Manchester United's title chances, why ending the transfer window before the season won't work and moralising in the beautiful game - 5 POINTS

• e-mail

The new picture shows Martin Samuel looking down his nose at his readers. About the most apposite thing to appear in his column for years. IWWT, London.

I think we're discovering more about your own insecurities there than my opinion of the readers, IWWT. I just do what I'm told. The photographer says stand there, fold your arms and he's going to take one looking up because that's the style the office want, I do that. I don't know how long Sami Mokbel spent getting styled up for his tribute to GQ, but mine was done in a spare two minutes before the Wimbledon men's singles final on the roof of the media block. 

So I wouldn't read too much into it if I were you. The missus doesn't like it and I suppose now you mention it, I may look a little imperious, but what are you going to do? It's the byline photograph. I'm not David Aaronovitch. I'm not going to have it reshot every time I lose weight. I've had it worse. Just before I joined the Daily Express I went to get my hair cut. September 1, 1997. Went to a place on Epping High Street. Never been there before, but my usual guy down the road was away on holiday. Walked in bright and breezy. Sat down, making conversation with the lady. 'How are you?' 'Oh, a little sad,' she said. 'Oh, why so?' 'Well, we're all a little sad today, aren't we?' I was momentarily thrown. Why are we sad? What are we all sad about? I didn't want to appear insensitive and probe her grief, but I was mystified. And then the penny dropped. It may have done so for you already. August 31, 1997. The death of Princess Diana. It had happened the previous day.

Now you may find that unfeeling on my part. But let me tell you about my personal relationship with Princess Diana. I couldn't care less about Princess Diana. Didn't know her, didn't want to know her, didn't want to read about her, didn't want to look at photographs of her. A really insignificant person in my life. So when I heard that she died, I thought it was sad, because she was a young person and she didn't seem an evil person, and nobody should die young, but that was as far as it went. Her death didn't feel like losing someone I had known and loved. 

It wasn't even like hearing an acquaintance had passed, or the friend of a friend. There was a Polish lady whose kids went to the same school as ours. Her husband dropped dead in the gym. I'd never met him, but I felt it. We knew her, they had a young family. There was obvious empathy. But not so much with Diana. She was a member of the Royal Family. She's a real person, so it's still tragic that she's gone too soon. But she wasn't in my orbit, her life had nothing to do with mine. And, again, you may find that insensitive. But here's the way I see it. If everyone felt like me, there are no paparazzi motorbikes chasing that car through the street. If everyone felt like me, Princess Diana is probably alive today, shacked up with who she wants, where she wants and, I would hope, happy ever after. 

So, no, I didn't share the teary outpouring of a nation, and I wasn't on the first train up to London with a teddy bear to lay outside Kensington Palace, but I didn't feel responsible either. Whereas those taking a prurient interest in the private lives of strangers to the extent they feel heavily engaged emotionally when they die, might wish to have a little look at themselves.

Anyway, back to the barbers. My point is this: that lady, wracked as she was with inexplicable grief for the death of a person whose life she treated as a personal soap opera, then proceeded to give me the worst haircut I've had in 50 years. And I had to live with that as my byline picture in the Daily Express until I left in 2002. I looked like Mo from The Three Stooges. 

So I'm not going to lose sleep over your bogus interpretation of this latest image, IWWT. I've had it tougher, as Ezra Pound said after 10 years of hard labour. In conclusion, however, I will say this. You posted a two-sentence personal dig and I have replied, at length, with explanations, anecdotes, a short digression into social commentary, all in an attempt to mildly amuse or make think these readers you claim I treat contemptuously. If you can find another sports journalist out there doing that, please open a dialogue with him and leave me alone.

But I'll tell you now: there isn't one. I might have a go back at the odd idiot who comes for me, but a lot of time and thought goes into this column, and I'm always polite to the polite people, even if we disagree. Trust me, I'm across every paper every day. Henry Winter doesn't do this. The lads at The Sun don't do this. And they don't hunt through mental musical libraries to play you apposite and blinding Digital Underground tracks, either. So this is no nose job. And so is this. Five points up next. 

Point one: I think he's referring to me.

