wacko

:jesuswept: Who cares about drinking when fans get hassled for standing ffs? Watching a match in this country is an absolute joke, and fans are the last thing on the FA's agenda. well said. I hate the way fans are treated. It just makes me so jealous seeing places like Germany have such freedom in the stands.....English fans are treated like cattle. I love watching the footie in Germany. You can stand, it only costs €10 or €15 to get in, and they even have guys carrying huge barrels of beer on their backs (they look like ghostbusters) to give you a refill without your having to miss any of the game. Also, a goal invariably results in a "beer shower". Great stuff.

With a four-game limit, what's the benefit of a loan for either the player or the borrowing club? The player will have barely started getting used to his teammates before the loan is over. Might as well scrap the system altogether. If selling clubs didn't demand such ridiculous fees for English players, there probably wouldn't be this situation.

Harsh on Rafa like. Oh, you...

What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference.

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) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. On the other hand, Fergie wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't try to grab as many quality kids as possible, cheaply. He'd be daft not to given the massive premium on English players. Under the current system, the majority just leave later rather than sooner. I think you're missing the poing I'm making. Absolutely Fergie wants to sign as many quality kids as possible. I'm saying that the current loaning system makes it far easier for him to do this, as they know they won't even be at the disadvantage of not getting regular first team football as and when they need it. It gives kids little to no reason not to join ManU (or Liverpool, Chelsea etc.), giving them yet another advantage. I understand your point, but I think there are better ways of making that difference rather than restricting player movement. They could start by spreading the money around a bit more evenly. 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) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. i think you're talking complete shite like. if there was no loan system in place it would do more harm than good imo. think mowen makes a good point like, was a big thing in italy if i recall - first sign of some kid doing well he gets bought up by one of the big boys and immediately loaned out somewhere else loan system is good but it should be reformed, i.e. if you sign a player and want to loan him within (say) 2 years of that then he can only go back to his original club or something, not saying that's the answer but allowing clubs with the most money to sign the highest rated bairns and loan them off bites imo Selling clubs can have that written in the contract of sale if they want. Why the need to require it? I think most players have a better chance of joining a club with regular CL football by NOT moving to a big club as a youngster. Not many regulars in the Chelsea, Liverpool or Man Utd sides who were snaffled up and loaned out as kids. Arsenal probably has a couple. It might even be more useful as a source of income. Buy a 17-year-old for a few hundred thousand. Polish him up a bit, give him a couple of games in Europe, and if he's not good enough, sell him for up to 5 or 6 million.

Summer 2004, 4 point between us. We got Rafa, you got Souness. Blame the World's Worst Manager and the idiots that hired him despite his constant, repeated failure.

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) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. On the other hand, Fergie wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't try to grab as many quality kids as possible, cheaply. He'd be daft not to given the massive premium on English players. Under the current system, the majority just leave later rather than sooner.

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) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. How is it greed?

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.

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). In your example, presumably the other relegation-threatened clubs C and D could also have tried to sign the player on loan, though it'd definitely be a worry if, say, Man Utd loaned out half a dozen players to one club.

fuck does that matter? see southgate, gareth & roeder, glenn for more information That's true. They were all missing the UEFA Pro licence for European competition, weren't they? If they can get a bye, Shearer should be a shoo-in. Sign him up!

Does Shearer have his coaching badges now, then?

He waxes/shaves his hands these days. Have a look next time he's on. Back in his GMTV days he used to present whilst half way through a werewolf transformation. I'll have a closer look. Only see the ungodly shite on youtube these days, so I hadn't noticed his hair gloves had gone.

Richard Keys should be garroted with a rope made of the hair from the back of his monkey hands.

Like what? Whatever they pay you even if it's a free benefit such as medical insurance is still on your payslip as its taxable and taken off your tax allowance. They could give you a car but that is still a benefit, the only way they could do it is if they say they'd won a competition or something and even then it's still a grey area. Weyhey, everyone's won the weekely Man City players lotto heres 400k each. For example, as the billionaire club owner, I could give you a selection of fine wines after every game. A thoughtful gift, befitting a billionaire showing his gratitude, and worth a metric ton of cash over a season. Perhaps a vintage car for each player if the team wins a cup.

What do you mean for this mate? Just the little square images you'd use to directly link into the forum through the Touch/iPhone? favicon-esque image 57*57 pixels called apple-touch-icon.png in the root directory. then when u bookmark this to your home screen on an ipod touch or iphone it'll show that logo. its so much better than what you get atm, which is just a logo that the iphone creates - just a tiny screenshot of the webpage. My avatar is one. I think.

Can't stand the man. Awful gobshite with no clue whatsoever.

