Toonpack

You think you do, but you don't I understand the basic rules and the objectives of the game plus how the points are scored etc. It's not complicated tbh. Well there's your proof that you don't really understand it. It's an incredibly complex game. Like chess with HUGE violent athletic blokes. Anyway, it's all about opinions. No matter. It's a game that's fairly straightforward to pick up but I'd imagine it'd be pretty tricky to master. However it's not the worlds second finest sport. No sir. So what is ???

You think you do, but you don't I understand the basic rules and the objectives of the game plus how the points are scored etc. It's not complicated tbh. Well there's your proof that you don't really understand it. It's an incredibly complex game. Like chess with HUGE violent athletic blokes. Anyway, it's all about opinions. No matter.

completely shite. Utter shite in fact Actually it's the second finest sport on the planet. The "it's shite" merchants just don't understand it. Irrespective of the games merits, its organisation has a lot that could be learned from to the benefit of the PL. no it isnt So what is ??

You think you do, but you don't

completely shite. Utter shite in fact Actually it's the second finest sport on the planet. The "it's shite" merchants just don't understand it. Irrespective of the games merits, its organisation has a lot that could be learned from to the benefit of the PL.

But is that a desire for a particular outcome or is it a desire for the actual format? How would you feel if Liverpool finished 7th but won the play off thus qualifying them for the CL when 3 teams who finished above them don't....? It's not often I agree with Collymore but he was ranting about it on Talksport this evening. His basic argument was what was the point in having a league if come the end of it, you have a lottery to see who finishes where. He also said that the Champions League should be for the League Champions and them alone claiming that Arsenal and Liverpool have developed squads in order for them to finish in the top 4 rather than aiming necessarily for the title. What Toonpack said earlier in the thread is spot on - divide the money up equally and there's no need for any of this carry on. The NFL in the US have it spot on....equal share for all and the worst clubs get the best kids. They don't have relegation though, but that would make the league a true test of managerial skill iof teams were on a lot more of an equal footing..strange that the country who virtually invented global capitlism should be so "socialist" when it comes to sport. Also the "Superbowl" is just the "Superbowl", not the "Superbowl in association with eon, or doritos, or pepsi etc etc".... They sell everything else, but the name of the main title is sacred...not like the FA cup... I don't think that's true. The worst team gets 1st pick but better teams trade off older players for the prospects and that's why the new franchise teams don't suddenly challenge for the title the following year. Draft picks benefit the top tier who trade out their "Teddy Sheringham"s for "Wayne Rooney"s and the middle tier who trade out Kevin Phillips for Gabriel Agbonlahor but the meek shall never inherit a God damn thing. The Americans have got a shit sport. That's all That couldn’t be more wrong if you’d tried. The draft is a lottery, you never know with kids, coming out of college (with a few exceptions), whether they’re going to be able to adjust to the pro game. The best teams are the ones with the best talent evaluation (scouting) groups and the best coaches, who can identify a player and then develop them, as well as identify an existing older player, who’s maybe not pulling up trees on his current but can do a serviceable job in their system. Many players, who were nobodies on one team, become stars on another. With regard to your second point, the Sheringham/Rooney analogy, reality is more like the actual reverse of what you state. Because of the salary cap ramifications teams are more likely to trade away/cut/let go a Rooney (towards the end of his first contract) and replace him with a Sherringham, see New England as the example, they cycle older proven players, getting a couple of years out of each, rarely do they ever compete for one of the true marquee talents. They leave that to the likes of Washington. Teams simply can’t afford to keep all their stars and are often faced with very hard decisions about who to release. The point at which players become “available” to the open market is mandated by league rules as well. Of course a player can be traded (transferred at any time) but a huge megastar trade is exceptionally rare, most teams wait until they can battle for free agents. All the teams get the same revenue from the League (TV) and are allowed to spend exactly the same on salaries and have exactly the same size of squad. They keep their own gate receipts and corporate stuff which is the owners “surplus”. Outside of a last minute deal, next season will be uncapped due to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the League and the players union. Even without the cap it’s unlikely a “rich” team will saddle itself with a host of mega stars, more likely is that teams will dump a lot of high paid players because the cap had a minimum spend as well as a maximum spend. The pressure is on for salaries to be forced down. The whole argument that’s stalled a new CBA is about player share of the revenues, which is currently at about 52%, the owners want that dropped significantly. There are a significant amount of good things that could be learned from the NFL, it’s a club of 32 mega-rich owners (well 31 plus Green Bay which is publicly owned) who have realised that uncontrolled spending to dominate isn’t in anyone’s long term interest. The stagnating Premier league should take notice.

