Davey Baby

Good post. I'm more concerned with location than actual design. Location is everything. It's the main thing SB has going for it. I trust the club to come up with a great design more than I trust them with the location. I think most Chelsea fans would rather stay where they are than move anywhere other than Chelsea, Earl's Court or Battersea. That's why you're right in what you say.

Interesting that that article refers to the penthouse as Ken Bates' old flat. I wonder if this means he no longer owns it or whether he just doesn't ever reside in it anymore? I'm hoping it's the former but guess it's the latter, as surely we'd have heard if he'd sold it. Anyone know the facts around this?

Okay mate, thanks for the information. Clearly, the club have got their prices wrong for CL group games, and the fact that there were 8,000 empty seats may make them lower them next time, if they have any sense. They are losing money by charging more. £40 (clearly) is too much. They are not do-or-die games, they are invariably against unglamorous opposition, they are televised live, and they are at night. Compare this to a CC game, where tickets are £25. I'm not sure about now, but previously kids got in cheaper too. These games have invariably sold out, no matter the opposition. Why? One simple answer: Prices. So, let's say we can sell 34,000 seats against Leverkuson at £40 (let's assume there weren't many kids because of kick-off time). That equals £1.36m in revenue from ticket sales. If we had sold those tickets at £33 instead, we would have made more income from ticket sales if we had sold out. And that's before those extra 8,000 people buy programmes, replica shirts, beefburgers etc. Not only that, but some of those punters will be coming for the first time, and will catch the bug, hence you have a punter for life. We have seen that lower prices means bigger gates. Fact. We now see that bigger gates mean bigger revenue. Fact. The only logical conclusion for the club to reach is to lower prices if we increase capacity: According to my estimation above, we generated £1.36m from ticket sales against Leverkuson. Let's say we wanted to fill 60,000 seats .. in order to generate the same revenue we could sell tickets at .. £22. Assuming we would sell those tickets (which we would), that's 26,000 more people than attended Leverkuson. 22,000 more people buying merchandise. And this is before we get to hospitality. The club stand to rake it in. Yes, with lower prices. Of course, I don't expect tickets on sale at £22, but I expect them on sale at a price by which we could sell out a 60,000 seater, hence they would be cheap. Far cheaper than currently. We sell out 42,000 for CC games against 3rd division opposition. Why? I'll say it again: Prices. Another advantage of cheap prices is better atmosphere. Football can become less popular of course, for all sorts of reasons, and Chelsea may get relegated, both of which would affect attendances, but Buck's point doesn't stand up, for me. Football has never suffered as a result of games being broadcast, quite the opposite. Whenever there have been black-outs, attendances have suffered. Today, you can watch football 24/7 365 days a year. You never have to miss a game, even if you're not a subscriber. Games are online, in the pub, etc etc. This period in our lives has coincided with bigger attendances than ever. Prices are the thing that stops people coming, as well as hooliganism, sh*t product, etc etc. Not broadcasting. SKY is appealing to those who can't attend a game, in the main. We get our pricing structure right, we sell 60,000 no problem. How many fans have been priced out? We all know some. Would they come if they could? Of course. There is nothing better than attending a game of football competed by the club you love. You hardly see any kids at Chelsea. Would they come if they could? Of course. Why don't they? Prices are prohibitive. If we need to fill 60,000 suddenly those prices will become less so, for the average fan. You can't afford to lose kids. They are the next generation of punter, and they invariably form their bond when young. It's bad business to neglect them. Far better business to charge less and get them in, for which you need a bigger ground. Those kids will end up spending a fortune on Chelsea, but only if you catch them. A club gains its strength by its size of support. Bigger ground gives us room for growth. Smaller ground means higher prices, meaning you disenfranchise and alienate lots of fans, who stop coming, and stop supporting the club. This is the impact the current capacity has on us. Bigger capacity is vital for our future, I suspect, if we want to dine at the top table.

Beautifully put. Agree wholeheartedly.