And what idiot was it who said mega rich owners should be able to invest as much money as they want into a football club, because it's their money after all? I wonder who that was? Hmmmm. Fourfoxache, United Kingdom.

It was me. You know it was me. I was the one who called financial fair play as a sack of elitist crap 10 years out and was proved right when it collapsed at the first legal challenge. But the other reason you know it was me is I don't hide behind some infant school alias, like your good self. So when I make a decent point, I can claim it as my own. You're Bingo from the Banana Splits for all I know. In fact, Bingo from the Banana Splits might have had more idea of how to run football from an economic perspective, but that's for another day.

I presume you're talking about Paris St Germain spending the wealth of Qatar on Neymar and thinking I might have regrets now this has happened. No regrets, Achey. Before, Barcelona had three very good forwards. Now they have two very good forwards, and PSG have one. What's wrong with that? PSG couldn't hold on to a four-goal lead against Barcelona last year, so the Neymar deal draws them closer and makes European football more competitive, not less. As long as the investments are not loans, but gifts, so the club remains viable, do what you like. 

I've got plenty of ways to make football financially fairer, to do with Champions League seedings, to do with the distribution of that tournament's wealth and commercial and broadcast wealth, but none of them involve limiting the power of owners to bring money into the game. If PSG were to win the Champions League – and I'm unconvinced buying Neymar guarantees it – they would be the first French club to do so in almost 25 years. Again, surely that's making competition within European football stronger?

Neymar has joined Paris Saint-Germain from Barcelona for a world record transfer fee

Point two: your sense of entitlement does you little credit, sir.

Your comment to Naman Katyal from Jalanadhar in last weeks' Five Points column was uncalled for. Football is in the blood, and nothing compares to supporting the first team you saw or your local club. You can't change clubs just because you moved country. Also, this league is being advertised and sold all over the world, so they should make the games available to us at suitable times that fit with all fans. Robowen, Australia.

Really, mate? English fans should be ever more inconvenienced so the armchair brigade on the other side of the world don't have to set an alarm clock. You really believe that? So what about the Australian Open tennis, then; or the Australian Grand Prix. We've got arguably the best racing driver in the world and one of the finest tennis players. We have to get up far too early for that stuff, agreed? 

I reckon you should do away with those afternoon sessions. Have it all at night. Same with the Ashes. That starts around midnight here. So bring it forward a few hours, eh? What about a 6am start? Sound fair? Here's the thing. We advertise the Premier League, but you don't have to watch. In fact, if your post indicates how demanding the foreign market is going to become, we'd rather you didn't. I know English kick-off times are problematic in Australia, because I've followed it while covering the Ashes, or at the Australian Open tennis. 

A 12.30pm kick off is 10.30pm in Sydney; 3pm is 1am; 5.30pm is 3.30am; 7.45pm is 5.45am. Tough. That's the best time for our fans, just as your sport is scheduled for yours. If you don't like it, there is always the A League, and you are sincerely welcome to it.

Sporting events around the world mean fans from other countries have to set early alarms

Point three: some people just don't get it.

Bold words from Mr Samuel, about Liverpool resigning the title if they sell Philippe Coutinho. So can one assume that if Liverpool sell Coutinho and do win the league, Mr Samuel will resign his job at the Daily Mail? Sir Cecil, San Francisco.

Are you really that stupid? I'm not on a performance bonus here. I'm not expected to see the future, either. A columnist writes what he thinks, or what he believes. He informs his opinions with what he knows, often having spoken to those close to the story. It's pretty easy to decipher what's what as a reader. 

When I write how frustrated Jurgen Klopp is in private at being asked about Coutinho constantly in press conferences when he feels the club has made its position plain and will not shift, that is because I speak to people at Liverpool. When I say Liverpool have no chance of winning the league without Coutinho, that is my opinion. Nobody sits there marking ticks and crosses based on right and wrong. Maybe you do. If so, have you ever considered getting a girlfriend?

Liverpool ace Philippe Coutinho has been the subject of numerous bids from Barcelona

Point four: it's Manchester United's title (or not).

Oh Martin, the season has barely started and you have already begun with your usual sensationalist rubbish. For someone who pretends to be the all-knowing sage, you clearly don't have the best memory. You do know that Manchester United won their first two games of last season don't you? Kind of undermines your entire strawman argument; but that's nothing new, is it? EConan, London.

