madras

i know betfair has plenty of live football on (there are two japanese games on right now). anyone know of other sites that have live football on ? and yes i know the prem wont be on.

The problem with that is that it would instead be the club owners, the FA, and of course SKY who would be raking in the billions of dollars punters like you and me pour into the game through tickets, merchandise and TV subscriptions - unless of course you think ticket prices, merchandise and TV subscriptions would also be set, according to some fixed income:profit ratio? Players are paid so much because so much money is available - indeed it could be argued that they are merely taking a share of the revenue they raise. After all, who would pay Rupert Murdoch any money if it were not for the players? hows that again ? the FA and sky would get the same monewy as now and the clubs would be on the same deal as now but it means they'd be able to run on a sustainable budget. Not so - SKY are the middlemen in that they fleece the punters and shovel (chunks of) the cash at the clubs. This gives the bigger clubs the ability to offer bigger wages (and forces the not so big clubs to gamble financially to stop the bigger clubs from getting away). If SKY didn't charge so much, they wouldn't be able to offer the FA/clubs so much for the broadcasting rights, and thus with less income they wouldn't have the capacity to offer the wages they do. Obviously the likes of Chel$ki and Man Shitty are exceptions because their ability to offer stupid wages is not limited by their income. But for clubs that do not have a sugar daddy the theory stands - the ability of clubs to offer stupid wages is determined by their ability to raise income. But Chel$ki didn't start the trend, they were following Man Yoo and Arsenal - clubs who (at the time) spent within their means, rewarding their players very well without risking meltdown. If their ability to offer premium wages was curtailed, then they could only have made bigger profits as their wages expenditure would have been lower. It is the not the players of Leeds, Fiorentina and now apparently Valencia who get their sums spectacularly wrong - it's the directors who calculate those sums. Nor was it the players that Chel$ki and now Man Shitty sign who are shifting the paradigm and escalating wages. Or, more simply - the players are workers, and workers are entitled to share in the profits they generate. If the profits are vast, then the wages should be proportionally vast... the players are employees of the clubs..the clubs are making losses...should the players wages be proportionate ?

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum and that takes some doing. (surely i must have a few contenders for that)

Or they'd just start supporting someone else. you ever met anyone who has 'supported' manyoo, liverpool or whoever from the north east and then changed their allegiance during their adult life? the above is an often cited cliche but personally i haven't met anyone to do that...some of my mates from home are Tottenham, Manyoo & Southampton fans as they latched onto something about the clubs when they were young for whatever reason, the strip or saw them in a final or something before they knew too much about the game none of them have ever shown any sign of wanting to change just wondered if anyone knows anyone who has...? yes. i know plenty who were liverpool/leeds/man utd fans as kids then when we got old enough to go to the pub before games they came along, still supporting their first loves but by the end of the season they were supporting NUFC. one or two even admitted it was NUFC they supported all along and the other club was a front to be seen as a winner. now out of everyone i grew up with only two still support their plastic club...both liverpool.

that prodirect one is nice but the broad striped one in another thread is still the tops.

i never brought it up either but a thread is like a river and i follow it to the sea.

The problem with that is that it would instead be the club owners, the FA, and of course SKY who would be raking in the billions of dollars punters like you and me pour into the game through tickets, merchandise and TV subscriptions - unless of course you think ticket prices, merchandise and TV subscriptions would also be set, according to some fixed income:profit ratio? Players are paid so much because so much money is available - indeed it could be argued that they are merely taking a share of the revenue they raise. After all, who would pay Rupert Murdoch any money if it were not for the players? hows that again ? the FA and sky would get the same monewy as now and the clubs would be on the same deal as now but it means they'd be able to run on a sustainable budget.

true but at the same time you'd think it would be in the players interest for any new deal to be sorted out after we know what division we will be playing in. unlikely it was a one year deal as word would have got out and he'd have been away or pre contracted elsewhere in january.

didn't work then either then.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ? there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell). as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ? if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes. thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed. And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates.. All very well to complain when things go wrong.... ...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ?? And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself. Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS.. If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now. Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect. I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....! lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced. i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all. if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two). i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates. thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives. i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them)

Was it Luque or Owen signed instead of Anelka? If it was Luque then Imo, we could have got Owen for cheaper. Madrid only bought him got around 8 or 9m! He was surplus to requirements and I'd say if we had clever people running the club he couldve been ours for around 13 or 14m. real only got him for that price as he was coming to the last year on his contract

as will the days of top flight football for better or worse, as you say In the long run healthy financial status is way much important than big money buys! Fat Fred is one of the main reasons why we're fighting against the relegation every season now and the current global financial crisis haven't helped us one bit. no and yes. don't need to be healthy. i'd be happy to have a sore throat and be succesful but the way we were going we had severe hypothermia and had just sat on the ground in the cold and were starting to feel sleepy.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ? there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell). as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ? if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes. thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

was never gonna play 20+ games a season for us, never...granted the knee injury was a shock but he'd still have been out 50% of the time or whatever, he's made of glass and not the strong type of glass either and the broken foot V spurs.

