Theregulars

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league. Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories. Comparison is useless imo. Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap. I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output. I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable. Bring me back a tasteful souvenir! I agree with the idea 100% and would back it only if it was unilateral across Europe and it was regulated properly. I do believe it will happen but only when the football bubble bursts. Would a ladyboy do as a gift? Both you and Ian make a good point there, it's incomparable in that American sports are effectively restricted to their own country. If we had a cap and others didn't we'd lose all the best players - it would likely take a massive coercive effort from UEFA, FIFA and even the EU to achieve, and set aside massive monetary gain for the betterment of the game as a spectacle and a product in the long-term. It's therefore probably too philanthropical a vision to implement in reality. Hell yes Neesy, a ladyboy would make my summer. Perhaps also a skull from the Cambodian killing fields.

"Another bite at the cherry".

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league. Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories. Comparison is useless imo. Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap. I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output. I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable. Bring me back a tasteful souvenir!

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

If they bid enough he'll go, that's not even debatable.

You were saying? :fwap: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/08/article-1285048-09F2DF05000005DC-791_468x878.jpg Who's the bloke in the dress? Bruce's daughter tbh. The contract with Sunderland is a modern-day dowry.

His account on here. Winning.

Right Wearside, I'm calling it. I'm willing to bet you some sort of stipulation that we finish above Team Incest next year. Suggestions welcome, although I'm not going to drink piss.

Phil Neville's been pretty handy at Everton.

I'm ordering the shit out of that.

I really, really hope he scores more for us than Carroll does for liverpool, and actually think it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are s****. Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy. I suppose the shopping is ok, mind you, you cant find a Netto anywhere, personally i would bomb London completely flat, separate it from the rest of England, sail it off the coast of Sweden and scuttle the fecker. Really?

Is he perhaps not arguing the undoubted merit of spending the money but saying that, for good or for bad, we're not going to spend lots, and the results of the policy thus far have been encouraging (aside from whatever the financial reality is)? Out of interest which are the types of players, with estimated prices, that we should be competing for? Let's say N'Zogbia as current example figures to go for 8-12m, for instance. Let's say we lodge that bid, only a club higher up the league without a wage limit comes in, he's far more likely to ship out there. Instead of competing for big-name signings which aren't likely to win a) due to the wage restrictions (whether or otherwise), the fact we don't offer European football, the fact the public perception is that we don't treat players or managers particularly well and the fact as soon as you play well you may be shipped out (for instance, this may be a problem for players wanting stability). We aren't an attractive proposition in my opinion, outside our brilliant stadium, unrivalled fanbase and strong history. Therefore, I'm happy to see us target players other seems don't be following on the basis of clandestine and, thus far results-wise, fairly high-quality scouting, if it means we can get a player of similar, if not the same or better quality, without a more-than-likely defeat in any bidding war. If we happen to save some cash in the process to be put back into all aspects of the club - the amount of promising youngsters we have means better facilities, better coaching, just as examples - that's a helpful by-product. If we are massively saddled by debt due to ludicrous contracts thrown at disinterested players, then this is all the more acceptable. I'm not disagreeing with your point, of course I believe we should be a top club and would love for us to compete on the transfer front, and wages is the prime if not only real factor in achieving that. But at the same time I wouldn't say it would necessarily be a massive improvement over what we have now - a sensible, business-minded approach which is reaping dividends slowly as part of a process and in a much more sustainable way than before. Much as high wages are the reality to attract the top players, prudent business practice the reality to ensuring the long-term survival and viability of a football club (even though, again, this is is more detrimental to success than otherwise - see Arsenal). I suppose, to the detriment of fans, football being a business means that you have to find different measures to gauge, achieve and sustain success.

I was struggling for the words to sum up how much I despise Alan Smith. Thank you, Ronaldo.

I like how people are dismissing him as merely a UEFA cup player when if we somehow got into the UEFA cup this year that would represent a monumental achievement.

No-one on this board has seen this supposed "buy-out" clause. It may very well only permit initial talks. Eh? How would that work in any way Easy. Clubs are not obligated to allow their players to talk with any clubs whilst they are under contract. It is entirely at their discretion. An "interest" clause is just that. From what I can gather, no money changes hands at that stage. It gives the selling club an opportunity to test the buying club's resolve without forcing them to sell. Are you actually saying these words? Bloody hell you're a weirdo if you believe any of that. Yeh clubs will always be allowed to speak to players - to deny them to do so (within Europe) breaches free movement of persons law.

Yep: fired, arrested and a puff. All 3.

Primarily because I'd be fired and arrested.

Interesting update: I work in the Wimbledon Media centre and ran into Martin Samuel this morning when he came to pick up his order of play. Said I was a toon fan and wanted to pick him up on his article - he was very affable and perfectly willing to discuss. I forwarded to him that Nolan leaving was more due to the ridiculous contract West Ham were prepared to give him, us cashing in when he would be most valuable and that he would no longer be first choice due to Cabaye - he insists Newcastle offered him only £5000 a week left and were willing to go five years. He also insists that there is no way that Cabaye would be picked ahead of Nolan - he called him "untested", "lightweight" and believed he was bought as an understudy for this year to replace Nolan in the future. Maintained that West Ham were a more attractive club to play for due their preferable ownership (really).

But ultimately do you not think that, if his departure is inevitable when his contract winds down, we should at least look to get a fee in for him? I'd rather he stayed too but you have to look at this with business eyes and future finances. It's better to recoup some money - especially when he'd command a decent transfer fee - than nothing. Although I recognise the counter-argument of counter-balancing any transfer fee by what he would contribute this year on the pitch. What annoys me is that, if he just showed a little bit of patience and stuck with us, he could contribute to us being a team who could actually be a match for Arsenal in a game and help us build something over a few years when we could almost be as good as them. For me, at least, that would be a much more rewarding thing to look back on, but I'm not him and nor am I on the fringes of the Spanish national team (their loss tbh...)

He's fine. It doesn't worry me when he's in our team, he's flawed, but I wouldn't look to be shipping him. If we bought someone else, however, i would trust judging by our recent standard of acquisitions that they'd be at least as good.

Geoff Shreeves' inability to ask a single insightful question in the history of his career.

I hate it when people mix up 'there' and 'their'. It's so fundamentally inexcusable.

To me the fact that he's willing to drop down a division suggests that he himself doesn't believe he can have a repeat year like the season just gone.

So much for building a squad