You know I said I didn't look down my nose at the readers. I'll confess, I do feel slightly differently about those who come on so strong, when it is plain they haven't even read the article. One of my old teachers, Jenny Soden, used to define an English student as someone who will argue for three hours over the meaning of a book, having read the back cover. 

At least they didn't insult the intelligence of the author at the same time, though. What part of the sentence: 'Of course, as Mourinho pointed out at the weekend, United started with two wins last season, and finished sixth' did you not understand? It was right there, in black and white. Hell, man, it wasn't even a long read. You only had to make it through around 500 words and you could have taken in the whole thing. On calculations of average reading speed that is between one and two minutes. Is your attention span so pitifully lacking? 

Or was this like one of those e-mails where the person presses send and then frantically tries to retrieve on realisation he looks a complete fool? And you used that 'strawman' phrase again. Ah, bless. You must think it makes you sound really clever. Unfortunately, the rest of what you post rather undermines that.

Blah, blah. Hype us up to bring us crashing down. Then the first loss will suddenly be described as a crisis. Very early days and was not exactly the perfect display against Swansea. Still a lot of improvements need to be made. There will be a much clearer assessment after ten games, not two. Shaun, England.

Yes, of course there will. That's obvious. I don't agree, however, that a lot of improvements are required. This looks a very balanced, strong Manchester United team and Jose Mourinho is an excellent organiser. They are capable of playing two ways: on the front foot to establish the lead, and then more resolutely to protect that lead. They have very similar potential to his last title winners at Chelsea. As for praise being a media plot, we can't win, can we? 

If we wrote that United had played weak teams and the start meant nothing, we would be accused of having an anti-United agenda. If we say they look good and potential title material, we're just buttering them up for an eventual fall. Preposterous. As is this. I can't believe I've never put it up before. A classic. 

You're already talking daft about 100 per cent records after two wins, and you also stated that Romelu Lukaku was the fifth Manchester United player to score in his first two games. I mean, honestly, how many daft percentages and statistics can you dredge up to create useless news? I suppose if somebody loses their third game it will only be a 66 per cent record? 

Yes, you might be daft enough to print that too. It's far too early to be assuming Mourinho isn't going to blow up if United lose a couple of matches against their main rivals, which is very easy to visualise. It'll be the referee's fault of course – again, easy to see it happening. So just stop speculating this early. It's not long ago he lost credibility and respect at Chelsea and finished mid-table. Despite his words, the disinterested face and monotone voice are those of a man who is bored and boring at the same time. Benshamlad, Doncaster.

I don't know what piece you are referring to, but it certainly isn't mine. Didn't mention that Lukaku statistic, didn't talk much about percentage records. Purely mentioned that if Mourinho is allowed to get away from the pack early, it is often ominous. And why is it wrong that I should project that thought, based on historical fact, but your old nonsense in which you imagine defeats and personal meltdowns must be entertained. As for that tired 'Mourinho is boring' line, I'm not sure what more he can do than win two games 4-0 back to back. Sounds lively enough to me.

By your definition, Huddersfield are a threat. Boltcroppers, Kings Lynn.

No, because they don't have a track record of winning Premier League titles by leading from the front. At least think about it for a minute before posting, mate. Saves us all a lot of time.

Martin, the Manchester United media pundit, has had to wait five years to write this article and with two games gone shows his desperation. Biased as hell. Thanks for that. Alan Kavanagh, Manchester.

Actually, I said I fancied Manchester United to win the league before the season started last year. The team I fancied this season, although not quite so strongly, was Manchester City. Don't let that thought influence your puerile paranoia, though, Alan.

Everyone is saying 'Mourinho hasn't played the top five sides' or 'he has only beat two smaller teams' but these are the same 'small' teams that took points off United last season, so picking up maximum points is an improvement. Also, small teams like Burnley, Watford and Stoke have already taken points from Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal this season. Raymondo07, Newton-Le-Willows.

Well, OK then, just hand the trophy over now. Jo Jo, United Kingdom.

But he didn't say that, did he, Jo? He merely made the perfectly valid point that United have comfortably beaten two teams that caused them problems last season, and that other elite clubs have already dropped points against lesser rivals. To that can be added Manchester City, drawing 1-1 at home to Everton on Monday night. 