It's a tragedy that we didn't go for this, as Matthew Harding wanted. The Village was ill-conceived, as you say. And it's an eyesore. I don't know the prices, neither at Chelsea or Arsenal. I have enjoyed both numerous times, due to contacts. There is no comparison. Arsenal are raking in the cash. There are thousands more enjoying hospitality, in luxurious settings, whereas at Chelsea it's all a bit cramped and all a bit cheap. Chelsea may be able to charge more for a box, due to limited supply, but when a corporate company wish to purchase a box, to impress clients, they're going to opt for Arsenal, because it's far more impressive, from a corporate point of view. I am not a corporate I am just a regular supporter, who has sat/stood in every part of the ground. The reason I say standard seats would be cheaper is because there would be much more of them. Currently the club can justify charging exhorbitant prices, because they have to fill 35,000 of them to Chelsea supporters per match. There'd be mad to charge anything less, from a commercial point of view, so long as they are selling out. If they had to sell 55, 000 of them, they would find demand dried up at current prices, therefore prices would come down. We have less of a demand for tickets than Arsenal, therefore we could not sell the same amount of tickets at their prices. We can sell 35,000 tickets at their prices, as we do currently, but not 55,000. Therefore a 60,000 seater would be cheaper than Arsenal, for the average fan, although the corporates may well pay more, because our facilities in such a stadium would probably be far better than theirs. The club want to rake in some of that corporate cash. There is no room at SB to do so. Financial Fair Play dictates we will have to increase revenue in order to compete. I totally understand the club's desire to move. I'm sure they would rather stay at the Bridge, but that's just unfeasible in the current climate. They have looked at every possibility and it doesn't add up, and sadly, this decision is all about money. I just hope a move would be to the right location, because White City or Old Oak Common would make me feel sick. OOC has an NW postcode for f**k's sake, despite being within the 3 miles. We're called "Chelsea" ..

Were there really tickets available at £40? I'd be surprised if that were true. With all due respect Snedger, your question may be irrelevant. The point is, in order to fill a ground, a club will set prices by which they can sell out. Therefore, if City haven't reduced their prices, that's because they can sell out without doing so. At our current prices, we would be unable to sell out. But we could easily sell 60,000 tickets at reduced prices, thereby increasing revenue for the club. 60,000 tickets at an average price of £40 brings in £2.4m per game. 40,00 tickets at £50 brings in £2m. Now, of course there would be extra policing and stewarding etc with a bigger ground, but the expense of that would be more than offset by all the extra programmes, beefburgers, replica shirts etc those 20,000 extra people buy. That's a whole lot of revenue. Bigger supply equals lower prices. That's an indisputable fact. Arsenal's prices have gone up since they left Highbury, but had they remained, their prices would be vastly higher than they are. When people cite the fact our tickets go on general sale, that's solely because of prices, not because we don't have sufficient fans to fill those seats. We filled those seats before Roman, so of course we can fill those seats. Remember, if Utd's prices were the same as ours, they wouldn't sell out. They set the price by which they can sell out. There is, apparently, the possibility to expand by between 5,000 - 8,000 seats. This has not been discounted. However it would come at great cost and great inconvenience, and it would not accomplish what the club wish, although it would accomplish what most of us wish. Firstly, it would not be economically viable, because the extra revenue would be minimal compared to the outlay. Secondly, the club want a bigger site, because the be-all-and-end-all is hospitality. That's where the money is. That's where Wembley and Emirates have it cornered. Their facilities are amazing and bring in lots of extra revenue. We need space to improve and expand our facilities, otherwise we cannot possibly be competitive with Arsenal, Utd and all the other big clubs with modern stadia, and all those (such as Tottenham and Liverpool) who will have bigger grounds. The rules will dictate that revenue is everything, and that sadly may rule out the Bridge.

I think he may have been being ironic.

