El-Reacho

I'd take Henderson at a knock down price. If 18 months ago we knew we'd be signing him this summer for say £8m everyone on this board would have jumped at it. There's a superb player there. Anfield seems to be a toxic environment that's destroying careers.

Schmeichel, Ginola, Nilis - were world class; but not when they played for us. I think it would be the same for Dimitar.

The confidence thing is a real issue. I think our whole squad's confidence is shot to pieces after last season's debacle. KEA/Vlaar/Lowton are the ones who arguably are playing with some assurance. Lambert will need every bit of man management he's got to motivate the players again, especially after the start we've had. Might be best not to add another player who's at a low.

I tried to follow the Cyclingnews forums during the Tour, but there's far too much going on there that you can barely follow it. Re. Froome and Wiggins, I meant that's the first person who's not a hiding behind a twitter/forum name (like me ;-)) who's made an open accusation against current riders, and has specifically named those two riders. I'm surprised there's been no reaction to it. My point about the current riders' reaction the Lance affair is that most of them are saying why can't we just leave it - it's history, when it's quite clearly anything but history when McQuaid is still in charge, Bruyneel is still managing one of the top teams etc etc. It's seems that the UCI decided that they wanted Lance to be their big star and did everything (and are still doing so) to ensure that this was the case, so he was protected at all times when other dopers were allowed to fall. Clean riders didn't even register on the radar. The UCI were essentially deciding that Armstrong would win. Maybe Ullrich's success would have meant Nike walking away, or the American TV market. They were all dopers but Armstrong was the cash cow. How can any current rider say this should all be forgotten about and is history, when there is now an opportunity to bring people to account and change the sport properly is beyond me, other than to assume that nothing has changed since Armstrong ruled the peloton.

Jesus, the way Wolves are negotiating this summer we'd have to pay a clean fortune. I liked Doyle but we should have gone for him when Wolves did - he's must be approaching 30 now and we can get better value elsewhere. KEA and Ron have shown PL can spot a player at the right price - hope he goes back to the continent and picks up a few more along these lines this week.

Read this today: http://tiny.cc/y31njw Paragragh at the bottom is very interesting - I think it's the first time I've seen anyone openly suggest the Sky guys are doping. I had no idea that the UCI had banned publication of power data (if it is indeed true). The reaction of Froome and Geraint Thomas to LanceGate has been less than encouraging I have to say. Seem to be ignoring the issue of their governing body being completely corrupt to the core.

The academy players are no worse than any of our other players. Senior players like Bent, Zog, Ireland etc. are just as shite at the moment. When PL actually gets his team up and running then you can decide whether the Academy a load of rubbish or not.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=9%3A3375251%3A0%3A%3A Jeremy Whittle and Paul Kimmage interviewed this morning. Worth a listen.

Well the stats from today seem to be in the riders favour a bit. If you look at this it's the record asent times for the Alpe d'Hues. The top 23 times come from the 'drug taking' era and the recent best times only come in at 24th place (Contador being one of them). The top times are all set by known drug cheats, guys today are not getting close anymore. Also, apparently if you measure the power output of todays riders it is much lower then back then. It seems at the very least they are not as obvious about doping today as back then. There's no question that the racing's slower, but the majority of those times were set in an era when riders doped to the extent that they would be easily caught today. Riis's nickname was Mr 60% - referring to his haematocrit level. IMHO the doping has evolved every bit as much as the controls and is still one step ahead, so microdosing and blood transfusions are the way it's done at moment. All the biological passport does is provide a threshold that allows riders to dope or transfuse as much as they like as long as it's within the UCI's threshold. But then as the USADA's charges against Armstrong show, when there is evidence of blood manipulation nobody does anything about it. I don't really know enough about the biology of current doping/testing, but I do know that doping was/is ingrained within professional cycling's DNA, and while the same managers/doctors/governing bodies that were part of this DNA are still present and running the sport I refuse to believe that everything is hunky dory all of a sudden. That's where my cynicism comes from.

This is quite true. However, Armstrong was regarded by many (including USADA obviously) as being a figure head and authority figure of drug taking in the entire peloton, and enforcing an omerta that meant if you were a professional cyclist you either took drugs and were therefore part of his gang, or you were clean and were therefore not part of his gang. If you were not part of his gang (see Christophe Bassons and Filippo Simeoni, Cunego etc.) and you spoke in any way out of turn to the media etc. with regard to 'a two speed peloton' or PED's you would be run out of town by Lance, not be able to win or even compete in races and struggle to find an employer for the next season because no one wanted to cross Lance, such was his influence in cycling. You were regarded to have broken the code of silence (spat in the soup) - Lance is widely regarded as being the enforcer of this rule. When Simeoni (who testified that Lance's doctor gave him PED's) got in a break in the Tour Lance himself chased him down an told him to go back to the bunch. Because Lance was there the break would have been chased down, so Simeoni had to drop back into the bunch where he was gobbed on by pretty much everyone in the bunch. Lance gave him the zipped lips sign - as in 'keep your mouth shut'. It's all on youtube. For the Armstrong years of the TdF journalists who knew rightly what was going on in professional cycling would not report it because Lance and Johann would blackball them from the Tour. Bruyneel had a notebook of name that weren't allowed into USPS press conferences because they were trouble makers. If you were one of his team mates you simply wouldn't be chosen to ride the Tour without being doped. The reason they've gone for Lance is because they see him as being the ring leader and there was absolutely no chance of clean cycling while he was around. What I can't get my head around is that 90% of the peloton is widely regarded to have been doped when Armstrong was around, and yet now we're supposed to believe that it's largely clean, despite many of the same riders and more importantly all of the same team managers, coaches and doctors - and governing body still being in place.