No doubt, had United won against Burnley, Watford, Stoke or Everton, it would be argued this is expected. Yes it is, but it doesn't always happen, as we have seen. All the signs have been very positive for United so far – not just their own form, but the inconsistencies of rivals. I'm not saying it is over. I'm just saying, so far, it has all gone to a tried and trusted Mourinho plan and that's a worry for his competitors.

You can't catch Mourinho when he gets ahead? He chucked away a six-point lead with us in 2013-14. CFC4, London.

Actually, it was seven, on March 8, but the chasing pack had games in hand. Chelsea had 66 points, Liverpool and Arsenal 59, Manchester City 57. But Liverpool and Arsenal had a game in hand each so, potentially that gap was four points, and City had three games in hand which, if won, would put them top because their goal difference was already superior to Chelsea. 

So it's not the same as his front-running title wins at all really. Not least because in the first 24 rounds of matches, Chelsea fluctuated between first and sixth. They were top after games two, three, five and 21, but were third – their final position – after games one, six, seven, 12, 15, 18 to 20 and 22 to 24. So had they won the league it would not have been a conventional Mourinho victory at all, because it would have been scrappy, rather than a procession.

Jose Mourinho may finally have a team at Manchester United who could go on to win the title

Point five: about the proposal to close the transfer window early, and unilaterally.

Martin, we just want the season to get started without the nonsense distractions of transfers. We could squeeze it into one day if required, so I think two months during summer is plenty. Sensewhenthereisnone, Lancashire.

For a start, transfers aren't nonsense. They are a plank of the team building process and always have been. Secondly, it is ridiculous to say such an important facet of campaign planning can be done in a day, even if this was a deliberate exaggeration on your part. 

I do not understand why any club that thinks in unfavourable circumstances it could go down – and considering Chelsea genuinely feared this the season Mourinho was last sacked, I'd say that is most of them – would vote for a shorter window. Promoted clubs needs as much time as possible to complete the necessary upgrades. Brighton are still in the market two games in, because they look pretty toothless. How would it benefit a club in their position to do business in a rush?

Closing the transfer window earlier is a good idea in terms of settling the teams, but it will even be a greater idea if they can add another term that says after the date teams can't sell players either. This way the other leagues wouldn't have any advantage. Rhino, United Kingdom.

Yes, and I would be behind the idea then, too. My whole objection concerns the foolishness of unilateral action by English clubs. But that's the point. Europe won't agree to a shorter window. And I understand. Why should Barcelona conduct their business prematurely because it is what the likes of Burnley and Swansea want to do? 

Why should the Bundesliga adhere to a time frame created by English football, because our league starts early so we can incorporate two domestic cup competitions, domestic cup replays and extra league fixtures? They might counter that if we grew up and accepted certain changes to our game, then the major leagues could become synchronised. But this is belligerent Brexit Britain, so you know we won't.

Of course it will make a difference. You wouldn't have the situation we have now where players haven't performed for their clubs even though the season has started. The prime examples are Virgil van Djik, Coutinho, Alexis Sanchez and Kylian Mbappe. Redwhiteblue, Peterborough.

Yes, but in a lot of the cases you mention, closing our transfer window changes zip. Coutinho is wanted by a foreign club. No change. Paris St Germain could still come in for Sanchez or Mbappe. Only van Dijk's path would be blocked, and then only if we believe there is no foreign interest in him. If there is, we are back to square one.

I disagree with Martin's point about Barcelona and Liverpool. Liverpool are making it difficult at the moment with the window open. If it was closed I believe they would double down on their stance as they wouldn't be able to replace the player. Dwdan, London.

As Klopp maintains, you can't double down on not selling. Not selling is not selling. It is not Nigel Tufnell's amp in Spinal Tap. There is no 'one louder'. That's why the parameters of the transfer window are irrelevant to a club that knows its mind. If Liverpool are not selling, it doesn't really matter whether the window is open or closed. Let it run until December. If Liverpool aren't selling, who cares?