Agreed. As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, there are too many obstacles: Firstly, the wall behind the Shed End is listed, would you believe, and can't be knocked down. I read this somewhere but still find it hard to fathom. Secondly, there are only two exits from the site, and both lead on to the Fulham Road. There is simply no other way of getting in and out, and no potential to change that. It is a death trap. At other grounds, you can exit and leave in any direction you like, not so at Chelsea. Health and safety is a lot more stringent than it used to be, and the Council are unwilling to allow many more people to leave through those exits. This is why Hutch's idea of knocking down the ground and building a new one won't work, unfortunately. The site is small, the exits are limited, and they both lead on to the same road. When I say the site is small, I'm talking in comparison to a site like Arsenal's. Chelsea, at a push, may be able to add another 6,000 seats, and that remains an option. However, in order to bring in the sort of revenue they want, they need the space to build competitive hospitality, because currently we are miles behind. There is no real point making the investment otherwise and going to all the hassle, from their point of view. In a 60,000 seater, improved hospitality will lead to cheaper seating for the majority, not only because there will be more supply of seats, but because the big bucks will be generated elsewhere (from the corporates). The seating at Chelsea is cramped compared to Arsenal and in comparison with modern stadia as a whole. We are very restricted by space. Thirdly, there are issues around knocking down the hotel and ghastly Village. I believe Ken Bates owns the penthouse, and has refused point-blank to enter into negotiations for it. He won't do anything to help our cause, due to his antagonism towards Roman. It was an oversight on Roman's part, unfortunately, that upon purchase of Chelsea he neglected to buy the penthouse and other parts of the Village. We have renewed our lease for some of the Village, such as the Megastore, so won't be knocking it down anytime soon. It's just not going to happen, unfortunately. Our hands are tied. This may also lead to potential problems if we ever look to sell the site. Fourthly, there are local residents, and there would be huge objection to any proposed increase in capacity. There are more reasons but I can't think of them off-hand. Let me also stress I may have got some of the details wrong. On another note, to those who think we can't fill out a 60,000 seater, I strongly disagree. It is all about pricing. We have seen this in Carling Cup games in the past. No matter the opposition, if you make it affordable, people will come. Many Chelsea fans have been priced out, the younger generation and families are priced out, and that is more likely to change with increased capacity. Some may point to Arsenal, but they can get away with charging more because they have a bigger demand for tickets. The club will set prices at a level whereby they can fill every seat, otherwise they wouldn't be attempting to increase capacity. Cheaper seats means more passion, means a better atmosphere, and we all want that. Currently, Chelsea is very elitist, in the sense that the punters are becoming richer and richer, because prices are prohibitive. This leads to a more gentrified atmosphere, and it embarrasses me. That is not going to change at the current site, only get worse. Restricted supply leads to higher prices. It's basic economics. Chelsea can easily fill out 60,000, but unlike Arsenal, not at £75 a pop. The club will be fully aware of this, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to increase capacity. We stand to make a vast amount more money if we increase, due to selling more seats and also due to the hospitality, which I feel sure will be second to none. Increasing the Bridge is the ideal, but it ain't going to happen, I suspect. Therefore the best possible solution would be Earl's Court or Battersea. Unfortunately, Earl's Court looks like a non-starter to me, and Battersea may well be too small, when you take into account the buildings which are currently located on that site, such as the Power Station, which obviously can't be knocked down. I have a suspicion (and it's only a suspicion, based on nothing concrete) that the club are after a move to Old Oak Common, and they may already have gone beyond the preliminary stage. OOC would be totally unsatisfactory to me, as it would mean we lose our SW postcode, and quite frankly, it has f**k all to do with Chelsea, despite the fact it falls within the 3 mile radius that they have specified. As such, the way the current wording stands, I would be very wary of giving Chelsea my vote. I get the suspicion they are being cute. I may just be a suspicious bar steward, but I see no reason why they can't approach the CPO once they already have a site in mind, thereby making the proposal site-specific, as it should be. That way, the CPO can make a very informed choice. Remember, once the club have the CPO's consent, they can do what they want, and any protestations will fall on deaf ears, because they will be able to say (quite legitimately) that they asked the fans and the fans voted in their favour. Interesting times ..

