Unbelievable

If things had gone a bit more against us, we could have been relegated this season. And there is two or three players from our team, that I would welcome into our team with open arms.

I read something the other day about why Norway's youth team is doing so well -- which was a surprise to me, as I don't follow it closely. Or at all. The claim was that it's due to the economic crisis, which for some reason struck Norwegian football hard (which is true), despite the fact that the overall economy is doing spectacularly well compared to the rest of Europe. The result is that instead of clubs bringing in foreign mercenaries looking for a stepping stone toward the bigger leagues, they have to rely on their own youth development. I don't think the same applies to England. Good English players are still more expensive than foreign players, especially at premier league level. Just look at NUFC. Although youth development was one of Ashley's stated goals, the players are mostly French. A similar thing applies to Holland. Foreign players in the Eredivisie have to earn a certain minimum salary (not spectacularly high for a professional footballer, but still. Believe it is around 200k/year), so often it is more attractive to pad the squad with talented youngsters rather than foreign players.

How's that not a pen..?

I'm surprised that you seem surprised if i'm honest. Also does this Dawson have any relation to the Tottenham one? I am. You have the best league in the world domestically. Some of the best international managers and coaches have come to work in your country. The facilities are top notch everywhere in the country. You have a fairly big population and football is without doubt the number 1 sport. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a country like Norway, or even Holland, should be taking the p*ss out of you. You guys, however, have much more humility. You, and indeed nearly all other countries, have realised to get anywhere you need to go right to grass-roots level. Top notch facilities mean the square root of f*** all in the long-run. What matters is the right brand of football being played. Something the FA are doing f*** all to fix. I wouldn't say Dutch people have much humility, we're known for being loud and arrogant knobs normally.. I am also not entirely sure what this "right brand of football" has to do with the FA. Yes, I appreciate Pearce shouldn't still be in a job, but beyond that, you have clubs like Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs always looking for talent all over the world, but certainly in your own country as well. Surely, these clubs have some of the best staff and facilities in the world? I've been hearing these sort of noises for years and years, it was probably already said before many of these guys out there on the pitch right now were born. How is it possible that you never manage to produce a successful team?

I'm surprised that you seem surprised if i'm honest. Also does this Dawson have any relation to the Tottenham one? I am. You have the best league in the world domestically. Some of the best international managers and coaches have come to work in your country. The facilities are top notch everywhere in the country. You have a fairly big population and football is without doubt the number 1 sport. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a country like Norway, or even Holland, should be taking the p*ss out of you. Money > longevity. Not sure I understand what you mean?

I'm surprised that you seem surprised if i'm honest. Also does this Dawson have any relation to the Tottenham one? I am. You have the best league in the world domestically. Some of the best international managers and coaches have come to work in your country. The facilities are top notch everywhere in the country. You have a fairly big population and football is without doubt the number 1 sport. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a country like Norway, or even Holland, should be taking the piss out of you.

My God, you are absolutely terrible

So glad I'm not watching this...

Ouch..

Oh dear..

This a friendly?

The Bank of England controls the printing of money and guess what, it's a nationalised company. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The physical printing of money may be controlled by the BoE, the creation of money certainly isn't (only a small percentage of the total sum of money is in the form of notes nowadays). The BoE was set up as a private bank to be a lender to government in 1694, given a royal charter, and apparently nationalised in 1946, some 250 years later. Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that, much in the same way the Federal Reserve does in the US, the central bank looks after the interests of its founders first and foremost, not the general public. Apologies also for the continued OT posts. Maybe this stuff deserves its own thread in Chat..?

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start. The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway. It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money. They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows. So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks! The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks. Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing. Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't f***ing create money at off thin air as you believe they can. So gullible.. Firstly, banks can create money even if they don't actually print the notes. Secondly, who do you think "owns" or "directs" the central banks? Forget it. You're an absolute cretin. Another one for the ignore list. What!? You don't understand how banking works, so I try to explain it to you, and that makes me a cretin? Alright son, bury your head in the sand... Government debt is owned to the public FFS

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start. The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway. It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money. They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows. So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks! The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks. Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing. Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't f***ing create money at off thin air as you believe they can. So gullible.. Firstly, banks can create money even if they don't actually print the notes. Secondly, who do you think "owns" or "directs" the central banks?

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start. The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway. It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money. They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows. So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

Most of UK government debt is owned by the public. The public who is also in ever increasing debt? Unless you believe all those people with mortgages have savings that exceed those loans, in which case it begs the question why they would take out a loan (mortgage) in the first place...

