the middle of the park. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see him depart, but he won me over somewhat with his effort in a number of games last season. He was one of the first I wanted bombed out-and I'd say he was prob aware that most supporters felt that way too. But without ever delivering truly outstanding performances (I'm resigned to him just not being that sort of player) we often looked better with him in the side than without him last year. He gives us legs and energy we otherwise wouldn't have. Probably says a lot about the paucity of our other options. He is infuriating; I can't recall seeing too many players that look technically sound one game and then can barely kick a ball the next. But as a squad option at least, he is fine for the time being. There are bigger priorities to move on.

Didn't he also hire out his box at Wembley to ticket touts? He wasn't in his early 20s then either. That, the racism, the Wayne Bridge carry on and his general thugishness means I wouldn't go anywhere near this one. It might perhaps be a dilemma (it would still be a no from me) if we were getting John Terry @ 31-33. But we're not.

Evidence, eh? You'll point out evidence of Inter recently playing in with light blue stripes one season, then maybe ditching the stripes altogether? Maybe a season when Celtic flirted with hearing aid beige or -horror! royal blue for the home kit? Or perhaps Juventus adding chevrons/ go faster stripes or a whole load of other nonsense to ruin their kits, that type of evidence? The point remains: Inter play in blue and black stripes. Any other sides that wear that strip look like an Inter tribute act, so synonymous are they with those colours. To my knowldege, Celtic haven't opted for teal, bottle green, British racing green or any other weird variation just to shake things up. It's green and white hoops. Juventus' kit is famous the world over; black and white stripes. Not grey and off white/cream. Now within those constraints there are minor adjustments that designers push forward, which will sometimes get accepted, sometimes not. But all those clubs seem to push back on the more weird, half arsed designs for the home kits that don't do their clubs justice (Some of Celtic's away shirts have been shocking, in fairness). Be that looking too 'busy', or just getting the colours flat out wrong. We don't, sadly.

Excellent point. Or on the (very) rare season when there is a change (their last season at Highbury, stripped socks as a nod to Herbert Chapman's side) it stands out. You think of other iconic kits like Inter Milan, Juventus or even Celtic and they seem to have enough pride in their heritage to not keep on dicking about with the colours and format. No other so called big club has had the weird mishmash of striped, cheveroned and multicoloured home shirts we have had over the past 20 years. Despite supposedly having the same colours as us, the majority of West Ham kits in the 90s and 00s were gash. But they seem to have got their act together now whilst we seem content with purple and baby blue bilge. Experiment with the away kit by all means -go crazy and bring out a third kit if you really want to go to town. But the home kit should have some consistency to it.

My issue with Xia on all this isn't so much the notion that we have to get rid of players and streamline (we clearly do). Only a loon would expect us to add to a squad with close to 45+ players already and not ditch some in the meantime. There's an argument to say that for every player we bring in this summer (if we take it we are targeting 3-4) we need to see three depart. If that can be done early, then great. But players who we want shot of might not feature too highly on other clubs shopping lists. So I would be content if it's 3-4 in and 12-15 out by the end of the window. A cursory glance at our recent history tells us that putting the idea out there that we need to sell to buy isn't healthy. It downgrades the clubs image to the fans, media and even the type of decent players who we would hope to target to bring in and make the difference.

My take on it too. He was asked (about returning) a few weeks ago and said something along the lines of never say never in football, but that he's happy at Everton. Wants to stay in the Premier League as long as possible and doesn't fancy the drop down. In true Dumb and Dumber style, a few have read that polite brush off/ chance in a million as he's on his way back this summer. We'd need to be back in the top flight as a minimum before he'd look at it, I'd expect.

If he was 22/23 and still finding his way in the game, I'd say you may be right. There would be a strong argument to round off the edges and give us another season. Then either go up (with us) or make the move to the top flight with someone else. As it is, he's 27 -28 in the early part of next season- and having came into the game late, can't really afford to waste a season. He had a choice of Hull or us last summer, and if that is the only choice he gets again, I'd feel pretty confident he would chose us over them. But a Southampton, Stoke or even Newcastle would be a different story.

Aye. Even in a bad run, if that Ipswich game had played out like the 0-0 it had written all over it and we'd drawn with Barnsley at home I'd fancy us to do it.