Revenue sharing is the way to go, all revenues from TV for all competitions should go to the league which then distributes equally to the clubs, clubs can keep their own off-field commercial revenue's but all other dosh should get equally divied up. The way it's structured now teams qualifying for the champs league is a self fullfilling prophecy

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !! I wouldn't worry about him, he is a right bell! I'd imagine he's tyred of this now. Poor lads had his thread dérail(leur)ed. Had a spoke put in it, even

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !! I wouldn't worry about him, he is a right bell! So unlikely to Sir Chris Hoy a wobbler then

Probably best to stop antagonising the kid, you never know they may be a real nutter and track you down, could be a cyclepath or a homicycle maniac for that matter !!

You posted in tandem, you need to break the cycle

Not good mate!! In your time of trouble, I hope your mates Raleigh round He is obviously quite pissed off so your joke wheelie isn't funny. Aye, not funny at all, hope he doesn't get saddled with the bill

Not good mate!! In your time of trouble, I hope your mates Raleigh round

There's nee point Leazes, they know it all, man, we "old fuckers" know nowt. No point reasoning they wouldn't get the point if you stuck a dart between their eyes, they twist and misconstrue and giggle about it all like little lasses, clique-tastic. If I've offendend anyones sensibilities and created any moral outrage by using the phrase "little lasses" I don't apologise

I didn't mention religion nor did I mention race, there are societies that are "caring" or enlightened even, and there are those that are not. Those that are, are at threat, from those that are not. The "enlightened" societies developed via force of arms and thus gained the power to create/develop the environment for caring, anything that threatens the "harmony" of the "civilised world" should be ruthlessly dealt with, you can't reason with mankind's baser instinct, it needs to be taught a lesson, "be nice, or else".

Because we aren't animals. Because "Our" survival doesn't depend on "their" extinction. Because we aren't a seperate species. And (I hate to invoke Godwin's law so early in the thread but) because that's how Hitler thought. Of course we are and no different to any other. There are those of us who "care for fellow man" but as is ably demonstrated all over the planet there's fucking loads who don't. The caring society is regrettably in the minority and if it doesn't wake up soon it'll be fucked.

Not really, there's a few people I know who think that way, I happen to agree. Why would it be wrong, given all of nature is built on knacking the weaker.

Hope so, his point is valid

Yes we fucking do - how fucking stupid are you? Look up "shock and awe" - the deliberate bombing of Baghdad and other cities whith the only purpose of killing civilians. Utter rubbish The purpose was to remove government, infrastructure and military targets, now undoubtedly civilians died, but to say the purpose was to solely target civilians is garbage. If they'd carpet bombed as per WW2 you may have had a point. That said, weren't you an advocate of turning the whole place into a glass car park because some yanks on a messageboard thought it was a good idea? Yes and No Darwin and survival of the fittest in action, we're giving our advantage away, once we're caught, the other lot won't hesitate, it's the natural way. Stevie - I had a sig, can't remember any particular avatar though ???

Yes we fucking do - how fucking stupid are you? Look up "shock and awe" - the deliberate bombing of Baghdad and other cities whith the only purpose of killing civilians. Utter rubbish The purpose was to remove government, infrastructure and military targets, now undoubtedly civilians died, but to say the purpose was to solely target civilians is garbage. If they'd carpet bombed as per WW2 you may have had a point.

bit strong that, calling me a scumbag. It isn't as if I go blowing up innocent civilians ......... Well I was joking, but I'm sure you've celebrated innocent civilians being blown up on this board as well as suggesting that more bombing should be done. well, I'm not bothered like....... in fact, you are totally wrong, the blowing up of innocent people is a terrible business and has no justification in any form but the shooting of the scumbags before they do it would be celebrated wildly. The shame is, in any terrorist attack, victims will include people who defended the bombers "rights" etc etc....too late for them though. So you prefer shooting innocent people...like Menezes...to bombing them...like hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Why do you see shooting innocent people with bullets as something to celebrate any more than bombing them? Do you gladly accept that you could be shot dead on the metro like Menezes was, because your 'rights' are less important than restricting the rights of criminals? Gross exageration in my humblest. The "west" will have killed a hell of a lot less innocents than their own folk have.

