Cronky

How is that any different to a referee's decision? It isn't. That's my point. The value of video replays in other sports is that they can sort out questions of fact eg was a batsman out of his crease. All you'd end up doing in football most of the time is replacing one subjective opinion with another. It wouldn't sort out an argument. It would escalate it.

It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions.

We must be talking about different things. By technique, I'm thinking of skill on the ball. A large number of his passes and crosses go astray, and his first touch is poor. If he has possession and he's got space to run into, then he can hurt defences at this level, but that's more to do with his athleticism.

I think he's brilliant technically. You're wrong.

I thought Anelka was France's best player. He's really come of age. He actually looked calm, mature and unafraid of responsibility.

It's a great game to watch when your own team has already qualified.

If he's taking the corner he can't be putting his beautifully formed features in where it hurts. He's a bottler if you ask me. Agreed. He's a poser and has left his best days behind him. The Irish look to have the measure of the task now and should win.

I can see why France have ended up in the play-offs. Good players, but they don't look like a team.

For whatever reason, NUST are keeping what cards they have very close to their chest and I'm not surprised that they didn't want to meet with Llambias. For the club it would be as much about sussing NUST's position out, as informing them about the state of the business.

I can't see Enrique ever having an international career with Spain. He's a good athlete but not good enough technically.

He's done a decent job for us so far. Those who say he's not good enough for the upper reaches of the Premiership are probably right, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

December 4th. I'm already scheduling my "World Cup draw" party. I don't get the criticism of past England teams, btw. Seems to me, other than the 2008 Euro debacle, your team has done relatively well in every major tournament. Since 1966, expectations have been very high, and getting knocked out at the quarter final has been regarded as failure. I think this time the grounds for optimism are more realistic. Quite simply we've got a better set of players than I can ever remember, and in Gerrard and Rooney we have two who really can rank with the best in the world. The other encouraging sign is we have a manager who is very strong in pushing his own ideas and ignoring all the pressure to pick this, that or the other player. Previous managers have picked players on reputation or on the basis of media bandwagons. They feared the criticism that would have come their way if they had dropped particular players and ended up losing. The pressure can also lead to managers making impulsive decisions to change formations etc Even ice-cool Mr Eriksson succumbed, after a good start. Picking Walcott for the 2006 squad, and playing Owen and Beckham in the tournament when they were clearly holding the team back were decisions borne of pressure. I don't think we do, but we appear to be more together as a team and as a unit than we have been in previous years. I suppose I'm encouraged by the fact that there's skill spread throughout the side, rather than just concentrated in a few players like Hoddle or Gazza, who are then expected to make things happen on their own. We've now got centre backs in Terry and Ferdinand, who can pass the ball, and a defensive midfield player in Barry who isn't just there to make tackles. Combine that with the really class players like Joe Cole, Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, SWP (imo) and we've got a good unit. Funnily enough, the weakest area is keeper, where usually we've been very strong. I just hope Green or Foster steps up to the mark.

How so? I was estatic when we won matches last year. Perhaps it's more of a reflection of the state of the club than of the Championship. In previous promotion campaigns, the feeling was different because it was like we were moving forward, and getting to the top division felt like a real achievement. I get the sense now that we're trying to arrest a slide, like getting promoted is just ensuring that we're back where we belong.

At the moment, this general lack of a real sense of achievement when we win games. It's like it's an extension of last season's relegation battle.

Rooney's already started taking his badges, hasn't he? Beneath that scally image, there's a good football brain. Alan Smith is a good shout. Otherwise it's difficult to say, because a lot of the best managers have suffered disappointment in their playing careers, and still have something to prove. Ledley King, maybe?

I don't think they're out to discredit Moat as a potential rival. Despite looking at potential ownership, they still have the holier-than-thou air of a protest movement, and it keeps spilling out. As above, running a protest movement and running a multi-million pound business are different matters altogether.

December 4th. I'm already scheduling my "World Cup draw" party. I don't get the criticism of past England teams, btw. Seems to me, other than the 2008 Euro debacle, your team has done relatively well in every major tournament. Since 1966, expectations have been very high, and getting knocked out at the quarter final has been regarded as failure. I think this time the grounds for optimism are more realistic. Quite simply we've got a better set of players than I can ever remember, and in Gerrard and Rooney we have two who really can rank with the best in the world. The other encouraging sign is we have a manager who is very strong in pushing his own ideas and ignoring all the pressure to pick this, that or the other player. Previous managers have picked players on reputation or on the basis of media bandwagons. They feared the criticism that would have come their way if they had dropped particular players and ended up losing. The pressure can also lead to managers making impulsive decisions to change formations etc Even ice-cool Mr Eriksson succumbed, after a good start. Picking Walcott for the 2006 squad, and playing Owen and Beckham in the tournament when they were clearly holding the team back were decisions borne of pressure.