In our specific case (different from Arsenal's, due to their larger fanbase) a bigger ground will mean more affordable seating, meaning more passion at the ground, something we all want to see. It's basic economics: Supply and demand. We can easily fill 60,000, and the club will ensure we do so long as they get their pricing structure right. There will of course also be more expensive seating, meaning the club will make more from corporate packages, as all hospitality facilities will probably be the envy of the world. Currently, our hospitality does not compare to Arsenal's, and that's where we lose out on a lot of potential income. I just wanted to add this point to my post above.

This is the single most important issue concerning the club .. I fear we will be left behind if we don't move. Obviously redevloping the Bridge would be the ideal solution but it looks unviable, which is a real shame. I've been going to the Bridge since 77 and still go. I would say the best thing about it is its location. Walking up the Fulham Road, you can't beat it. As far as football stadiums go, none are better located. That's not to say I'm against a move, I'm not, I'm all for it, however location is everything in such a discussion, and that's why I have huge reservations about the club's proposal to CPO shareholders .. Unlike other clubs, for us to remain "Chelsea", we have to stay within a very small vicinity. Okay, we might not technically be in Chelsea, in so far as we are in the borough of H&F, but for all intents and purposes we are in Chelsea: A stone's throw from the King's Road, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, Kensington, Knightsbridge, Earl's Court, the bright lights of London. This is what our club is synonymous with, and we cannot lose that, under any circumstances. Our whole identity is wrapped up in it. We are not Sunderland, or any other club for that matter, who can just move from one part of the city to another without it compromising what we stand for. Therefore, the proposal that we will remain within 3 miles should we relocate before 2020 is totally, utterly, and unequivocably unsatisfactory in my opinion. If I were a CPO shareholder, I would be asking the club to change the wording. Firstly, there are locations within that 3 mile radius that just do not tick the boxes. Locations such as White City, which has nothing to do with Chelsea and what we stand for. White City is a firm "no" from me, as it should be for all Chelsea fans. Instead of the 3 mile radius provision, why don't the club just approach the CPO when and if they have a firm location in mind? That way, the CPO can make an informed decision, a decision based on exact location rather than radius. The club tell us it's because, should a viable site become available, they would have to act fast, and any restriction upon their ability to do so would impede them, hence their request for the CPO to hand over the authority. That my friends is balderdash, hence the reason I would tread carefully were I a shareholder. If a viable site became available, the process would be so long and drawn out, with so many obstacles, that a delay of one month to get the CPO's consent would not provide a major stumbling block. Remember, the club have called this general meeting within the month, so that's all they need: One month. Simply put, if Nine Elms (for example) were to appeal to the club, all they would have to do is ask the CPO to convene within the month and give their approval (which they'd probably get). They have to be location specific. At the moment it is too vague. Secondly, the way the proposal stands, beyond 2020, the club would be allowed to do what they want, which begs the question, why mention 2020 at all? If, beyond 2020, the club want to move beyond the 3 mile radius, and find a suitable site, all they would have to do is ask the CPO. What's so difficult about that? I would be very wary about giving them carte blanche to move anywhere they want, and I feel very uneasy about the wording. If it said, we will move within 3 miles, but if we can't, and we find a suitable site, we will come back to the CPO and ask their approval, that would make me more comfortable. I see absolutely no reason for them to ask for carte blanche beyond 2020. I see no reason for them to mention 2020 at all. Their reasons do not stack up. Very fishy indeed. Personally, the idea of a move appeals, because SB is very cramped, is not a great ground by modern standards, and is restricted in its capacity. Sentiment is all well and good, but it impedes progress. I know someone whose dad's ashes are scattered on SB. His opinion is that that's where Osgood scored his goals, regardless of what happens to the site, therefore his father (rest his soul) is in the right place and would not want his presence there to restrict the club's ability to move on. We have Roman's money, the best thing he could do with it is buy us a state-of-the-art stadium that would be the envy of every other club in England. That would please me no end. Imagine, an intimidating ampi-theatre in the heart of London, an architectural landmark, with the Chelsea crest projected above it into the night sky above the Thames .. Let's f**king make it spectacular. Money no object. We currently have the 8th largest ground in the Prem, but that will change, and soon we will be even lower than that, as other clubs look to expand. I want us to be the biggest and the best, or at least to aspire to that. Currently we have no room for growth. We cannot attract more people, hence prices remain steep, kids are prevented from coming, and we lose a whole new generation of fans. There's nothing like your first trip to make you a punter for life. Earl's Court would be great and would meet with most of our approval, but I can't see it happening. Too complicated, in terms of planning. Earl's Court is Chelsea, it's within the borough of K&C, it's a stone's throw from the bright lights, and a stone's throw from SB. Nine Elms Battersea is the one: Viable, attractive, on the river, a stone's throw from the ground, and in staunch Chelsea country. Also the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth (unlike K&C) would welcome the regeneration. We would retain our SW postcode. Some would dismay at being south of the river, but who cares? We would be on the river, in a beautiful location, in the heart of the city. Unlike Earl's Court, Battersea isn't Chelsea, that's the only sticking point for me, but I could live with it. If the club came along and said we've targeted Nine Elms, we need your approval, the CPO could be tempted, of that I'm sure. However the wording at the moment is a far cry from that. It's perfectly simple, when you have a location, come and ask us, therefore the vote will be informed. Please don't say a delay of one month while the club ask for CPO shareholders' approval will make-or break a deal, as one month is nothing compared to the length of time a survey, negotiation, aquisition, design, planning application, planning approval etc needs to complete. It's just dishonest of the club to pretend otherwise. Building a new ground in central London will take years, and that's before a brick has even been laid. The only reason the club want a complete mandate to do what they want is because it might not meet with the CPO shareholders's approval, and that's something all shareholders might want to contemplate before they vote.

