Phil

Now maybe, but I don't think he was for the Arsenal game which is what Phil was referring to. He was. Of course he fucking was. Been speaking out of turn though, hasn't he? Days are numbered. Can't say I'm bothered tbh, he's been paid handsomely over the years for compensation of him being understudy to Given. Krul's a better keeper anyway. It's the principle what bothers me Jonny. We've got 4 players who've spoken against the regime this summer, Nolan, Enrique, Harper & Barton. 2 have been sold, one has been told he's not getting another contract and the other is being frozen out. At least 3 of those should have been dead certs in out side. But Ashley and Llambias are letting personal pride get in the way. Could probably put Sol on that list. He did really well in all but the Stoke game. But he was frozen out well before that. Not sure where i stand on player power. Nolan and Smith were thought to be heavily influencing the team selection under Hughton. Barton was woeful with his free kicks and corners on Saturday and i can well see him having a flounce if they are taken off him.

Pal on FB asked about it, strange one if true. Don't need Green. He is decent most of the time but prone to errors. Krul is at least his equal. I'd have laughed it off at the end of last season. But all three keepers have been pretty poor pre season, so i wouldn't be surprised. Dropping harper out the squad, only to loan Forster to Celtic a few days later, makes me wonder.

Wigan, Swansea, QPR, Norwich and Blackburn. All significantly worse than us.

We holding out for a bigger payment?

Westling bedsheets, u rock.

HBA and Ba (to Stoke/WHam) also went on strike to push through a move.

u still here

dolphin hd is a pretty good browser for the tablet.

Download snagit, trial version lasts 30 days. http://www.techsmith.com/download/snagit/default.asp

are you serious? we were playing arsenal, that side that have been in the top 4 for how many years running? who play in the CL every season, who play their kids in the CC and still do well in it. luxuries we can hardly boast. a 0-0 draw v them is a good result, we defend like that against lesser attacks while playing against lesser defences and we'll be just fine this season. They could (and should) have scored a couple. They basically gave us the chance to defend by constantly taking the extra touch. Not that I'm complaining - we can usually find a way to ship a goal even when the opposition aren't pressing. 0-0 was a great result. They played five in midfield so dominated the game, but never look like scoring.

Not many teams will spend 6m on a left back and most of the top teams have better.

I didn't realise the top clubs were spending well over 100m in wages.

We dont have a LB though Perch Still Arsenal are without Fabregas, Nasri and Wiltshire for Sat. No excuses for letting Jose go without a replacement being brought in.

That'd be a first! Cabaye - Nolan? Nah, Cabaye wasn't bought with Nolan was leaving in mind. They are nothing like each other* and if Nolan had stayed he would largely be used as a forward. *Cabaye is a box to box midfielder bought in to help control the pace of game through passing/possession. Similar to Rob lee I guess.

my take on your bias. I'm sure you think I'm overly negative, but I just cannot share your optimism. Replace Jose and bring in a striker and I'll be happy. My optimism stems from us selling players and making them available early, which allows time for replacements to be brought in. This is new for Ashley. Come Sept 1st we know if it was another line.

Wenger wont spend it though. Arsenal following the Newcastle model.

He's a decent player. A lot better than Shola and Hands. If Arsenal sell Fabregas, Nasri and Bendtner they're gonna have a lot of cash.

old car regs' are quite common with @year of birth on the end.

Sooner he f**ks off the better. If he doesn't hand in a transfer request (holding out for loyalty bonus), stick him in the reserves and take the 6m hit.

That'd be a first!

No debate? It was a symbolic downgrading from a discredited rating agency. If not then how come the interest rates the US pays on it's debt fell immediately after S&P's latest joke? The real problem is we (the UK and US) are facing a protracted period of stagnation or a double dip recession. Without growth, we can't reduce the deficit. Something you tory mopheads can't get your heads around it seems. There's no debate because you cant see the mess the US has gotten itself into, therefore you wont acknowledge the spending cuts were needed. You're wrong and you clearly cant see it. "unsustainable public sector", "deficit" - the clues couldn't slap you in the face any harder. Why do people think public sector spending will increase growth? Are you saying a double dip could be avoided by sustaining an unsustainable public sector? ~madness personified. Growth through tax breaks to SME make much more sense than hiring 10 people to do 1 persons job. fyi, S&P downgraded the US because they increased their self imposed credit limit. Which makes sense. More credit = more risk. Justify it all you want, but 16 trillion beggars belief.

There will always be an excuse Alex, no matter what the economy is like or which government is in power. With regard to imigrants, how many times have we heard the line that they do the work the english wont. The english wont because they can get by on benefits. Available work and excellent benefits are the reason imigrants come here. Less benefits for the people already here and making the avaialable work the option will reduce claimants and imigrants, both which will benefit an already overcowded island particularly with a bleak economic outlook for decades to come. That "nice" TORY, whose name escapes me, that has been looking at the benefit system for years and is trying to change it is spot on. (not a racial point btw). I'm not sure what you think I'm making an excuse for. I was pointing out that a economic climate with less jobs around means that more unemployed is inevitable. Ignoring party politics it's not really the time to decrease the amount of people on benefits, in fact it's absolutely inevitable that the amount of people on them will increase. To get back to party politics the government's policies clearly aren't working in the way they are because the economy hasn't responded to their policies in the way they said it would. Hate to say I told you so... I was basically saying that there will also be an excuse not to get going with necessary reforms, particularly benefits. It should have been addressed by Labour in 97 when the world went through a boom period but better late than never. And we will always need a main benefit safety net but its way past a safety net. Re the economy, I think its fairly evident the world is pretty fucked and there will be no quick fixes. I cant really see it getting any better in my lifetime. I think there is a massive worldwide correction going on and things will never return to the way they were unless something unknown at present comes along. It will be difficult for those who have lived through prosperous times, but as always in life, future generations will just adjust to that enviroment. I compare it to NUFC under SJH. The likes of me and you know we will probably never have it that good again and it will always taint our enjoyment of NUFC to some degree. Kids who are just getting into football now dont have that baggage. I also believe borrowing more money to try and prop up the "good times" in the hope they will come back is not the answer. It wasnt for Fred and it isnt for Dave. As I'm sure the Tory you were on about (I know who you mean but can't remember either) will discover, it's virtually impossible to get it anywhere near perfect. The necessary reforms you're on about will, imo, turn out to be rhetoric, as with every other plan to get tough on scroungers etc. HF is right in many ways, the bank bail out makes the amount of people on benefits as a whole (not just those who are taking the hit and miss) look like a very small drop in the ocean. If you accept that the banks had a huge role to play in the current economic climate (and I think it's impossible not to share that view) then perhaps we should question why the reforms on financial institutions aren't top of the agenda. The reason is because, like Chez said, we're being peddled a lie. To claim this has anything to do with anything other than 24/7 news showing people walking out with TV, trainers and laptop is laughable. There is no deeper political meaning in any of this. And in case you Labour lot missed it Americas credit rating is being down graded. So if you cant see you were wrong on spending there's no debate to have. I'd get more sense out of a mop.

very funny...