Interpolic

No, I mean relative to their opponents. Hughton's team was stronger compared to the rest of the Championship than Pardew's current team is compared to the rest of the PL. Fucking Christ Almighty. What's up mate? You're stating the obvious to the extent it's pointless even posting it. If it were anything else, people would be saying Pardew should be challenging for the title.

No, I mean relative to their opponents. Hughton's team was stronger compared to the rest of the Championship than Pardew's current team is compared to the rest of the PL. Fucking Christ Almighty.

If it became a free-for-all where players could move at will then that's the end of the credibility of the sport. They know what they sign up for and it's a far better profession than most.

Imagine if players could just move around as much as they wanted, it would be fucking outrageous and it would make the sport a complete joke.

Seriously, what?

I'd say that probably happens quite often. Roeder, Robson and Keegan (twice) for us for a start. Mostly yes but the 2008 version of Keegan didn't win a game for two months after he was appointed. We were going down under Allardyce, we instead stayed up under Keegan and started playing excellent football that could have been built on if the owner wasn't such a childish, manipulative fucking arsehole. The Keegan appointment is a good example of appointing a manager and seeing the fortunes of a team change.

Right, who then? Even assuming that Ashely would welcome any managers, I can't think of many. AVB? Bielsa Ashley probably thinks that's a type of wood.

We have no injuries to attacking players at the moment, I might as well just keep repeating the point since it's not registering.

OK, let's continue bringing on Obertan when we could be bringing on Zaha instead. You're also ignoring the fact we've been exceptionally fortunate with injuries this season so far. That won't last, and there'll be shite in our first team and not shite that will improve but shite that is there to fill the numbers in our squad.

I agree you shouldn't go as far as the mackems have done but if it's a promising young player who has to gone to the biggest club in the country for £10m-15m 6 months previous, brought in to add a bit of depth to the squad in attacking positions when your owner won't spend any money then it's something to consider IMO. The reason I brought up the likes of the Lukaku at West Brom and Sturridge at Bolton situations is that leaving your squad short is a worse alternative than filling the gap in some way - Ashley seems to spend a few quid every now and then but nowhere near often enough to ensure our squad's competitive enough much of the time. I'd like to think we'll plug these gaps eventually in the way that Bolton and West Brom didn't, but it takes us forever to do so given how stubborn we are with transfers.

This. I hate it. I have lost faith in players giving a f*** and showing any loyalty so if a good one who would improve our squad becomes available on loan I would be more than happy to take them. They will f*** off as soon as someone bigger/offering more money comes along anyway so why not improve us in the short term? Would anyone have seriously turned their nose up at Lukaku on a season long loan? Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea are more than likely going to be ahead of us long term so why not take advantage of their greed? A lot of the time these players don't stay at their parent club anyway. we're supposed to be competing with these teams, not fattening up players because they have so many players through stockpiling them they can't play them all and they get pissy about it. The only kind of loan I can tolerate is a loan with a buy out clause, otherwise its just an admission that you really are just another small pathetic club and all that matters is the "sky teams" Realistically we won't be competing with them, not in the long term so I don't see how improving our options is going to be a detriment to us. Its not like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd etc... can't just go out and buy a shed load of talent whenever they please. These are clubs who have players struggling to get an appearance who would walk into our side. As for fattening up, what does that really mean? If these players are good enough they will get loans anyway, why not improve the quality of our squad if we get the chance rather than letting them go to our real rivals while we have our 'pride'. I'd rather hang onto pride and hope that with intelligent enough planning and leadership from top to bottom of the club that in time we could compete with them again rather than wave the white flag and admit we'll never be better than them because if thats the case then what the f*** is the point. So because we are being realistic there isn't any point? Fair enough, let your West Broms, Evertons etc.. loan the quality talent while we have Shola starting or Obertan a couple of injuries from starting yes west brom, borrowed lukaku got a nice temporary boost and now they've crashed back down as that short term thinking left a large hole in their squad this season compared to last, they would have been better off taking a chance on some young player their scouting department think could be a good player. It's a big issue for these clubs actually and one Everton will have next year, when Lukaku, Barry and the Barca kid go back. You are not building your squad on solid foundations. You are also stunting progression of your own products. Now if Everton get into the Champs League because of these loans, then it would end up being a big win for them, as the income will allow them to find suitable replacement. For the first time recent memory we've benefited from the system too with Remy, where the hell would we be without his goals ? You could argue that Cisse may have been given more of a chance to play himself back into form, the likes of Campbell may be given more first team exposure and we may have been more aggressive in securing Gomis in the summer had we not brought him in on loan. It really puts clubs in false positions though and allows these megabucks teams to just keep buying up talent. It's bad for the long term health of the game, great for some clubs short term needs though, but those clubs exploiting it are hurting themselves long term, they just don't see it right now. That's when you compare loan successes to alternatives that would be somewhat successful, you might instead end up with a permanent alternative that ends up being turbo-shit or always injured or a relative success with a contract clause a la Ba who ends up moving for not exactly a fortune 18 months later anyway. Loanees might also end up being shite or injured, in which case you get to send them back. It's not always the Lukaku at West Brom situation, there are lots of permutations. In this situation I'd take Zaha assuming we weren't forced to play him more than we wanted.