The club can afford to give shareholders a bigger return on their investment, and would probably like to, as it would influence shareholders to vote the way they want them to, but that would be buying votes, and that would compromise the outcome.

That reminds me of the time Capello told him he had lost the armband. He said, "Don't worry gaffer, look under Wayne Bridge's bed." I'm here all week folks ..

An honourable mention to Paul Elliot, who was absolutely brilliant. I've seen a lot of captains at Chelsea, but the best by a mile is JT. I would go so far to say he's the most important player in our history: Through the ranks, captain of England, an immense leader, and at a time when we were in danger of losing our soul and our identity, he was there. You cannot underestimate the importance of a leader. To think we agreed to sell him to Huddersfield .. Biased I am, but I regard him as the best defender these shores have produced since Alan Hansen, and the best defender in world football today. It amazes me the degree to which he is underestimated. He's been playing with a bad back for a good few years now, which has affected his mobility. No matter, his technique, reading of the game, courage and mentality have ensured his performances haven't suffered. People talk about his pace, how often do you see him get undone by it .. ? Last year, believe it or not, he didn't even make the PFA team of the year. Yes folks, Vincent Kompany did. How's that for justice .. ? Just once, I wish MOTD would analyse his game, analyse what makes every manager make him their captain and first name on the team sheet. Vidic gets lots of credit, not JT. Arsenal would be twice the team with him in their ranks, not only can he defend but he galvanises his troops, leading from the front, taking no prisoners. Arsenal haven't won a thing since they lost their last natural born leader. The cliche is that JT needs a fast and nimble partner beside him, that he's not half the player without a Carvalho or Gallas. The truth is, he doesn't need anyone. He's by far the best defender I have ever seen in a blue shirt. The truth is he always makes his partner look better. It may not be the trendy thing to say, but it's the truth. Let's not forget he is also the most hated player in the country, hence the reason he gets no credit. England produced a gem, yet he had the misfortune to play for Chelsea. Does it affect him? Not so you'd notice. We lost to Germany in the WC. Whose fault was that? You guessed it, JT's. What absolute baloney. He has long been the national scapegoat. When we line up against other teams, they see JT and we have already gained a psychological edge. He is the player we can least do without, and we'll only really know his worth when he's gone. If City had got him that would have been the end of the Premiership as we know it.

We all have differing opinions on players. None of us are right and none of us are wrong. Some of us are more right than others. Some of us are always wrong. That's what makes the game so beautiful. If we're going to throw insults around let's save it for the scousers ..

