Phil

I'd line up the same and would look to rotate Jonas, Arfa and Routledge throughout the game similar to how Villa did with Young, Milner and Downing.

What are you basing this on? Deschumps said he wanted rid of him and gave his squad number to someone else.

Birmingham have got Hleb on loan. Would have been ideal for us.

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club. So you are stupid? Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples. I reckon you are the stupid one sunshine. If he did that well, someone else would have offered him more money. Thats how football works, stupid. Option to buy means the terms are pre arranged and activated. This is why Arfa deal took so long.

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club. So you are stupid? Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid. LeazesMag your argument would stand up so much better if Hall/Shepard had won anything or hadn't left us in the shit. It bugs the hell out of me that you attribute Keegan and Robson's good work to Hall/Shepard, while justifying it by comparing shit to shitter.

Splice.... f**king odd!

FC Twente have put it on their website. http://www.fctwente.nl/nieuws/statisch/item_10402.html

No hard feelings towards the guy for wanting out, but issuing the statement through his lawyers was pathetic. Also, I vaguely recall him mumbling about wanting out when Fat Sam aired towards Harper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/IOMAX-External-Enc...3192&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-Sc...3170&sr=8-1

More a comment on their role off the pitch imo. aye this is club captain, which is more of a players spokes person role. It was Butt last season and Gary Neville at Man-u, so has no reflection on the starting 11's captain.

Just saw an interview on Sky Sports and Mancini said Bellamy is not in there 25 squad. 'Arry was on after saying he wanted him, but City wont sell to a rival. My moneys on Fulham, but live in hope we'll get him.

Tax on the goods and services they pay for will rise exponentially because of the amount of tax income lost from the wealthiest people, so the poor will be FAR worse off. Only the wealthy benefit from that proposal. Lower income earners would be worse off if there was a flat rate rise in taxes. But as I've already said, if VAT was implemented properly it would be a much better system. What do you mean 'properly'? VAT can only be added at a flat rate Shirley. JD Rockerfeller would pay the same amount to the government as Joey Boswell if that were the case. I mean gear it more as it was originally intended. i.e. for luxury items, 5% on gas and electricity is just plain wrong. Having said that this whole debate is moot as the Tories dont want to scrap income tax and the recent income tax band rise was a Lib-dem policy. So your plan is- Cut all income tax: Cost - £20bn Cut VAT as it stands: Cost - £10bn Apply higher rate of VAT on luxury items: profit - £30bn That's some VAT to be paid on Fois Gras and Ferraris. My plan? I think you'll find this is LM's conspiracy theory. It's absurd to think income tax will be scrapped. If I had my way on income tax I'd raise the threshold to 25k, offsetting it against the savings made by making no interest payments. Like I said this isn't something I would do, but when you take into account the budget cuts being maintained the maths isn't that far out.

Tax on the goods and services they pay for will rise exponentially because of the amount of tax income lost from the wealthiest people, so the poor will be FAR worse off. Only the wealthy benefit from that proposal. Lower income earners would be worse off if there was a flat rate rise in taxes. But as I've already said, if VAT was implemented properly it would be a much better system. What do you mean 'properly'? VAT can only be added at a flat rate Shirley. JD Rockerfeller would pay the same amount to the government as Joey Boswell if that were the case. I mean gear it more as it was originally intended. i.e. for luxury items, 5% on gas and electricity is just plain wrong. Having said that this whole debate is moot as the Tories dont want to scrap income tax and the recent income tax band rise was a Lib-dem policy.

Tax on the goods and services they pay for will rise exponentially because of the amount of tax income lost from the wealthiest people, so the poor will be FAR worse off. Only the wealthy benefit from that proposal. Lower income earners would be worse off if there was a flat rate rise in taxes. But as I've already said, if VAT was implemented properly it would be a much better system.

I agree with the top bit, Labours deficit has played into the Tories hands. With regards to the second part - all taxes affect the lower paid more. You'd like to think there would be a better implementation of VAT if income tax was removed, i.e. things like boats, cars over 50k etc.... would be 80% and all food 0%. You have to also take into account the thresh hold would have to be in stages, so lower incomes would benefit first.

The people who will definitely benefit are; * People in debt * People with low/no disposable income It's seems much more logical to give people their earnings and let them choose how to spend it. Although I think you might be slightly confused on what the Tories stand for, they want a smaller public sector and larger private sector - so they want to collect less tax. I've always viewed the two parties as; Tories = lower taxes for less services Labour = higher taxes for better services. I would love to know the thinking behind that. It seems to be about as wrong as its possible to be Lower income tax will increase disposable income. People in debt can therefore choose to pay off their debt.

The people who will definitely benefit are; * People in debt * People with low/no disposable income It's seems much more logical to give people their earnings and let them choose how to spend it. Although I think you might be slightly confused on what the Tories stand for, they want a smaller public sector and larger private sector - so they want to collect less tax. I've always viewed the two parties as; Tories = lower taxes for less services Labour = higher taxes for better services. Really? Have you met people? They're stupid and reactionary. They'd rather buy SKY than food. But the choice should really be their's to make.

The people who will definitely benefit are; * People in debt * People with low/no disposable income It's seems much more logical to give people their earnings and let them choose how to spend it. Although I think you might be slightly confused on what the Tories stand for, they want a smaller public sector and larger private sector - so they want to collect less tax. I've always viewed the two parties as; Tories = lower taxes for less services Labour = higher taxes for better services.

Bottom line, we need a forward and he'd come. I dare say with him upfront we'd have a shot at Europe never mind a relegation battle.

Enrique always looked the part imo. It was clear he had great technique and pace from the first game I saw him in. He was written off by loads of fans by the end of September in his first season though. Not in any was suggesting that they are comparable players. I know you weren't. And the thing is, he was being written off by fans because he wasn't playing, rather than due to actual performances. Sounds a lot like Xisco.

Sky sport just said the deal has been complete, and we called dibs.

That strategy didn't work for Dennis Wise, what makes you think it'll work for you.. Didnt say it would. I just said he looks good. So you dont think it would be a good signing? Personally i think if we end up loaning him for a year someone else will snap him up if hes any good. There's a clause to buy at the end of the loan, which means we get dibs on him. I wonder if dibs is wording they'll use.

Aint that the truth.

..and a rather mis-lead name.