leffe186

Do you like anything? Himself and his predictions that always (rarely) come true. Oh yeah, I forgot: Can I un-brace now? No, not quite yet. Stay braced. I must confess, I never even considered bracing .

As one of the rubbishes?

Speaking as on outsider, I have absolutely no idea what your off-season transfers are going to be like. You could conceivably end up selling/releasing a dozen players, and getting another dozen in. Keeping Pardew will be an insane decision.

Strong Pochettino-to-Spurs rumours tonight.

http://talksport.com/football/pitch-meet-footballs-greatest-ever-pitch-invaders-14051491188 The audio is hard work at times, despite them sounding like my grandma and (late) grandad, but the pic is ace. Even more gutted I missed this now.

Bloody hell, completely forgot that was tonight. Come on the O's. Would fucking love them to get to Wembley, just would be a pisser that I'd be missing both Ledley's testimonial and the mighty O's at Wembley.

Nope. I think he's divisive and wildly inexperienced. It does emphasize Pardew's Teflon coating though.

So he's sacked for only getting 15 points from 17 games. Points we managed in our last 17 games? 16. Pardew is also likely to outlast Sherwood. We have played 22 league games under him - and got 42 points .

The main trouble Sunderland have is that their squad really isn't very good, and will no doubt change dramatically in the post-season (contracts up, loanees leaving etc). Villa's squad isn't very good, but it's better, and for the most part it's theirs. If they don't get a new manager in then they have problems, but if they do get one in then there will be bedding-in issues. I don't see either of them doing well this coming season.

Bizarrely, I have actually met him and chatted to him at length. He's a really, really nice guy, which has actually been seen as a failing at times.

You're missing the point. We know it will work great for teams like Newcastle, Spurs etc etc. That's not why people think it's a bad idea.

Seriously? I think it's ace! Always loved the Charlie George sliding double-Vs to the opposition supporters.

He'll be too slow to get himself onside. He'll just goal-hang.

Yeah, me too. Lost interest slightly, which didn't help.

Loads of people went for Palace, Hull & Stoke to be relegated .

They don't want an extra league, they want (a) young English players to get a better grounding and/or (b) bigger clubs to get another advantage - depending upon your perspective/level of cynicism. I also don't believe that you wouldn't take an interest in NUFC B. I'd have thought you'd watch them more than NUFC A at the moment, tbh. From a purely selfish standpoint I'd love to see Spurs B, but it would destroy something more important.

Can I un-brace now?

Owt to do with having B teams in the regular football pyramid though. B teams are really a great platform to give young players experience at a professional level, and big and small teams have benefited from them alike. In Spain it sorta works (I would bar them from playing in our Second Division though), because of our football pyramid being an actual pyramid, so Segunda B is made up of 80 teams and B teams end up being a small % of the division. I believe it would be a terrible idea in England as eventually a bunch of B teams would take spots at the top of the Football League. In Spain, B teams emerged naturally as initially they were just regular teams with whom the "A" teams entered loaning agreements with. It's at least in part to do with having B teams in the regular football pyramid (although individual TV contracts are a more obvious factor). B teams are a good platform to give young players professional football...of course they are, but the teams that benefit are the ones they play for. The bigger sides. If a big team can keep all those players and give them regular football then that gives them an advantage - an inequality - over a team that does not have that opportunity. You can't pretend otherwise. With no B teams many of those players would be getting games for other teams. It might well result in better training for more youngsters and a better national team - that's what you'd expect at least. We just have to decide whether it's a price worth paying. I don't think it is. All sides have B teams. You make it look like only Barça and Real Madrid do. And despite them being currently in the Second Division, they have spent the most of their existence in Segunda B or lower (Barça B was in the 4th tier of Spanish football when Guardiola took over), alongside most of the other B teams. It's a good tool for smaller teams because they can offer pro football to youngsters that could otherwise go to Barça/Madrid academies. No - I'm fully aware that many Spanish clubs have B teams. When I talk about smaller teams I mean teams like Leyton Orient (my personal 'B' team), Oxford, Torquay etc etc, not Crystal Palace or West Brom. It's the teams in the lower divisions in England that I am inordinately proud of, and that would suffer most if we went down this road.

Owt to do with having B teams in the regular football pyramid though. B teams are really a great platform to give young players experience at a professional level, and big and small teams have benefited from them alike. In Spain it sorta works (I would bar them from playing in our Second Division though), because of our football pyramid being an actual pyramid, so Segunda B is made up of 80 teams and B teams end up being a small % of the division. I believe it would be a terrible idea in England as eventually a bunch of B teams would take spots at the top of the Football League. In Spain, B teams emerged naturally as initially they were just regular teams with whom the "A" teams entered loaning agreements with. It's at least in part to do with having B teams in the regular football pyramid (although individual TV contracts are a more obvious factor). B teams are a good platform to give young players professional football...of course they are, but the teams that benefit are the ones they play for. The bigger sides. If a big team can keep all those players and give them regular football then that gives them an advantage - an inequality - over a team that does not have that opportunity. You can't pretend otherwise. With no B teams many of those players would be getting games for other teams. It might well result in better training for more youngsters and a better national team - that's what you'd expect at least. We just have to decide whether it's a price worth paying. I don't think it is.

Obviously this. It's simple: adopting this will benefit a handful of the top clubs and destroy a very powerful aspect of our game - perhaps the last remaining facet that we can be truly proud of - the strength of the grassroots, and the communities that small clubs provide a focal point for. Or we can choose not to do it.

FFS.

Shola will have his shiny new contract.

Sounds like they're all singing and dancing to me?

Toure taking the absolute piss.