A bumper crop this week.

Ulsterson - I know you have been an ardent critic of the Glazers financial model used in the purchase United. As a United fan but not much of an economist I have tried, with marginal success, to follow your analysis and critique. I understand the concept of "bad debt" you have been warning against but I still don't see the upside, financially, for the Glazers if they don't keep the team competitive.

You have, since not long after or perhaps even before the takeover, come just short of predicting financial ruin leading to on field failure as resources for talent dwindle. As obviously smart business men, I cannot see the Glazers allowing the Team/product to suffer because of their financial scheme. Further, the purchases of late would indicate they do realize the necessity for success on the pitch for there to be success at the bank.

There is no question that their involvement in United is not based on a love of the team or even the sport itself and the debt situation does look dire on paper but could you please further explain any possible hustle we should be leery of? If you could, a "for example" of a possible scenario, in which they could make money at the expense of the team’s quality. Or, is it just a very risky gamble?

Bobby – You are right the Glazers have to keep the team competitive because the issue for them (at the moment) is a revenue shortfall rather than an expense problem. They bought the team believing that they could generate more and new revenue streams. The increase in revenue would then be used to pay down the large debt load.

The problem is where does the revenue come from and is it realistic to think it can be amount to the $100m or so in annual payments needed to pay the interest on the debt? Generally the revenue sources available to United fall into the following categories; ticket sales and hospitality, television and prize revenue domestic, television and prize revenue Europe, merchandising and sponsorship.

If you look back to when the Glazers borrowed to take the club over (it is more accurate description than bought the club) it would be fair to say that none of these revenue sources have dwindled and most have in fact increased. Prices and capacity have increased at Old Trafford; TV and prize money for the EPL up; Champions League is still producing; there was word that they got more for the AIG logo on the jersey than from the previous sponsor.

But even then they renegotiated the debt and reduced the interest payment at a cost of a longer term repayment schedule. Think in terms of your mortgage – it’s the kind of thing you do when you find that the monthly budget can’t be stretched far enough. 

So the plan/hope is that the team can continue to be successful (and tap into an ever increasing pool of Premiership and CL money) but that is a risky assumption on two levels and in terms of continued succeess one that Leeds made. (Although in the case of Leeds they had nothing else to fall back on. Leeds also got caught with assets/players bought at inflated prices whose value then plummeted as the impact of the Bosman ruling took affect.)

Ticket prices will continue to be a place that the Glazers will feel they can generate much more money – Carling Cup this season as a prime example – because the stadium is playing to capacity. Demand high – a chance to raise prices.

The tricky part kicks in when the revenue increases don’t meet the money needed to pay the interest on the debt. It is at that point that the temptation might be to cut costs and pray that the product isn’t impacted. To date there has been money spent on players but it seems doubtful that it has been anything close to the numbers that have been widely reported. The deals for Anderson and Nani seem to have been done with relatively low initial payments with more to follow if certain targets are hit. The Hargreaves transfer involved more money up front but the same concept.

The other risk is Ferguson and who takes over from him. The Glazer deal is structured around a timeline that far exceeds the number of years that Fergie has left. He may think he can go on forever but he is 66 at the end of December and the day will come. The likelihood of a seamless succession appears to me to be a hope rather than the certainty that the Glazers need.

When you add up the finances, the risks inherent in what appears to be the Glazers assumptions, as well as the general uncertainty and risk that is involved in any deal, it seems to me that for this to work it needs an incredible amount of luck.

There again, they could always sell the Tampa Bay Rowdies or United for that matter. There would be no shortage of buyers for either team. If United was to be sold then the fans should be looking for a philanthropist not a businessman. 

RINGO - Dundee, six points behind Hamilton (who the hell are Hamilton anyway?), and you don`t like to brag on your hometown, so here`s your chance.

Bobby – A bad loss to Hamilton a couple of weeks ago and a draw with Partick Thistle on Saturday only increased the gap at the top. Keep your eye on Hamilton Academical. They have a very aggressive youth policy under manager Billy Reid and it is beginning to pay off. You will see the bigger clubs starting to pick off some of their players next summer.

Hamilton plays Dundee United in the quarter-final of the CIS Cup on Wednesday and it will be a very interesting game. Craig Levein seems to have United cooking.

Dasayev - Interesting that on more than one occasion Jol pointed to the absence of Ledley King as a reason for Spurs' poor defense. Is there any truth in that? What is Tottenham's record with and without King over the past few seasons? How many goals do they concede per game with and without him? They also recently lost Davids, who seemed to set the tone for them when he played.

Bobby – The statistics show that Ledley King is very important to Spurs. I looked at Premiership records over the last two seasons with King in the side and without King.

In 2005/06 King played 26 matches and Spurs averaged 1.00 goal against per game. That happened to be the same as they averaged over the entire 38 game schedule. However, the points per game with King in the team were 1.846 per game and only 1.416 without him – the season average was 1.71. That means with Ledley King in the side Spurs were 30% more successful.

Last season the goals against with King in the team for 21 games were 1.29 goals against per game and points gained were 1.81. Without Ledley it was 1.59 goals per game and an average of 1.29 points gained per game. Averaged over the full schedule Spurs conceded on average 1.42 goals per game and gained 1.58 points per game.

