heystally!

and MON never got this much abuse But MON wasn't hired from our most bitter rivals, having recently gotten them relegated because of the negative football they played.

See you in Peterborough next year then A year in the Championship would do those youngsters good. Lots of playing experience, make them much stronger and better, we'd win the league comfortably and have a really good, academy-based squad. Of course that is only possible if we get relegated, and that would be dreadful.

Either way it's replacing squad players with cheaper alternatives. "Tighten your belts" for the next few years. I can't see us being competitive, so really we should be hoping to get a new owner with cash to throw about.

As far as I see it, I completely agree that Lerner was naive coming into this business. I think that there was some thought there that money could be made out of owning a football club - this is not the case, certainly not after a couple of years anyway. As a result, he happily let O'Neill spend money on transfer fees, but more crucially, on big wages too. And it eventually got to a stage where Lerner could look at the squad, realise that there were a lot of players who were on high wages, but who were serving very little purpose at the club (Sidwell, Beye, Shorey, etc). Lerner realised that this would have to be curbed - that because the club was not making enough income compared to what was being spent, there would be little in the way of transfer funds or an increase in the wage budget. MON was told that he'd have to cut loose the deadwood before he could get any more money: MON doesn't like being dictated to and quit. So now Lerner is in a situation where he has got to be more financially careful, particularly with his divorce going through. So he brought in Paul Faulkner as a person with more understanding of the game (questionable), and has focused on trying to cut back on the amount of club spending. Bent was an expensive acquisition, but it was necessary for fear of relegation, which would have been worse for the club. And I'm sure somewhere in the back of the board's mind, they knew Young and Downing would be off in the summer. I can't believe that United and Liverpool hadn't started prodding as to their availability. So the McLeish hire was in order to get a manager who would work with very little money but has experience of managing in the Premier League. Personally I expect us to end up cutting back in the next two seasons: I can see us getting rid of Heskey, Beye and Cuellar by the summer, and either not replaced or replaced with cheaper options (both in terms of transfer fee and wages). I also think if a team bid enough money, the board would consider getting rid of Bent. Maybe for £15m, then give McLeish £10m to get a new striker, on cheaper wages of course. Things like that here and there. Keep the squad very similar size, or slightly smaller, but with cheaper replacements on less wages. So for fans it's going to be a difficult few years I think, whilst Lerner looks to cut back on his spending and try to make his club, and therefore his business, more sustainable. Maybe once he's got that in order he'll be able to afford more sensible spending that will benefit the team. But I doubt we'll see the sort of transfer and wage budgets that MON had under the current owner ever again.

This.

Looking at Stan Collymore's favourites list on twitter is just shocking.

Bent certainly has to take some responsibility. The best players in the world have to carry on giving 100% despite what happens around them. Bent clearly isn't and needs to step up and continue paying back his transfer fee with performances and goals. But he's not entirely to blame. I'd say percentage wise, the board and manager have to take more responsibility for the players he's surrounded by and the way the team are playing.

The issue with McLeish's new signings is that they will be bought with consideration to his preferred tactics. With the players he currently has, he DOESN'T have to play negative football. He could try and set his team up to win games, and create a strategy that best serves us winning games, rather than one that focuses on us avoiding defeat. So I'm just assuming that if he's doing that now, then it's how he wants his team to play. So it wouldn't surprise me if he looks at players who will do this for him. So players like Nikola Zigic and Barry Ferguson are in that mould and it wouldn't surprise me if those were the sort of players he went for.

I really hope that once Liverpool appeal against the eight-match ban for Suarez, and if he is still found guilty of it, that whoever decides on the punishment take into account the blatent fact that Liverpool are leaving it til the last second to appeal, just so that the saga rumbles on longer and Suarez can avoid the ban for as long as possible. I hope they punish him and them further for just wasting more time unnecessarily. If he's still found guilty of course.

I'm not religious so aren't too bothered which team wins.

25% win percentage is poor.

When Heskey didn't play against Arsenal, we played passing football. When Heskey did play against Stoke, we played long-ball football. If we sold Heskey, I'd like to think that it would be a step towards a change in tactics.

He's pretty much a squad player at United though. When fully fit, I'd rate Giggs, Fletcher, Cleverley, Park, Jones ahead of him in central midfield. And last season Scholes would have been in there too. Every time I listen to the radio or see a game on TV, it always seems to me that the commentator says "And Carrick makes a pass....and the ball's back with the opposition." Really wouldn't claim he's a stable player for them. This.

Fair point but people could argue that's one of Heskey's strengths. He doesn't score but he helps the team, holding the ball up and defending corners. Although that doesn't take into account the fact that Heskey is terrible. Whether it's Bent, Delfouneso, Weimann or anyone playing up front, the way we're playing, it'll make absolutely no difference in my opinion.

Agreed. it's a very good point Agreed.

First and only time anyone has said/ever will say that Did ok against Arsenal til the sending off, and either way we'll lose against Chelsea. Might as well play more attacking, and Hutton gives that compared with Cuellar at right back.

He played alright, but not as well as Cuellar has done the last couple of games. Ideally Hutton will come in at right back, and Cuellar will start alongside Dunne.

No young striker is going to make an impact until we sort out our method of attack. If Bent is barely seeing any of the ball, then it's pointless discussing the youngsters really.

People.

It's debateable as to whether Hitler was actually vegetarian: some records suggest that was, but others suggest that he simply cut down on meat from his diet and so people presumed he was veggie, but really he still ate pork occasionally (presumably to annoy the Jews...loljk). I myself bloody hate vegetarians. Self-righteous, opinionated, smarmy, smug bastards. I'll also say the same about meat eaters, as I'm a vegetarian and all.

On his day, Carrick is absolutely superb I think he's had about three of those for United. I just think he's developed into a poor footballer. If he played well for his club then he'd be considered for the international team. He's barely in the England frame now. Wouldn't take him for Villa to be honest.

They wouldn't have gone through the fuss of getting McLeish if it wasn't a long-term plan. He might be short-term stop gap - get in a manager to stablise the club for a few years, make small changes to the squad, build up some revenue. Then get in a decent manager with a huge pot of gold to spend and really attack again. But I can't think of any chairman who has really ever done that. I think they've jumped at McLeish and assumed because we're better than Blues that he'll be fine with us. Lazy appointment based on obvious criteria. Should have shown some real thought and care and found us the right manager.

Corrected.

I'm entirely the opposite way round. I couldn't believe he'd been frozen out by Houllier, because I thought he was so brilliant under MON. This season, however, he looks like what he is - a player who hasn't played regular football for about a year. He always seems to get caught out of position by opposing wingers, and his passing has been pretty atrocious. Stoke was a little better than Arsenal, but I think he's been very poor this season.

Sorry, has someone seriously described Stephen Warnock as our best player this season? Shocked.