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

True, without a bank I and everyone else would be mugged on pay day every month, without a bank I will never be able to buy a house, without a bank I couldn't afford to insure my car. Without the BOE students wouldn't be able to afford to go to uni. Banks are crucial to our society, however it is this fact that makes them untouchable. No, Governments and Regulators allowed them to get away with murder and made too large to fail. Just like how all these tax avoiders are getting away without paying tax because governments have allowed them to do so. Governments are at the leash of banks, much in the same way nearly every company or individual in the "civilised" world is. They have hardly any power over them; in fact the reverse is true.

So, so gullible. Not saying the governments, or indeed us, as in bank customers, aren't partly to blame, and neither do I want to condone the business practices of Wonga in any way, shape or form, but this concept that banks are doing society a service rather than leaching on it, would be frankly laughable, if it wasn't so tragic that most people can't see them for what they are and actually believe that, without banks in their current form, there couldn't be prosperity or even happiness.

IMO A bank ain't worse than a company that prays on poverty? (See: Dresden's comment) Plus see the posts in the other thread RE: SW/Bolton. IMO these lot are worse than gambling/drink companies but I may be on my own there. Just because the bank manager smiles and shakes your hand doesn't mean he doesn't work for a bunch of crooks! Barclays constantly send me letters to get into huge debt with them, at least Wonga only want to do me over small amounts IF I'm stupid enough to go them Banks have existed for 100's of years. They provide loans / financial products at an affordable rate unlike Pay Day Loans. Won't be so affordable if they kick you and many others out of "your" house(s) for "money" that they so kindly lent you that didn't even exist before you signed their loan agreement. Erm, no one in this country has been repossessed because of money being lent that didn't exist. You only get repossessed if you fail to pay your mortgage and their's government schemes to help with that as well. Erm, everybody who has ever had a loan with a bank has borrowed money that didn't exist beforehand. Everybody who has ever deposited money in a bank has provided the bank with the means to multiply this money 9-fold out of nothing. If this concept is alien to you, I advise you to study the fractional reserve banking system a little more closely before stating that banks are only providing a service at an affordable rate.

IMO A bank ain't worse than a company that prays on poverty? (See: Dresden's comment) Plus see the posts in the other thread RE: SW/Bolton. IMO these lot are worse than gambling/drink companies but I may be on my own there. Just because the bank manager smiles and shakes your hand doesn't mean he doesn't work for a bunch of crooks! Barclays constantly send me letters to get into huge debt with them, at least Wonga only want to do me over small amounts IF I'm stupid enough to go them Banks have existed for 100's of years. They provide loans / financial products at an affordable rate unlike Pay Day Loans. Won't be so affordable if they kick you and many others out of "your" house(s) for "money" that they so kindly lent you that didn't even exist before you signed their loan agreement.

IMO A bank ain't worse than a company that prays on poverty? (See: Dresden's comment) Plus see the posts in the other thread RE: SW/Bolton. IMO these lot are worse than gambling/drink companies but I may be on my own there. banks don't prey on poverty ? When was the last time a payday loan company screwed the entire global economy, plunged millions into poverty, destroyed the livelihoods of countless families and sent governments running to the IMF while throwing the most vulnerable members of society on the scrapheap? A CCJ for non payment of a £300 payday loan doesn't seem so bad compared to the damage the selfish, greedy, economic vandals have caused. Jesus wept at those usury practicing, immoral crooks indeed. Well educated boy you are. The world would still be in the dark ages without banks, shows what a clown you are. Maybe not so well educated after all.

IMO A bank ain't worse than a company that prays on poverty? (See: Dresden's comment) Plus see the posts in the other thread RE: SW/Bolton. IMO these lot are worse than gambling/drink companies but I may be on my own there. banks don't prey on poverty ? When was the last time a payday loan company screwed the entire global economy, plunged millions into poverty, destroyed the livelihoods of countless families and sent governments running to the IMF while throwing the most vulnerable members of society on the scrapheap? A CCJ for non payment of a £300 payday loan doesn't seem so bad compared to the damage the selfish, greedy, economic vandals have caused. Jesus wept at those usury practicing, immoral crooks indeed. Well educated boy you are.

IMO A bank ain't worse than a company that prays on poverty? (See: Dresden's comment) Plus see the posts in the other thread RE: SW/Bolton. IMO these lot are worse than gambling/drink companies but I may be on my own there. In reality, banks are far more detrimental to society, but that's probably a bit too much OT..

You'll be happy going past the group stages, seriously? You should quite comfortably have enough for every team bar possibly Spain I would have said?