Interesting that USADA say all of the evidence will come out once the arbitration cases are completed. This is the evidence that will absolutely sink the UCI and there must be substance to it or Armstrong wouldn't have refused to contest. This could leave Armstrong exposed to litigation for millions of dollars. He's won countless courtcases on the basis of being clean in the face of assertions that he doped. Presumably all those cases can now be re-opened - this could leave him in financial ruin. I reckon the TdF might have to do the same thing as they did with Riis and asterick his name on the record books. Ullrich, Kloden, Beloki etc are not exactly worthy recipients either are they? Will be interesting to see what the Olympics do with his medal....

It's only 5-6 years since Man City were in a similar position.

Depends if UEFA have the balls to enforce their financial fairplay regs or not. City may have just snuck in at the right time as they can now show a huge increase in legitimate income, but I don't think QPR are going to able to blag selling the naming rights to their ground for £400m. And if they can't qualify for the CL (should they improve enough with all this cash) is the owner going to stick around? The FFP rules are fundamentally flawed as all they do is cement ManUre and Real Madrid's respective positions at the top of the football tree. Those teams have spent hundreds of millions of pounds over the last twenty years creating a brand that guarantees them a huge turnover, and hence they can re-invest as necessary. When someone else wants to spend a similar amount to achieve the same thing all of a sudden it's not allowed? Then they package it up as a way of protecting clubs like Portsmouth. Did they even get into Europe when they spent that money? Good luck to QPR and City, and PSG etc. I hope they do displace the complacent old guard at the top of European football. There are bound to be other ways of preventing teams overspending that don't ensure Utd et al can keep ahead of everyone else.

Just listening to Football Weekly podcast - apparently QPR's current wages to turnover ratio is 183%. That's before they've even signed Dawson/Defoe etc... Thought we were bad....

Definately. But on the other side of the coin you need the players that are comfortable playing that system. What players you have - especially when you are not backed by your board to buy players - should dictate the system not the other way around. People like Delph, Dunne and N'Zogbia can't pass a ball and Bent can't play up front on his own.... Isn't this what pre-season is for? Those four players you mentioned would have got into that Swansea side no problem. That was a side that also had Luke Moore and Wayne Routledge in it IIRC? It's about having a side that's been drilled with how to play a certain way. Rodgers had had that side for a couple of years before that match, and Swansea have played that type of football since before he arrived. The coach has to make that way of playing fluent among the players and after last season it's completely alien to most of them. They're PL players - of course they're capable of keeping the ball, regardless of what 'type' of player they are. There will however have to be a serious bullet biting period until we get there though, Lambert can't alter the mindset of the players in one pre-season.

3 centre backs seemed to have been made redundant as there is has been a trend for 451 / 433 as opposed to 442 with two out and out strikers. When a team is defending against one striker and two supporting attackers the wingbacks just get pushed back and it becomes a back 5. Decent defences should only need a back 4 IMHO.

Yes, well they are 'known, unknowns'. I think it's sink or swim for many of them, Lambert will give them a chance this season, a proper chance, but if they blow it they'll be out. I still think we're two or three signings short, hopefully that will be addressed before the window shuts. This season is really a transition, I don't expect much. I would have actually said they were 'unknown knowns'. It's 'unknown unknowns' I'm looking forward to this season ;-)

"really really......... fine" It's like he's being pushed to say something nice about him but just can't bring himself to do it.

I honestly don't think Carroll will fit into what PL has been doing over the course of the summer. We only have one player who could possibly give Carroll the service that brings out the best in him and Albrighton's not done it for the past season. If we're trying to play football with a compact central diamond, I can see how Bent can thrive off that, but how would this bring Carroll's qualities out? Unless he's relying on the fullbacks to hoof it for Carroll to knock down to Bent.

Didn't realise Stoke got Kightly. Would have been glad to have got him.

I reckon it's Shane Long. Just a hunch, nothing more.

We seem to have played every game so far under PL with two up front, including playing Zog there, which would indicate that we deffo need reinforcements in that department.

I wouldnt say Enda is better... Is this the general opinion around the club? I haven't really heard anything about him since his move. He was absolutely flying this time last year.

Probably one of those bollocks accounts.. but he is a left back. Didn't have the best of euros but he is still 18. Would be quite interesting if true. Didn't seem too good at actually defending but was like Usain Bolt going forward IIRC. I would imagine he would have bags of potential, perhaps PL could mould him into an all round performer.

mon has no say in sunderland's wage structure, or what's offered to players Is this definitely true? It has always been one of his tricks for motivating players to suggest that the board wants rid of them and isn't happy with them, but that he might be able to 'persuade' the board to give the player a new contract if they can raise their performances. Thus the 'running through brick walls' scenario he got from his players. He did it like this at Leicester and Celtic, and I think we can safely assume he did it here. Would be surprised if he didn't have some control at Sunderland.