The difference a fit King made last season – an incredible 39.8%.

Source - premiersoccerstats.com

Davids was a peripheral player for Spurs – even two seasons ago. Last season he started six games and Spurs lost 3, drew 1 and won 2. The season before he started 28 games and played in 8 or Spurs’ 9 losses. Average points with Davids starting were1.57. Average when he did not start 2.1. 

Craigy f – 1. What criteria do you use to choose a game of the week?
2. Do you think Ramos can turn Spurs around between now and January?
3. What result(S) surprised you this weekend?
4. Can you give your opinion on Benitez's personnel and tactics against Arsenal on Sunday?
5. What was your goal of the weekend?
6. What was your miss of the weekend?

Bobby – 1. Whatever appeals to me. 

2. It depends what you mean by turnaround. If you mean get Spurs out of the bottom three then the answer is yes. The next four games are very winnable before they hit Manchester City, Portsmouth and Arsenal. If you mean can they make a run at 5th (I think the pre-season proponents of Spurs finishing 4th would concede that such a scenario is unlikely) then they have to start averaging over 2 points a game. That is a tall order.

3. I thought Milan would bounce back against Roma and I was surprised at how Valencia rolled over against Sevilla.

4. I covered that off on the Monday show and also in the response section of the weekend preview blog.

5. Sevilla’s third by Fabiano against Valencia.

6. Solano’s second fluffed header when Cole’s shot rebounded off the Portsmouth crossbar.

JayAlves - Why does the EPL only allow 5 on the subs bench? and is it the only league to allow 5? Sure makes it annoying in FM to have such a short bench especially since one is a keeper.

Bobby – Ah interesting. I wasn’t aware that there were premier-type leagues than allowed more than five substitutes on the bench.  Sorry to be ancient but I remember the days of no substitutes. The first breakthrough was a player had to be injured and you only had one sub available. If the keeper went down injured it was just part of the game.

CIAO - Was Jol really quoted saying that the defensive problems were due to King being injured? If so, I'm glad they fired him because knowing King is injury prone he could have brought in a suitable back up. The new appointment seems very promising, but I think it will be a hard year for Spurs. They will be lucky if they place 5th. I think they will be in 6th or 7th place on the last day of PL.

Bobby – See previous response that I think clearly shows that Jol had a point. You are being hard on a man who it certainly appears did not control who was signed and who was not signed.

Weah11 - How do you pick the articles you put up on the blog?

Bobby – A combination of factors. Articles that I think are good reads; pieces that are maybe counterintuitive; articles that might be a bit unusual; and James Lawton columns to upset Craigy f. I try to avoid player interviews as a general rule.

Sleeper000 - I was curious as to what you think about the current Eduardo situation at Arsenal. The guy is incredibly gifted yet lately, he is not getting any playing time whatsoever. It seems to me like he has been relegated to fifth choice striker.

To be honest I was always nervous about Eduardo moving to Arsenal and this is not due to lack of skill. On the contrary, I think Eduardo is the most gifted forward on the Arsenal squad. However, I could never stop thinking about what happened to Croatian megastar #### when he moved to Arsenal. Whenever #### started, he would score goals, and then one day Wenger decided to start Henry and ####'s career was over.

Do you think something similar is happening to Eduardo? Now that Walcott and Bendtner are doing well, is this pretty much it for Eduardo? What happened to "It is Eduardo's time to shine"? Could he really be struggling that much with getting accustomed to his life in England, that he does not even merit a spot on the bench? I personally highly doubt that. What are your thoughts?

Bobby – As others have pointed out Wenger generally does not rush new players into the side. There are also many examples of his patience paying off.

I don’t think comparing this situation to ####’s is necessarily a fair comparison. I stand to be corrected but my recollection is that ####’s best years were behind him by the time he came to Highbury. Otherwise Real Madrid would not have let him go so easily.

He had a great World Cup in 1998 but it was a bit of an anomaly compared to his club form. There is nothing in his record post-Arsenal to indicate that letting him leave was a mistake. In retrospect replacing a 31-year-old #### with a 22-year-old Thierry Henry paid off don’t you think?

Craigy  f - Correct me if I'm wrong but can't a player still play for one country after playing for another country at u20 or u21 level. Freddy Adu can still play for Ghana at full international even though he's played for USA U20 MNT.

Bobby – You are right about the first point but not on the second I think. Adu has been capped at the full international level for the USA has he not - back a few years ago against Canada I believe.

Sleeper000 - You mentioned yesterday that you would start Taylor for Portsmouth. Who would you drop then? Certainly not Kranjcar who is doing so well for the team. Anybody who would drop Kranjcar is obviously not too familiar with his talent. I'd hesitate to drop Hreidarsson either since he compliments Niko so well. Your thoughts?

Bobby – I don’t recall saying that I would start Taylor. I noted he was being kept on the bench and had only started three Premiership games this season. He was Portsmouth’s second top scorer last season with 8 goals as he was the season before with 6.  Given his talent and in particular his left foot I said he could be an in-demand player come the winter transfer window. Maybe a Portsmouth fan can fill any other details.