Very poorly constructed and opinionated article from a writer who enjoys his own material too much. The early closing of a window would of course help because teams will be more settled and finalised when the season commences. That's all it would be for, so mentioning everything else is irrelevant nonsense. Cameron Walker, Australia.

Yes but in my poorly constructed article I drove a 12 ton truck through your argument, simply by pointing out the Coutinho speculation would continue unabated, even with an earlier window. Did you simply forget to respond to that or were you simply thrown by the fact a columnist might have a considered his opinion before writing? I know that's not always true in your part of the world but if you want to play in the big leagues you need to come armed with more than a balloon on a stick. Although, you're right, I did enjoy that bit of material.

There shouldn't be a window at all. I can't believe it hasn't been challenged. If a car dealer needs a new mechanic or a building company needs a new bricklayer, they don't have two periods within a year to employ one. If a centre forward can't hit the back end of a cow and his replacement is injured, surely you should be able to go and get another one if available? Bobsin42, Manchester.

I completely agree, Bob. I still think windows are restraint of trade. Like a lot of football followers I remember the times when transfers continued through the season, and there wasn't this air of frenzy we have now. Players didn't go on strike because there wasn't a tiny window of opportunity to move. No-one seems to see that side of the new way. The shorter the time frame the more it lends itself to pressure and disreputable behaviour.

It's absolutely ridiculous to call managers who want the transfer window closed hypocrites, simply because they are still buying players this summer. Until the rules are changed what else are they meant to do? Sit back and watch other managers sign players and improve their teams, and do nothing themselves? Roddy1977, Norwich.

They're not hypocrites for signing players, Roddy. They're hypocrites for moralising about it. Sean Dyche talked about the way losing players could cost a manager his job – meanwhile, that very weekend, Chris Wood was refusing to play for Leeds against Sunderland, because he was trying to force his move to Burnley. If Dyche believed that situation could cost the Leeds manager his job, why push it? Don't hide behind rules, if the point you are making is about right and wrong. You heard of Aldo Leopold, the wilderness conservationist, Roddy? Here's a quote for you: 'Ethical behaviour is doing the right thing when no one else is watching – even when doing the wrong thing is legal.' Some think it is misattributed. 

That it is a smartened up version of his take on the ethics of hunting. 'A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct.' Either way, you can see where we're going, can't you? Sometimes you don't have, or need, the rules to show the way. It's on you. Take Maria Sharapova. We all know when meldonium became illegal: January 1, 2016. We all know Sharapova had been taking it long before. How do you feel about that? Technically, she was doing nothing wrong until January 1 last year. So was it right, or do you agree with Andy Murray? 'Taking a drug you don't necessarily need because it's legal is wrong,' he said. In other words, don't play with the rulebook. If you know what is right, do that.

Sports journalists these days, including the writer of this column, work hand in glove with agents to stir up the pond for the next big headline or column leader. Ending transfer windows early deprives them of a few weeks' easy headlines. Carter14, Southampton.

You don't read my column, do you mate? If you did you would know it is not home to transfer tittle-tattle and I've got enough ideas not to need what you would term an easy headline. In Tuesday's column alone there were 13 items, and I had to leave twice that out. So please don't insult my intelligence by thinking I need or rely upon agents or the transfer window for my thought. 

The last arranged meeting I had with an agent came about because he was suing me and that was around four years ago. I've had chance conversations with the odd once since, if we meet on planes or at matches, but I don't call them, they don't call me, and that's how I like it. 

Do not forget, too, that there are many more weeks when the window is closed than open, the paper comes out every day just the same, and sales are unaffected. It makes for an entertaining spell, I suppose, but we'd get by just the same if it shut on August 1.

This article reads as if Samuel got out of the wrong side of the bed in the morning, kicked the cat, burnt the toast, got toothpaste on his shirt, spat at the local schoolchildren, then sat down to write in a thoroughly foul mood. Tord Schnerdbergler, London.

Alternately, maybe he read a story two days prior to writing, considered the idea, couldn't believe how people whose intellect he usually admires rushed to acclaim it without considering all the ramifications and then sat down to debunk a deeply flawed plan. 

No cats, shirts, loaves or schoolchildren were hurt in the writing of the column. One of my happier ones, I thought. I like topics you can get your teeth into. Had a smile on my face and this running through my head all the way. Until next time.