That would be a great argument if we didn't already have far better players than Obertan sitting on the bench, bringing in better bench warmers isn't going to fix Pardews head. You need attackers on your bench to chase or close out a game, Cisse looks awful at the minute so suddenly one decent attacking option doesn't look great actually.

Would you have been interested in him 6 months ago?

Wish we'd signed Damien Duff on loan. And Alan Smith. And Nicky Butt. There is that positive to it.

Obertan's made 4 or 5 appearances for us in the last 6 weeks alone, if you don't think we'd have use for Zaha then fuck knas. I understand the people that say it's a point of principle and at heart I completely agree, but again the owner is a tight cunt and we've gladly went without for the sake of saving a few quid previously.

Just domestic or would you not have that lad from Barcelona that Everton have?

Having Lukaku for a season would be benefiting from it, having Zaha for a season wouldn't. It's a matter of opinion, he was regarded as one of the most exciting young players around 6 months ago but his stock has obviously dropped now. Sturridge wasn't looking upto much when he went to Bolton, Andros Townsend's been all over the place and has only really started to look the part recently, even the likes of Wellbeck and Rose have done canny jobs for the mackems in the recent past. I'd rather not do it either but when you have an owner that spends fuck-all, beggars can't be choosers and we 100% need more depth and variety in the forward/wide positions. Well my view is that a loan that's guaranteed to be short term has to have very obvious benefits or its not worth doing. Bringing in a player who can't get a game for a side below us because he hasn't developed yet isn't worth doing IMO. Howay man, this is Man Utd we're talking about and he was the most highly rated young British talent around 6 months ago. God knows why he hasn't featured more for Man Utd, I couldn't tell you. But there aren't many that would have turned their noses up at signing him in the summer. Seems more like a Sturridge-type situation than anything else, Sturridge was looking very handy at a very young age for Man City (albeit for a short time) then had years of nothingness at Chelsea.

This. I hate it. I have lost faith in players giving a f*** and showing any loyalty so if a good one who would improve our squad becomes available on loan I would be more than happy to take them. They will f*** off as soon as someone bigger/offering more money comes along anyway so why not improve us in the short term? Would anyone have seriously turned their nose up at Lukaku on a season long loan? Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea are more than likely going to be ahead of us long term so why not take advantage of their greed? A lot of the time these players don't stay at their parent club anyway. we're supposed to be competing with these teams, not fattening up players because they have so many players through stockpiling them they can't play them all and they get pissy about it. The only kind of loan I can tolerate is a loan with a buy out clause, otherwise its just an admission that you really are just another small pathetic club and all that matters is the "sky teams" Preventing ourselves from acquiring quality players for a season without paying a transfer fee is going to help NUFC compete with the upper echelon of the league? The club should do what is best for itself. Jonas and Obertan should be out of the door as they're not good performers in the wide positions and will not improve. If they left then you've only got Gouffran, Ben Arfa and Remy with injuries and suspensions to deal with and also the likelihood that one of them will have to fill in centrally now and then, or more often than that.

Having Lukaku for a season would be benefiting from it, having Zaha for a season wouldn't. It's a matter of opinion, he was regarded as one of the most exciting young players around 6 months ago but his stock has obviously dropped now. Sturridge wasn't looking upto much when he went to Bolton, Andros Townsend's been all over the place and has only really started to look the part recently, even the likes of Wellbeck and Rose have done canny jobs for the mackems in the recent past. I'd rather not do it either but when you have an owner that spends fuck-all, beggars can't be choosers and we 100% need more depth and variety in the forward/wide positions.

Makes far more sense to be one of the only clubs our level not benefiting from it.

Caught the last 20 minutes of the Milan match and he was the often seen mix of the brilliant and the abysmal. That effort at the end was fucking shite, should have scored or squared it.

Can you use cameras like that and see any discernable benefit when shooting things 'Live'? Just can't think of any situation I've seen it done.

I don't think we'll win this, can't see it for some reason. Maybe another draw.

We'll have to score more than them to get 3 points m8.

Ah well, roll on Stoke.