Sometimes 140 characters are just not enough.
Yesterday I tweeted along these lines. Patrick Bamford to C Pal. The P Lge should ban loans.
As ever it prompted the usual tirade of abuse from the keyboard cowards. How many of you clowns would actually have the courage to address the people you abuse face to face? It's pathetic. Twitter and other social media outlets are great fun. They allow right minded people, happily the majority, to engage in debate, ask questions, both of which I love, and of course, the various sites can be a terrific way to gather information.
I didn't intend to go down this route, but let me just warn the 'cowards'. For some time now I have employed investigative 'on line' staff and we know who you are - despite your attempts to hide - and we know which company funds your work. Yes, company. For the rest of you - it won't surprise you when I reveal all.
Anyway, back to the argument I'm making. It's simple. Loaning/borrowing players to and from each other in the P Lge distorts the competition and shouldn't be allowed.
The Chief Exec of the Lge, Richard Scudamore, was very strong this week when pointing out that it's not his job to help build a successful England team. He says it's only his job to create the best and most successful league in the world.
Ok. Follow that theme just for a moment. The argument for lending players to each other in our top league is that it allows them to gain experience. Let's take Bamford as an example. Some argue that he's not good enough to hold down a regular place at Chelsea, so he should be out on loan gaining experience, and that will be useful as grows his career and blossoms into an international footballer.
Really? On what basis do we believe a season on loan at Crystal Palace will turn him into England's next No. 9? If he's not good enough at Chelsea right now, how is it he'll be good enough to play for England? And even if that happened, why is it the P Lge's business if you follow Scudamore's argument?
I accept that getting first team football is important. Of course it is. Bamford is at a stage where he needs it. Playing for Chelsea's under 21's every week isn't going to help his development now. Don't get me started on the inadequacies of the U21 league - that's another story!
So, there are 2 options. Get him out on loan into the C'ship or elsewhere in Europe, or sell him.
It's scandalous that Chelsea now have the best part of 50 - yes 50 - players out on loan. Why? Simply because they can. It's wrong. My message is this - play them because you believe in them, or sell them. Don't collect them. That's where the problem really lies.
There isn't a team in the P Lge now that can't afford both fees and wages so 'loaning' shouldn't be an option on that basis either, but here's the biggest reason why it shouldn't be allowed - it distorts the competition.
I've said any times that Mourinho doesn't miss a trick. Remember him sending Lukaku on loan to Everton? Why? Did he care it was good experience for the player? No. He never fancied him. Lukaku was never going to be a Chelsea player under Mourinho.
The reason he was on loan at Everton was simple. Mourinho knew he was 'decent' and could inflict damage on his title rivals. He could play against them all. But who couldn't he play against? Correct - Chelsea.
The same goes for Bamford. Patrick is a nice lad, and a goalscorer. He'll never play regularly for Chelsea, but he'll be doing the next best thing next season - playing against their title rivals. This distorts the competition.
There is actually no sensible argument for the system. If Bamford was good enough to play for Chelsea then he would. He isn't.
The system is wrong. It's being abused - and so are players bought by the big clubs and hoarded. This doesn't allow the progression they need. It thwarts it.
Now, I'm happy to enter into sensible debate on the subject, but if you've only got banal insults to offer, please, take yourself off somewhere else. Preferably kindergarten.
A couple of other things. Love West Ham's second choice kit this season - the one that instantly brings back memories of Bobby Moore - the light blue with the claret chest band. That's a proper Hammers kit.
As City are linked with Kevin de Bruyne Mourinho tells us he sold the player because 'he told me it was not in his personality to be competing for a place in the team'. Ouch! You don't think he's got 'character' then Jose? A warning to City perhaps? Or is he running a little scared? Here's one that Mourinho can't control and he might end up looking a mug.
Tim Sherwood has lost his tongue, as well as his best two players, so I'm not surprised. Unless he can get some decent replacements in Villa are in for another struggle. I wonder if he knew Delph could walk away for such a pittance when he took over?
And why did it take so long for Benteke's move to Anfield to get done? When a players' medical takes as long as his did alarm bells always ring for me. I made a few calls and I think I may end up being right on this one as well. It'll be interesting to see how many games Benteke plays this season.
De Gea? I still think he'll end up at Real Madrid this season
Benitez and Ronaldo? This has no chance of working. My best guess is that Ronaldo will be at PSG this time next season. And Zidane will be in charge of Madrid.