Isnt that down to the President and the board not the people running NUST at the moment? If the club were to be run like Barca or Real Madrid (I assume they're looking at a similar model) then I would imagine a chairman (or 'president') would be elected by the fans to run the club. As Laporta was at Barcelona, or Perez who was re-elected at Real Madrid this year. Anyone running for election would surely curry favour with the fans (voters) by promising he will keep the stadium's name. No chairman/president would dare change it because he would lose the majority of votes if he did. Could you imagine a president at Real or Barca doing that? He'd be out the door straight away. The NUST are right there's no chance it would be changed because the chairman is chosen by the fans. It's not a foolproof system by any means but like most fans I like the Barca/Real model, both practically speaking and out of principle. It makes the owner accountable and gives the fans the chance to get rid if he's making a hash of things, or keep him in charge if he's doing a good job (eg Laporta who has stayed president at Barcelona for 6 years). There would be major question marks over how the club would be funded but right now the biggest question mark is whether we have a big enough fanbase to make it a reality. Geordie B has made a sound point there. Somehow the views of NUST, the overall views of 'the fans' as a whole, and the views of any Elected Board or President have all morphed into one in their statement.

A very surprising comment. Gerrard can't play attacking central midfielder? You might argue it's not his absolute best position, but to say he can't do it is ridiculous.

That'd be my team, although I might still have Barry ahead of Carrick in terms of backup to Hargreaves. I find it bizarre that people wouldn't pick Heskey still, I've ranted about it a few times on here but he's been essential to the formation that we've played and has got the best out of our best players under Fabs. I'd definitely have Barry instead of Hargreaves. The man in the anchor position gets a lot of the ball and he has to be able to use it properly. That's not a bad team, but we're back to Gerrard and Lampard in midfield. It's worked recently because Gerrard has in practice been pushed forward into a 4-3-2-1, but there are problems if they're together in a 4-4-2. That midfield lacks a bit of pace. I'd like to see Joe Cole back in the team, and I'd try him in Gerrard's role, push Gerrard into Lampard's role, and drop Lampard. We need the pace of SWP / Lennon / Walcott out wide.

I know what you mean, but if you're not expecting a return then it isn't an investment... it's a charity donation. And I don't think that's what NUST are asking for, is it? its a combination of both tbh, we're not expecting people to just hand over their money and say "there you go, have it" (of course if you want to then great ) but rather, "heres an investment opportunity, invest in the club you love and gain a little bit of interest while you're on". The big difference of course is you can get your original money back from an investment not from a donation. I see what you're saying, I know there will be a big emotional and/or charitable aspect to most of the investment. What I meant was more that it was a bit flippant to suggest that nobody will need or expect anything back at any time. I agree, for me its an emotional thing, I wouldnt hand over £1500 as a donation but when I know its an investment and I'll get it back then Im happy to do it, even if its not increased by much, the fact it has increased at all would just be a little (tiny) bonus. It's not been clear what structure NUST are aiming for, and this post makes me even more confused. If you're guaranteed to get your original money back (with or without interest), then it's effectively a loan. In which case, who actually owns the club and is responsible for the finances? If on the other hand, you become part of the ownership of the club through your £1500, then it's a share. You have to sell a share, and it may decline in value. If there's a third way, or if I've got the above wrong, please you or someone else say. Actually, it seems to me there's a simpler way of looking at it. In the unlikely event of a sale taking place, you can't be guaranteed your money back because Mr Ashley will have it. The only way to recover that outlay would be if the club were later sold on, or if you sold your share. In which case, like a plc, the value may go up or down. Yeah?

You don't warrant any kind of ans if you're only risking a tenner. Raid the piggybank fella. Are you planning to raid the piggybank, Parky?

There seems to be a problem in Darius Vassell's Turkish club. He's been turfed out of the hotel because his club hasn't paid the bills, and there's a lot of confusion. If he becomes a free agent, he'd be a good signing. I've always thought he was under-rated.

I know what you mean, but if you're not expecting a return then it isn't an investment... it's a charity donation. And I don't think that's what NUST are asking for, is it? its a combination of both tbh, we're not expecting people to just hand over their money and say "there you go, have it" (of course if you want to then great ) but rather, "heres an investment opportunity, invest in the club you love and gain a little bit of interest while you're on". The big difference of course is you can get your original money back from an investment not from a donation. I see what you're saying, I know there will be a big emotional and/or charitable aspect to most of the investment. What I meant was more that it was a bit flippant to suggest that nobody will need or expect anything back at any time. I agree, for me its an emotional thing, I wouldnt hand over £1500 as a donation but when I know its an investment and I'll get it back then Im happy to do it, even if its not increased by much, the fact it has increased at all would just be a little (tiny) bonus. It's not been clear what structure NUST are aiming for, and this post makes me even more confused. If you're guaranteed to get your original money back (with or without interest), then it's effectively a loan. In which case, who actually owns the club and is responsible for the finances? If on the other hand, you become part of the ownership of the club through your £1500, then it's a share. You have to sell a share, and it may decline in value. If there's a third way, or if I've got the above wrong, please you or someone else say.

Are you one of us getting excited though ? Just interested. Nope.