Wouldn't you fly one if you could? Instead of 50 Cent's face, I'd have a life-size figurehead of Jordan with her top off. Marvellous.

I'd like some of what he's on.

Have pity. I mean, what else are they supposed to release on DVD? Sunderland Relegation Legends? Sunderlands Greatest Draws? Must be a nightmare being the bloke who has to come up with ideas for SAFC DVDs.

I've just always had the impression playing for England was MUCH more important to him than playing for his club. Perhaps I'm just biased.

Owen's only ever cared about his England career. He'll wait as long as possible, and whether he stays or goes will depend entirely on whether he thinks he'll be starting games. I can't see him going to a top four club, as he'll be almost guaranteed to be on the bench (if one of them is even interested), unless Capello has told him his England career is over. I guess Man City would be his ideal move, but I don't think they'll be interested in him, either.

Nah, i have to give him a lot of credit tbh. He's made some superb substitutions since he took over. Taking Hutton off and putting Gunter on when we're 4-2 down to our rivals with 10 minutes to go, looked like a wtf decision, but Gunter was excellent in that game. Putting Lennon on today and against Arsenal was excellent. Putting Hutton on at half time today was a great decision as he overlapped Bentley and offered width. Putting Pav on to partner Bent today was another good decision (altough it was pretty obvious he shouuld do that). Giving modric a free role is another excellent decision. Still would never have thought you would have over come Liverpool who have been looking capable of shutting anyone out. Maybe you caught Liverpool being too cocky thinking they have cracked this premiership lark just because they beat Chelsea last week. We should have wrapped the game up when we had them under the cosh. We had our chances, didn't take them, and paid for it. Must admit I was surprised at the result. Heard the first 20 minutes or so on 5Live and it sounded like an absolute stroll for your lads. Very uncharacteristic of you so far this season to lose it like you did We had the game totally under control for the vast majority of it. We had Spurs pinned back, had a couple come back off the post and limited them to barely half-chances. We couldn't capitalise on the advantage, and paid for it dearly. Nah, i have to give him a lot of credit tbh. He's made some superb substitutions since he took over. Taking Hutton off and putting Gunter on when we're 4-2 down to our rivals with 10 minutes to go, looked like a wtf decision, but Gunter was excellent in that game. Putting Lennon on today and against Arsenal was excellent. Putting Hutton on at half time today was a great decision as he overlapped Bentley and offered width. Putting Pav on to partner Bent today was another good decision (altough it was pretty obvious he shouuld do that). Giving modric a free role is another excellent decision. Still would never have thought you would have over come Liverpool who have been looking capable of shutting anyone out. Maybe you caught Liverpool being too cocky thinking they have cracked this premiership lark just because they beat Chelsea last week. We should have wrapped the game up when we had them under the cosh. We had our chances, didn't take them, and paid for it. Benitez mad some stupid substitutions which helped tbh. Keane was looking lively and should have been kept on (at least for a bit longer). Riera also had a good game and should have been kept on (altough he was looking tired). Neither of your subs made no impact wotsoever. Come to think of it, you lot played some cracking stuff at times and no one really had a bad game (except your 2 centre backs and dossena who i think is a poor left back). Another thing, Benitez game plan on Modric was first class. Getting Maschereno to stick with him throughout the game was the way teams should play against us tbh. Agree totally about Dossena. Thing about the subs is that we didn't really need to shake it up as we were bossing the game, and who were we supposed to bring on to shake it up, anyway? Torres wasn't even in the squad. Babel scared the crap out of Chelsea when he came on at the Bridge, but didn't do anything of note today. Our game plan didn't need changing as such, it was more a matter of a change in the momentum of the game. Credit to Spurs for forcing their own luck, as they did against Arsenal. Carragher own goal, Clichy slip. Two strokes of bad luck, and Spurs took advantage of them to the max.

Nah, i have to give him a lot of credit tbh. He's made some superb substitutions since he took over. Taking Hutton off and putting Gunter on when we're 4-2 down to our rivals with 10 minutes to go, looked like a wtf decision, but Gunter was excellent in that game. Putting Lennon on today and against Arsenal was excellent. Putting Hutton on at half time today was a great decision as he overlapped Bentley and offered width. Putting Pav on to partner Bent today was another good decision (altough it was pretty obvious he shouuld do that). Giving modric a free role is another excellent decision. Still would never have thought you would have over come Liverpool who have been looking capable of shutting anyone out. Maybe you caught Liverpool being too cocky thinking they have cracked this premiership lark just because they beat Chelsea last week. We should have wrapped the game up when we had them under the cosh. We had our chances, didn't take them, and paid for it.

Sodding Spurs