Shearergol

If neither team wins after extra time, they both lose. Works until the final really. Or the semi. Hmm. Flawed.

Toontastic.com has been shit. Toontastic.net is where it's at though

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything. My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there. I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever. Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge. So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him. So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance? Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant. The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say. They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again. To wit: Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up. New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing. complete tripe. Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour. Lots of people. Selective memory or what. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another. Gemmill and Alex? i didn't mean you Well, clearly. That wouldn't make sense, seeing as I've gone nowhere.

The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything. My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there. I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever. Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge. So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him. So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a shite job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance? Good post. The bit in bold is EXACTLY what I meant. The previous board did several things excellently. I don't have a problem with acknowledging what they did well. They quite obviously weren't 'the worst board ever', what a ridiculous thing that would be to say. They did, however, also screw some things up royally and we were due for a change. Will it 'automatically be an improvement'? Of course not. But who has actually said they thought it would be better by default? Nobody that I can remember, it's a strawman argument used time and time again. To wit: Old board - did well most of the time, fucked some key things up. New board - barely had a chance yet, let's see in a few years how well they're fairing. complete tripe. Lots of people said they just wanted rid of them, and anytime at all any names were mentioned, even that hedge fund, they were all in favour. Lots of people. Selective memory or what. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It seems that some people are now coming over to what some of the better posters used to tell you, you know those that have gone from the board, for one reason or another. Gemmill and Alex?

Where did you hear that? mackems.gif

Why? We needed forwards, we signed two.

Funny really. I probably hate "rival" posters more than anyone, but I quite like Brummie.

So Lampards certainly gone then. I'd be happy with that if i was a chelsea fan! In the same way that Arsenal fans would be happy if Fabregas leaves?

Ronaldo's been fairly important to Portugal this year, if you're going by stats.

Keeper would have gone even if he'd stayed on his feet tbh

I've actually got an email from them from a few years back explaining the process. I'll forward it on to you later (rather than posting anything on here).

They pay the Press Association to look after fixture lists, who in turn pay an internet enforcement company to go signing into places to check up on us. That's not technically how it happens. Where did you get that info?

*goes to find my post from a few months back where I told people we were trying to sign him*

Ibrahimovic, Forlan...

Drogba, Crespo....

He's probably not worth that anyway; but then neither was Bent, Smith, Jones, Shevchenko - the list goes on. He's hot property, and his club desperately don't want to sell him (unless they can recoup big money). It's the way it is - if we want him then we'll have to pay big. Whether we should or not is all relative depending on how much we want him. Shevchenko surely was? It's only hindsight which says he wasn't. Aye i suppose. I'd still say it was arguable though, given what his age was. What did he go for - £34m or something, at 30 years old? Debateable, but you could be right. Ahh sorry, I read your post wrong. I thought you meant he wasn't worth 15 to 16 million. Agreed that he wasn't worth £34m though.

Star enough for me. Kranjcar would be an absolute superstar at Newcastle. The creative edge we're missing. On the note earlier about comparison to Emre; I don't think anyone would be upset if we signed a player of Emre's ability as long as he stayed fit. I don't see many people complaining about Emre in terms of his actual game.

He's probably not worth that anyway; but then neither was Bent, Smith, Jones, Shevchenko - the list goes on. He's hot property, and his club desperately don't want to sell him (unless they can recoup big money). It's the way it is - if we want him then we'll have to pay big. Whether we should or not is all relative depending on how much we want him. Shevchenko surely was? It's only hindsight which says he wasn't.

Ones telling us we're not good enough to compete with anyone in the top half?

A clean two footed tackle? Didn't look two-footed to me. Won* the ball with his right leg, left leg was trailing behind. Some very dodgy decisions by the referee at the end all in all. Yeah, but these days it doesn't matter if you win the ball. The tackle looked dangerous, and he went in with 2 feet. In my opinion it was a great challenge, but sadly these days you're not allowed to tackle people.

A clean two footed tackle?

I love Podolski. Can't believe he's linked with Man Citeh though.

First time I've ever supported Germany in a match. And they lose.

It depends whether Chelsea have a big screen he can constantly admire himself on as he ponces about the park. The twat. Chelsea won't sign him, but Scolari could persuade him to go to Spain.

How much older?? 2 years. Gosh. Time to move on from Modric, as I said earlier. We can't sign him now.