Mowen

Berbatov's possibly the classiest player in the prem. Looks like it all comes so naturally to him, and he's completely at ease at all times.

The loan system works well as it does now and have for ages. Nowt wrong with it. End of discussion. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. Pure greed innit.

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 fucking 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. Is there any clarification anywhere of there being a £9m payout? I haven't seen any. That's what he's sueing the club for. Matter of public record. Last I saw it was getting settled for nothing like that amount out of court.

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 fucking 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. Is there any clarification anywhere of there being a £9m payout? I haven't seen any.

its a lad, mate! Welcome to the joke.

"Poster with the worst taste"

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.

John Bostock and Theo Walcott were both snapped up age 16. Not sure about Sinclair, but I assume similar. If a club believes it will be a benefit to sign someone that young, fair play. If they're signing them indiscriminantly hoping they'll improve having been shipped out on loan, I'm not so impressed.

It's because of the loan system If they weren't good enough to get a game at a club, they'd go somewhere where they were good enough, get a proper game and get some real TLC as they developed. The current situation is that the big clubs snap up all kids indiscriminantly, fuck them all off on loan and hope they get a good one back to justify their 'investment'. It's all bollocks. Rich get richer. You have a point, but it's not just down to the clubs, we can't absolve the players totally from all responsibility, they don't have to sign up with those clubs when they know they're not going to get a game. For example, I have no respect whatsoever for players like Shaun Wright Philips, Steve Sidwell and so-on, who signed for teams like Chelsea and put grabbing a quick buck before their own professional development, when they claim that they didn't get a chance. It's bollocks, they knew they were going to end up in the reserves, everyone knew it and so it came to pass. They can't then whinge about it afterwards. I absolutely agree with you on those players, I'm looking younger though. 'Big 4' all having 10+ youngsters out on loan for instance, there's no way they need all those players. They just take them because they can. It's a shame imo, very rare that class / exciting youngsters are at a lower club beyond 16 these days.

You won't believe how few caps Ryan Giggs has for Wales.

Nelson - how's your arm feeling? Great! Excellent, take this forfeit note to the umpire, we can't play without Bart! Slightly paraphrased (made up) but a fucking brilliant episode.

It's because of the loan system If they weren't good enough to get a game at a club, they'd go somewhere where they were good enough, get a proper game and get some real TLC as they developed. The current situation is that the big clubs snap up all kids indiscriminantly, fuck them all off on loan and hope they get a good one back to justify their 'investment'. It's all bollocks. Rich get richer.

The loan system works well as it does now and have for ages. Nowt wrong with it. End of discussion. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to)

LW

And can you blame them? The main reason people get involved in coaching in my experience is to spend more time with a relative (even HTT says this is why he did it at first) and once you've done that it's a difficult relationship to manage. It isn't how they should go about it, but I reckon if someone's taking the time to put the hours in you can't really begrudge them picking their kid. Brilliantly satirised by the simpsons, of course.

He doesn't have quite so many army medals mind

Pretty sure we had just as many under Sam as anyone else.

Aye an age limit would be good to, cracking idea look at Chelski with Alex he was loaned out for ages before they called on his services, maybe a time scale limet to, no more than 1 full season at any 1 club and no more than three loan seasons tops.. Alex was so they could get around work permit rules iirc.

The really class young players would be in most teams starting 11s by the age of 18. It would encourage more equality imo as the level below that would have to join smaller clubs to get first team football and develop as a player. Just a thought.

If I understand you right, that's what I don't like about it. If you sign someone they should be yours. You're preventing any other club from having rights to them / owning them so you should be responsible for them. It encourages the bigger clubs to do what they want and the rich get richer.

Why? What do you think about my points re: it being impossible for smaller clubs to attract promising youngsters? edit: and as for the second part, why do you think they signed Manucho then? Man U signed Manucho for the same reason they sigged Dong Fangzhou or whatever the hell his name was. To create a foothold among African supporters and such. The man is nearly 26, he will never develop into a Man U level player. Yeah, I figured, sorry was replying to Nixon asking why Hull signed Manucho if the replacement was as likely to score. I'll edit for clarity.

Why? What do you think about my points re: it being impossible for smaller clubs to attract promising youngsters? edit: and as for the second part, why do you think they loaned Manucho then?

Unless the money is more evenly spread, then there is no real reason for the players to want to go to smaller clubs. There is no problem with the loan system. They'd go there to play regular football and to develop as a player if there was no loan system.

He was, it just took us that long to find him out. I had a massive argument recently about Parker being no more than average...you should have waded in to back me up you fecker!