It was only last week you were calling Torres a twat. Perhaps he and I should console each other. Perhaps Hutch, but I lose the will to live watching them. Anelka may say he's being played out of position, but so could Sturridge.

Cech 5/10 Conceded two goals, one of them not given, other than that had precious little to do, other than save Eagles' shot, which he made a bit of a hash of. His distribution was good. For a change. Boswinga 7/10 I haven't looked closely enough at their goal, I was serving myself some cake at the time. I hope he wasn't at fault again, because I'm beginning to like him. Cole 7/10 A bloody good footballer. Not perfect, but nobody is. Luiz 7/10 World-class on the ball. Passing exquisite. Still prone to the odd ricket. Terry 8/10 Carlsberg don't do defenders, but if they did, they'd probably be .. John Terry. Mereiles 6/10 The new John Bumstead. Without the goals. AVB likes him. I think we can safely say that. Ramires 7/10 The day I approve of Mikel replacing Ramires is the day you have permission to shoot me. Not his best game, but who cares .. ? Lampard 9/10 Hands up those of you who wrote him off, he said, smugly. What a f**king finisher. Let's hear it for our Frank. Drogba 7/10 A selfless performance. Players don't have to be on form to make a contribution, and Drogba contributed today, and worked tirelessly, for the team. He hasn't been the same player since he caught malaria. I'm not saying he won't get back there, but I'm not saying he will either. What I'm saying is I don't know. Thats what I'm saying. Mata 7/10 What's the matter with Mata .. ? Something, as a matter of fact. His touch wasn't there and he didn't look sharp. Nothing he tried came off. Maybe he's just tired. His intelligence, positioning and movement makes us a better team. That goes without saying. Sturridge 8/10 To those of you who wonder why we moan about Kalou, Anelka, and Malouda .. that's why. Subs: Ivanovic 7/10 Did what he did best. Defend. Mikel 0/10 Has there ever been a more tedious footballer to watch .. ? Anelka 1/10 Nice try Anelka, but I still give the prize to Mikel. The manager: AVB 8/10 We were playing a poor side, but AVB got his selection right. No Malouda, no Mikel, no Anelka and no Kalou. I thought all my birthdays had come at once. Now, if you could just give Josh a bit more game-time ..

There was a media campaign. That's how you know about it. They went after him, big-time. His reputation is tarnished, forever, far more than Terry's, because his "crime" was far worse. Were it not for the press targeting him you wouldn't know about it. Giggs' took out an injunction because the press were going to run with it. Like Terry, the fact that his efforts to censure the press failed meant they went after him far more. Sure, the Terry story made a bigger splash, but it was during the football season, so Terry was far more exposed. Terry was captain of England and Bridge was his international teammate. That made it manna from heaven for the press. I'm not saying his Chelsea connection didn't contribute to the vitriol, but it was World Cup year, they were due on the plane together, they were both high-profile players playing for high-profile clubs, it was always going to cause a circus. Nothing the press love more than sabotaging England. Nothing the press love more than a war, so they stir the pot. The worst part is a lie became the accepted wisdom, i.e. that he slept with his teammate's wife. It was said so often that people believed it, and still do. Even if it were true Gem, I don't think any right-minded person considers that worse than sleeping with your brother's wife, for eight years. And everyone knows about Giggs, the press made sure of it. They didn't relent it just didn't permeate into the wider consciousness because it didn't affect England and our chances at the World Cup. It always gets hysterical at that time of year. The press went after Ronaldo, remember? What did he do? Nothing. Rooney got himself sent off by putting his studs on Carvalho's tackle. The press hammered Ronaldo for winking. Winking. Winking is not against the law. It was a World Cup quarter-final and they were a man up. He's allowed to wink. It was only Fergie's astute management that kept Ronaldo, otherwise he'd have left. Ronaldo went on to have his best season. The press have always been bullies. Ever wondered how you know about Rooney's escapades? The press. Sure, United are a bigger club and they have more friends in the press and less editors willing to alienate their fanbase, but they're not immune to a bit of scandal. It goes with the territory. Chelsea became flush with cash, we started bullying other cubs for their best players, their best prospects, their chief executives and their sporting directors. We even tried to poach the England manager, and Kenyon denied it, just like he denied the Ashley Cole scandal. We met him in a hotel bar Gem. We were brazen. The people at our club were incredibly stupid. The fact that we were nouveau riche meant we had to keep our powder dry, and we did the opposite, hence we made enemies, hence we became fair game, because everyone wanted to see us get our comeuppance. It's human nature. I still regret the fact we are so hated, but the blame lies with people at the club, for me. They were naive. I agree that we are still paying the price for that. Terry paid the price for that, to a degree. I just don't think everyone else gets off lightly. Giggs did not get off lightly. They hammered him. The real hatred towards us started after Ranieri left and we became far more cynical in the way we went about things. In my opinion we needed to be more careful. Jose was only in it for the short haul, Kenyon wasn't a life-long fan, Roman was new. They sacrificed our image. On the plus side at least we won things .. While I agree that it hasn't received much coverage, it's worth noting that Rio only went to court because it was exposed. By the press. I do agree that if Ashley Cole had done the same thing, there'd be murders.

