madras

brothers,cousins...in pennywell they could be both

i'm looking forward to the "how mentally fit are footballers?" thread

i think (and i'll probably be corrected on this) that any player over 28 who is in the final year of his contract has the right to buy himself out of his contract (as diatta did a doo wah diddy dee diddy dum) for the cost of his remaning wages. so ineffect there is a lot of players out there who could still move on. in the diatta case i wonder if he "knew" a club such as ourselves would make a move for him should he buy himself out of his contract.

all completly true, but unfortunatly fred was taking us back to whence we came both on and off the pitch....thats why I say he had to go.

chill out man,push two normal sized beds together,lie down and relax.

what usually happens is that they'll match the value of your first bet up to £25. so you bet £25 and they'll credit your account with another £25 but all you'll get is the winnings on that bet (you don't recover the stake) keep looking,sky bet had a free £25 without even havig to deposit any cash while back.

Just a shame it isn't a real sport. Why? It's American. Is it just because we speak English better than you? yes. but you don't listen.

Just a shame it isn't a real sport. Why? It's American. and created by a canadian Bloody hell, really? Even worse then. They started out using some fruit basket.... took them years to finally put a hole in it. Can't remember exactly how long it went on for, but for a significant length of time they had to use a ladder to get the ball down everytime someone scored. they still use the fruit basket in korfball but us clever civilised westerners had the sense to pot a hole in the base.

Just a shame it isn't a real sport. Why? It's American. and created by a canadian

I've felt like this for ages. I remember, in the innocence of my youth, I used to have a soft spot for a few other teams (like Sheff Wed and Liverpool for some reason). When our clubs were let back into Europe I used to root for them on telly (wasn't anywhere near as much live football on in them days). Even used to support England! I don't know if it was a gradual change or one specific incident/season that changed my attitude but I've been very spiteful concerning all other clubs for a long time. perversly the only other club i give a fuck about is sunderland in that their results can affect my mood etc.

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons. Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed i never said that I've lost count of the number who have, but you do appear to agree with them. agree with them about what ?

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons. Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed i never said that

put "free bets" into google and see which is offering the best incentives.

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you. not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier. We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business". That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments. Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ? What a load of crap. they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

It's obvious to most people, and common sense, but it won't stop two types of critics: the ones with an agenda who just need to throw s*** in the direction of the new board at every opportunity or those who get frustrated easily and want signings...any signings ..now now now! or those who just needed to throw s*** in the direction of the old board at every opportunity. And urged them to splash the cash every time we lost a game. Remind us all again. Have the new board got anywhere near looking like matching the old boards Champions League qualifications yet or showed any understanding of how it needs to be done ? i would just like to pouint out to all concerned that mackems.gif has changed his criteria on judging the board from how much (£) they back the manager to league placings. carry on.

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ? I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it. It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them. surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher. you do like your cake don't you.

In most games at reserve level it is mainly kids against kids aka as the best Acadmeny players. So a big fucker like Carroll is going to dominate but put him against blokes who have a bit nouse, bulk & are bigger than him & he struggled. Not usually Academy players at Spurs, more often than not the youngsters who left the Academy last summer but haven't yet broken into the first team squad. Spurs played top of the table Villa tonight and played really well for a change to win 3-0. Pity Brummie isn't about now! Out of interest the teams were: Spurs: Button; Gunter, Archibald-Henville, Rocha, Martin; Parrett (Fraser-Allen, 50), Martin, Rose, Taarabt; Pekhart, Dawkins (Kasim, 82) Unused subs: Jansson, C Butcher, Cox Aston Villa: Sorensen; Hogg (Forrester, 66), Lichaj, Lund, Earls; Routledge, Salifou, D Bellon, Y Bellon (Albrighton, 59); Clancy (Bradley, 73), Berger Unused sub: Bevan May have overplayed the Acadmeny kid line slightly but the reseve teams nowadays are a lot younger to what these they used to be. Very true. With established average players costing millions, it makes a lot of sense to try to bring the kids on, if they make the grade all well and good, if they don't then they're a saleable asset (hopefully) to a Championship side or suchlike. But has it not become a beefed up junior league rather than a step to the first team. It depends on the club's philosophy on the youngsters and whether the manager is prepared to give them a go, but I do accept your point as the majority of clubs won't give their kids the opportunity to show what they can do in the first team. I suppose I get a bit of a distorted picture with Spurs' division, which also include Villa, West Ham and Arsenal, all of which, along with Spurs, do try to bring youngsters through. Ramos and Poyet were there tonight and apparently have seen enough of Danny Rose to be probably adding him to some squads this season with a view to making him a regular squad member next season. He has played well whenever I've seen him, tonight everything Spurs did went through Rose and Taarabt, looked very impressive, as did 16 year old Dean Parrett until he got a knock and was substituted. Ironically, tonight there were more experienced players on the pitch than I've seen in a long time. Spurs had Rocha (I won't count Gunter) and Villa had Sorensen, Routledge and Berger, that doesn't happen too often. which clubs have a "philosophy" of bringing youngsters through ? every manager of any team will give players the chance if they think the player is worth it.

n'zogbia with a prelude to birmingham.

before clicking into this thread i thought "fucking stupid,trying to replace like for like" then i lookd at the two players in question and take it back. i'm not one to say "told you so" or owt like that but.....you know theres a "but" coming...but they were "the" midfielders" not as today attacking or defensive...they done both and read the game to cover for others (and others of those teams done it for them). team players in a team game.

I don´t see any problem to throw in a young guy. I have seen it thousands of times and still sees it. it is just bullshit. I don't completely disagree with you, I'm just saying that neither you nor I is Kevin Keegan and obviously he has some reservations about throwing Carroll in. it's easy,you throw in the young kid if you think he's capable. (what would you know anyway at that distance eh oldtype?) (you've probably seen about 30mins less of him than i have)

once saw a fat horrid mag punch a kid (15?) in grimsby,one of the boxing day games (early 80's),then another mag grabbed him,told him he was out of order,cleaned him out with 2 punches.

Quite possibly the only man in history to transfer from Sevilla to Walsall. you really ought to take a look round the lower leagues for such transfers....maybe not sevilla but some big names let there cast offs go to leagues 1 & 2

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=33368.0 one day i'll get round to leicester and bournemouth

it's easy...those that know the game better than you and I watch. I have heard the same about brayson,chopra,allon,robinson etc. and none of those really proved us wrong in letting them go. FWIW (and it's worth little) ameobi looked twice the player carroll is in his first few camoes.

He had a better second half as did both teams, Carol covered a lot of ground and has a very good change of speed, he actually beat the Everton keeper to one ball which he really shouldn't have got anywhere near because of his starting position. does he look a lot more confident at that level as when i've seen him in the first team and at preston he looks a slightly hyper gangly teen ?