Hughesy

Same here - if they were being honest, nobody would do this in their own professional lives, yet seem to expect footballers to take paycuts. I think the context is slightly different. If a normal person takes a pay cut, it will have a massive impact on how they live their lives. If a footballer goes from earning 9 mill to 6 mill, I think they can probably take the hit and many would if it meant first team football/living in London over Manchester, etc... This is always where it gets a bit difficult. Yes, to us earning 3 million after tax to play football would be the most amazing thing in thw world and therefore we probably wouldn't care about the drop from 4.5 million after tax. But this when viewing it from a fan's perspective who has a normal job and will never earn vast sums of money. But that isn't the mindset of a professional footballer - he regards it as a job where he wants to make the most money he can. If someone was stupid enough to give Adebayor such a well remunerated contract, why should he take a pay cut? His standard of living has probably risen and he doesn't want to give that up for first team football or whatever it us that us football fans think should be at the forefront of a player's mind.

Same here - if they were being honest, nobody would do this in their own professional lives, yet seem to expect footballers to take paycuts.

http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/ E: http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/calendar2012.html Cheers - hoping we get a good European away tie for one of the early matches.

No doubt already covered, but is there a website that shows the dates of our Europa League Group matches (assuming we get there)?

Tried to make this comment on earlier page but it got a bit lost. I am fairly ambivalent on Carroll coming - happy to have him on loan or for a fee that is lower than 10 million. Any higher than 10 million and I would have to think quite carefully. 15 million+, I wouldn't bother. But, I have noticed people saying we could get much better strikers than Carroll for less. So, my question is... who could we realistically get for less than Carroll who is better? I am interested to know what suggestions are put forward.

Not that I am suggesting that we should spend £12 million on Carroll, but out of interest, which strikers do people realistically think we could get for £12 million that would be better than Carroll? Especially given that Carroll has a hint of 'proven record' in this country. Again, not suggesting there aren't any around, but would be interested to hear names.

good post from Shak.

To say he hasn't shown anything is a bit unfair. He was good at the Euros. Selective memories, he had a decent end to the season for Liverpool and I actually thought he was Liverpool's best player against us until he dived or fell over going around Krul. 1st 20 minutes against us he looked very good and almost back to his best. When he is on his game, I wouldn't back many defenders in the world to cope with him in the air, he is that dominant. On loan - yes, get him in. Buying him for £15 million though - wouldn't go there.

Given our success with ripping Liverpool off, I suggest we offer them a straight swap.

Totally agree. We needed a bigger squad throughout last season and we will need an even bigger squad with Europe. This notion that we somehow need to fit Ba, Cisse and Carroll into the same team for every game is just a bit bizarre.

Would be weird not to have a single English player in our starting XI. Looks a great team though..

I'd be a little disappointed with 8th as I don't think that any teams outside of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Spurs should be finishing ahead of us. 7th I'd be happy with if we had a decent cup run as well.

nah, for a while we were just crap. We did that stupid kick-off under Robson, makes complete sense now. Don't remember that? Wtf is Lundekvam doing coming out with all of this, the numpty? We used to hoof the ball into the corner straight from kick off for the opposition to take a throw in near their own byline iirc. Ah f***ing hell aye. That little 'tactic' was so infuriatingly senseless, that it actually sounds remotely plausible we could've been involved. Was always quite funny when we lined up Shearer and Speed by the sideline for them to run up the line to challenge for the ball floated over by Nobby. Good times...

I think, in an ideal world, you need someone to fill and Ba/left hand side role in the 4-3-3 and a young striker.

Grates on me a little bit... Oh stop fanning the flames.

Would love to see France of 2000 play the Spanish team now - think that would be a close one.

You may be, but I'm most certainly not. They're not the same team and can't be judged as if they play the same way as they did 4 years ago. Thank you, some people just dont understand. Different coach, different back four and different front three. If anything a bit different philosophy too. If you are going to say best team ever over the span of 4 years, then sorry, Ill do the same and say the Brazilian side which won 58, 62 and 70 was a lot stronger and their achievement a lot bigger as the 66' was a given had it not been for awful refereeing and no cards being given since it was introduced at the 70' World Cup. And this was over 12 years. '66 was a given but for refereeing...? Interesting. Pele was absolutely murdered at the time against Bulgaria, was unable to play against Hungary and then against Portugal still a bit injured he was once again ''raped''. I sincerely believe that Brazil had a big chance of winning that World Cup. They had great player in Pele, Garrincha and up and coming players like Tostao and Gerson. Obviously, it wasnt a given, and it was probably Brazils weakest side during that 12 year span, but they still had a team capable of winning if they had had a fresh Pele. Either it was a given or it wasn't a given. You have to decide which option you are going for.

You may be, but I'm most certainly not. They're not the same team and can't be judged as if they play the same way as they did 4 years ago. Thank you, some people just dont understand. Different coach, different back four and different front three. If anything a bit different philosophy too. If you are going to say best team ever over the span of 4 years, then sorry, Ill do the same and say the Brazilian side which won 58, 62 and 70 was a lot stronger and their achievement a lot bigger as the 66' was a given had it not been for awful refereeing and no cards being given since it was introduced at the 70' World Cup. And this was over 12 years. '66 was a given but for refereeing...? Interesting.

Any team containing Roque Junior and Kleberson can't really compare itself to Spain.

. Oh yeah - I forgot about that. The most important signing this clubs made in about 10 years. FFS, read my post. 4 years isn't really the "next few seasons".

Mid-90s Shearer used to take penalties like the one Nani took the other day. They are basically unstoppable.

The insurance point, in isolation, does have some validity. I don't really understand the rest of the post.

I think the main problem I had with us not bringing him is the fact he has far better technique and ability than Milner, he is much better placed than the Ox. He's more consistent than Walcott and evidently, he would have been a far better option than Young. I know there are a fair few people on this board that don't rate him as highly as I do but he was the one major omission for me that I really couldn't understand at all. It's rare to have a player who is a goal threat from nothing situations, can beat his man 8/10 times and can link up play well Agree 100%. Would have been a great option to bring off the bench, even if he wasn't starting.

Exactly - nothing wrong with coaching at any age. Has to be a balance struck.