And again, if he goes for the ball, he wins it. He opts to go over the ball - in the manner of similar challenges earlier in the game.

It would have needed to be extremely extravagant bounce to justify the studs going that high. As it was, the ball dies in the turf - after deflecting off Taylor himself. The very charitable and spirited defence of this moment of thuggery seen here and elsewhere (It was just a mistimed challenge/ he didn't mean it) doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. For a couple of reasons. 1. A mistimed challenge usually applies if a canny player gets a nick on the ball at the last second and draws the foul. Or said player changes direction at the very last moment. Petrov was a past master of this. Wet conditions screw the timing and can also contribute. This list is by no means exhaustive, but you get the idea. 2. Tackles like it had already occurred earlier in the match, albeit with not such a grim outcome. For reasons known only to themselves, the Welsh had come out after the interval in full-on Souness see opponent, kick opponent mode. Odd, as if they had continued letting the ball do the work they had the quality to eventually wear Ireland down (and were starting to do so). 3. I make Taylor actually favourite to win the ball if he keeps the studs down. It had deflected off him and was in his flight path, so to speak. It's not as if Coleman comes out of nowhere. He has adequate time to see the ball and see Coleman's shin. He goes over the ball. Play the video in realtime or slow it down, the outcome is the same. I get that some on here would wish to defend a Villa player no matter what (however misguided that is) and are more concerned about Taylor's mindset in our remaining games, making that priority 1,2 and 3. For me, it makes it worse that a Villa player has behaved like that on a football pitch. I can't defend it at all.

I like him, want him to stay and hope we do the necessary in that regard come the summer. All that said, I could see a life after the Kodj in a way I couldn't after Benteke. Benteke really was the Holy Trinity for us; could hold the ball up as the focal point in attack, score and create. I could see us covering one of those deficits after he left: It was always going to be a struggle to replace all three (in the end we replaced none). Kodjia is different. He gives us that bit of unpredictability and some much needed excitement. But he is a lone wolf and will have those head down five a side moments. Traditionally Bruce has favoured the big targetman, so there is a better than average chance he'll go that route again and get a big unit to play off Hogan. I prefer my football a bit less predictable, so hope we stick with Kodjia. If he doesn't know what he's going to do next, as often seems to be the case, the opposition have no chance.

I'd say it was malicious when you go over the ball like that -though as I mentioned earlier, it's a stretch to go from there to an intentional leg break. The stupid thing is Taylor was probably favourite for the ball had he actually wanted it. In those few seconds he had a choice and he chose Coleman's leg.

You catch an opponent that high up his leg and the ball is a secondary consideration. We don't like to think of our players as capable of behaving that way, but last night Taylor did. Bale had done the exact thing only moments earlier and only got a yellow, so it seems like Wales had been instructed to step up the rough stuff second half. I'm pretty certain Chris Coleman wasn't calling for broken legs, but there we are. He'll now have two of his better players missing in probably the hardest away game in the group and tossed away the chance of three points last night when Ireland pre sending off were there for the taking.

He's done him. He might not have intended to break Coleman's leg (only thugs like Keane, Barton and Jones are truly that vile) but when you go over the ball like that, it's not a misstimed tackle.

Here's the weird thing - and it's not just peculiar to us: The better you play, the more likely you are to win games. Yes, you might scratch out wins against relegation candidates here and there playing as we did yesterday. But give me a style of football that gives us a healthy chance of winning 25+ games (which is what we'll need next season) any day.

I think some people look at his size, decide it doesn't fit with their image of a centre half and view everything through that prism. Every minor misdemeanor or rare occasion that the forward gets the jump on him can then be held up as examples of him being a 'liability.' He's far from it. He might not be Hangeland-size (to pick out one obvious example of a beast of a centre half), but Hangeland never read the game as well as Chester, so swings and roundabouts. Centre halves will get out muscled or out maneuvered by a canny forward occasionally. Was watching a review of the 1990/91 season back again recently and even McGrath had 'mares against Le Tissier and Niall Quinn; getting turned inside out by the former and giving away a reckless penalty against the latter in the early part of the campaign. The key is that sort of thing should only be occasionally. When it becomes a regular occurrence -as per Lescott, Richards et.c- then the liability tag is an apt description.