If it filters down to Atkinson at half-time that that decision was a shocker, don't be surprised if Everton get a kind decision their way in the second-half. God I hope so.

Not one mention of Suarez in the Sky studio at half-time .. They just slagged off the ref.

Wonder if Colin Murray, Alan Hansen, Alan Green, Mark Lawrenson and all those other Liverpool-supporting pricks will call it as it is and say .. Suarez is a f**king disgrace. I won't hold my breath.

Spiller Spiller Spiller, he's more than an excellent motivator, surely? He's a conniving, mischievous, cynical, controlling curmudgeon. And that's just his good points. He'll seek an advantage wherever he can. These are your options .. 1. He's impressed by Mancini and is praising Mancini to make him think he isn't impressed thereby hoping to make Mancini think again. This is popularly known as the "double bluff". 2. He's unimpressed by Mancini and is telling him he's impressed only to encourage him to carry on. This is known as the "hoodwink" .. or just the plain old "bluff". 3. He's impressed by Mancini and is telling him so, thereby encouraging Mancini to carry on, thereby helping his rival. This is known as the "Spiller, are you seriously suggesting this?". 4. He's just shooting the breeze with journalists and just speaking his mind, happy to be on the telly and have his words quoted in all the papers. This is known as the "Harry Redknapp". Take your pick ..

Where's Jeremy Paxman when you need him .. ?

"I think that Roberto Mancini has come out and shown his strength of character, his strength of management and I think that is important," said Ferguson. http://www.guardian....z?newsfeed=true Well folks, what do you think, famous Fergie mind games or something more sincere? Personally, I have no doubt it's the latter. Why would he come out and say this unless he has something to gain? He hates Tevez, hates City, and they are his direct rivals, level with them on points. Does he really think Mancini has shown strong management or does he just want Mancini to think he has shown strong management, therefore encouraging him to carry on in the same vein? Is that what he's trying to do? What would Fergie have done in the same situation? I think we can rest assured he would have shown strong management, but how? More than likely, he wouldn't have spoken so emotionally after the game, when feelings were raw. More than likely, he would have dealt with it in-house, rather than feed a media frenzy. More than likely he would have banished the player, forever, but he would have done it privately and without explanation, thus showing his strength, letting his players know who's boss, that he's in control. Or would he have kept him, got him onside again, in which case how can he endorse Mancini's words, that he will "never play" for him again? Mancini has gone to the HR department, he has lodged a complaint, he has gone to the chairman, he has asked for support. Can you imagine Fergie doing this? Tevez is his player, he should be able to deal with it himself, without asking the help of anybody, and certainly not so publically, thus risking appearing weak to his players. Are Fergie's words designed to encourage this, knowing the impact of Mancini's actions will be negative upon his squad? I make no excuses for Tevez. I understand Mancini's anger. I'm just not sure he's handled it very well ..

On a serious note, Mata and Josh are going to link up great, and Torres might even join in the fun. We'll have to wait ..