Taylor Swift

28 vs 26

Scores. I wanted him to miss.

Drogba to take the penalty.

Chelsea penalty. Merson will be right

Maybe one day we'll have a day like this.

Drogba with nearly the most stunning goal but Pollitt saves it. Lampard crosses, Drogba scores.

Drogba will get the 100th.

Anelka, 4-0. Superb hit. Fantastic goal.

Two more away from 100 goals in the league.

Kalou, 3-0.

Get him snapped up. Chelsea this season.

135 goals in 54 games

Lampard, 2-0. Let the party begin.

Penalty, Chelsea. Caldwell sent off.

Malouda was offside, for sure. Chelsea seem nervous.

Anelka! Champions.

Drogba hit 26 out of 95, which is 27%. Rooney hit 26 out of 82, which is 32%, but since 5 of his goals were penalties, the % of his goals for the team drops down to 26%. I'm not saying penalties don't count, but Man Utd have other, good penalty takers so I'm assuming that those penalties would have been scored if someone else had taken them.

It's not like you did any better, Messi. You picked Rooney because of his age when the question was who had the better season

Both have scored 26 goals in the league. Rooney's scored 5 of his 26 goals through penalties, so only 21 of his goals have come through open play. I'm not sure how many of his non-league goals have come through penalties. Drogba hasn't taken a penalty all season.

Everyone would be in the shit if there was a recession in the near future because this time footblal would be severely impacted by low attendances and the subsequent decrease in revenue. But I suppose the clubs in the Premiership will be fine because the new tv deal will last for a few years, enough to last a recession.

I voted Drogba, by the way. Their counting stats are virtually indistinguishable, which leaves only what their teams have won or are about to win as the measure that separates the two, and Drogba obviously has a massive advantage in that respect.

33 goals in 42 matches for Drogba. 34 goals in 43 matches for Rooney. However, Drogba's two matches away from winning the Premiership and FA Cup. Rooney, on the other hand, has a League Cup.

New contract for Hughton?

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't. Haha, you're either being disingenuous or incredibly naive. If he converts the debt into shares, nothing happens. The club no longer has any debt, but the club's registered capital increases, which means that Ashley can't pull out money from the club. If he wants to pull out money from the club, he'd have to do it as through a dividend, which is subjected to a tax, or as a director getting a loan off the company, which means that he has to pay the company interest, which is again, taxable. By simply having a loan which he's not charging interest for, he can pull out money without paying any taxes. If you take that in the wrong way and simply think that this is a ploy for him to take money out of the company, then you're only partially right, because if whatever he takes out is going to be subjected to a tax, he'd just take out more (or increase his asking price in the event of a sale) to make up for it.

Yeah he could use interest charges to offset an operating profit for tax purposes (on the off chance we ever generate one), but it's a side issue. The club won't be sold with on-demand loans outstanding to Ashley unless the purchaser is the world's biggest numpty. But then he'd have to pay the profit for that interest, no? That's my understanding of it. The main point: there's absolutely no difference in us owing Ashley money or him converting that debt into equity. It's all the same, except for accounting purposes, because he owns 100% of the club. The club is his. If the club owe money to him, he owes himself, which just negates things. If he sells the club with debt, then the asking price of the club will be x - debt. If he has converted that debt into equity, the asking price would simply b x. It's not rocket science, man. And if Ashley does plan on charging interest, then again, it makes no difference. When you pay yourself money, nothin really changes hands. He's still supporting the club, he's still forking over money to fund day-to-day activities. If the club ever makes a profit, he may charge interest because that's the best way to get money out of the club legally but it's all the same since he already owns the club. It's just changing the pocket that his money is in, but trying to do it with the government skimming the least amount off it.