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! the problem for brown was that if the FSA didn't use a light touch the screaming that would have went on would have done him a load of damage. he took the risk of following everyone else. PS the light touch by the regulating authorities stated at least in the 80's.

more down to injury than anything else,most of which could hardly have been foresaw. most of the dislike for owen comes from the fact we weren't his first choice....well heres news for you. NONE of our present squad would be here had man utd,chelsea or arsenal came a calling when they signed for us.

lose with 3 sendings off and 8 season ending injuries

The last two posts of yours I've read have probably been the most pathetic attempts to garner bites I've seen on this site. There's a lot of competition out there, but congratulations, you've nailed it. Well, I'm so f***ing sorry, but I haven't read a single argument about the nature of his departure -- of his choice to depart -- that comes within a light year of justifying a £9 million payout. I do realise he's a sacred cow, and that any criticism of him at all will be regarded by many as trolling, but that is my honest opinion. Well... It going to the court because of constructive dismissial whereby people above him made his job extremely difficult to do - in a deliberate attempt to get him to quit. Which he did! as couldn't handle it anymore.. especially after promising the fans a replacement for Milner - which a penny hasn't even arrived yet! Probably was super stressful being undermined like that. Well, I'm sure that £9 million will help the poor fellow relax after his terrible ordeal. He didn't deserve be treated like that, he couldn't do his job. A sacked manager gets compensation out of his contract, a manager forced out must be due similiar.. i don't think you understand that he was being deliberately forced out. No, I don't understand that. In fact, I think the idea is completely daft. Do you honestly believe that Ashley appointed Keegan in January only to purposely engineer his departure in September? Why on earth do you believe such a thing? It's just as daft as suggesting Keegan only accepted the job with the intent to make a few bob, which some have done. Works both ways. or the in between possibility that keegan took the job and thought his force of personality would get him his own way...as it did first time round and at fulham. Perfectly plausible. There was an interesting article on the main site about this. i don't know if this happened or not but it's as likely a scenario as the others.

The last two posts of yours I've read have probably been the most pathetic attempts to garner bites I've seen on this site. There's a lot of competition out there, but congratulations, you've nailed it. Well, I'm so f***ing sorry, but I haven't read a single argument about the nature of his departure -- of his choice to depart -- that comes within a light year of justifying a £9 million payout. I do realise he's a sacred cow, and that any criticism of him at all will be regarded by many as trolling, but that is my honest opinion. Well... It going to the court because of constructive dismissial whereby people above him made his job extremely difficult to do - in a deliberate attempt to get him to quit. Which he did! as couldn't handle it anymore.. especially after promising the fans a replacement for Milner - which a penny hasn't even arrived yet! Probably was super stressful being undermined like that. Well, I'm sure that £9 million will help the poor fellow relax after his terrible ordeal. He didn't deserve be treated like that, he couldn't do his job. A sacked manager gets compensation out of his contract, a manager forced out must be due similiar.. i don't think you understand that he was being deliberately forced out. No, I don't understand that. In fact, I think the idea is completely daft. Do you honestly believe that Ashley appointed Keegan in January only to purposely engineer his departure in September? Why on earth do you believe such a thing? It's just as daft as suggesting Keegan only accepted the job with the intent to make a few bob, which some have done. Works both ways. or the in between possibility that keegan took the job and thought his force of personality would get him his own way...as it did first time round and at fulham. (bit like when you go with a woman who says she doesn't do oral.........."i'll persuade her")

It's like the thing with Wise and Bassong/Jonas etc. Excellent finds, for not much money (though Jonas might well end up costing us more than they expected). But are people expecting this to be a steady stream of quality players for pennies year on year? If the funds for transfers are going to come purely from sales, the concept of trading up every time puts huge, huge pressure on the scouting and recruitment team. More pressure on Kinnear to make things work with a regular turnover of playing staff. I'm not convinced at all that the people we have in place are equipped to deal with this pressure and deliver. i'd like to think that will be the case till the finances,particularly wages are made a bit more sensible. i agree about kinnear but outside the top 5 or 6 that is what the majority will have to do.

it is true but unless someone comes up with a wad of cash i think the only way to improve is to hope our scouts are better than our oppositions. ashleys 5 to 10mill plus the monies incoming.....which should already have been here, should provide a decent enough pot if spent wisely.

loans should be for a 4 game maximum.for players under 23 and not to teams in the same division.

pleasant surprise tonight, had a double with st pauli and standard liege. st pauli were 2 down in 5 mins and came back to win then liege got a last minute winner. almost the exact opposite of most my bets,

the irony being that ronaldo was saying saylor was crap on a night when ronanldo was very poor himself. lots of stepovers in order to lay it back. he done very little throughout the game.

he's attempting to make a buck (nowt wrong in that mind)