They were in Pakistan in 2007. That doesn't account for a forty fold increase in bombing attacks since then. At that time there were named targets for the majority of covert attacks. They sometimes even managed to hit those target along with the innocent bystanders which at least gave it some arguable justification. Of the 11 attacks in January, only 2 specific targets have been named and none are confirmed as hit. Bush put more thought into his bombing than Obama. Rather than acting on good intelligence to target valuable militants, Obama is leaning towards blanket bombing large areas and taking out a corresponding larger number of civilians. Maybe the army were using the inexperience and (possible) naivety of the new regime to ramp up there own agenda. As the Pakistan army is actively engaged in the counter insurgency, it might be they are specifically "calling in" the air-strikes hence the increase in number.

This. I hadnt thought about it but when you do think back you realise that back in the day, every minute of match day was concentrated on football. Match days for me would consist of: Grabbing a Journal to see the latest team news over breakfast Sticking Football Focus on while getting ready then heading into town Football talk in the pub, nothing else just football, basically you'd be catching up with people who you'd not communicated with for a fortnight. Two weeks worth of football news and rumour were discussed in those 2 or so hours. The game Back to the pub to analyse the match Grab a Pink on the way home to read about how the "experts" had seen it. Nowadays the match is virtually a distraction! I know personal circumstances etc have changed but generally going to the game is just that: park up, walk into the ground, watch the match, go home. Every move, every tackle is analysed on here, via text or on any one of the TV programmes/ channels dedicated to the game. My first realisation that it was going that way was the 98 Cup Final. To us it was special, a memorable weekend which couldnt be beaten yet on the tube there were Arsenal fans sitting reading the paper or nattering about gardening. To them it was nothing, because they lived close these blokes had washed the car in the morning, took the missus shopping and then wandered to the game. They were immune to the magic of the cup and that was a sad thing to see. The whole thing was then repeated a year later. Man U fans wandering out of Wembley not giving a shit that their team had won the game, it didnt matter to them, another day another trophy as such. My "suitable for the Mrs" version of the bolded bit was: "well we've got to let the crowds get away" No mobile phones, so you didn't really talk to your mates much except at weekends as monopolising the landline was a "girly thing", it was used only for short to the point "we'll be in xxx at xx o'clock" or "I'm getting the xx oclock train from Whitley" - train!! FFS . Aye was a totally different ballgame in ye olde days.

Agree 100%, the “venom” was the best catalyst for the atmosphere IMO – and I don’t mean racism either. For example - the worst ref’s get these days is “you don’t know what you’re doing” or “cheat, cheat, cheat, repeat and fade” Football is no longer the physical contest it once was either, raise an eyebrow at an opponent these days and get booked. Even in the case of a bad challenge, today the players sent of immediately, (thus removing the dirty bassa from the crowds gaze) previously he “may” have got booked at worst – but he usually stayed on the park and was a target for the crowds vitriol for the rest of the game. That said the definition of a “bad challenge” has changed as well as you never really saw (that I can recall) the nasty over the ball stuff that Stevie G’s so good at, it was if you fully play the ball first the man was fair game, and believe me, they did, straight through the meat of ball like an express train. Not saying it’s right by any means, but it added to the venom quotient and thus the atmosphere, roaring with outrage for one of your blokes to get the perpetrator back. The game today and the world today won’t ever let it come back. I also think the everyday “exposure” to the club/football and club news 24/7 has a diluting effect, quite often it was only on a match day that you’d get a decent chance to talk properly with all your mates about the game, and it was an event truly to look forward to, the craic (who’s heard what during the week) and the game. The Chronicle was the ONLY source of non matchday gossip/news. Today everyone’s done all their talking in places like this or by email etc etc, and to a great degree all that’s left is the game, and what a sterile thing it has become.

If it is a loan, it could be to do with the financial gymnastics at pompey. If we'd paid 1 mill for him didn't Pompey have a "pay Watford 1.2 mill" clause, he wasn't playing for them (alledgedly)because of a performance/add-on clause so maybe it was when he plays x games you pay us (Watford) x£ in add-ons and if he doesn't play that number of games but you sell him within x amount of time you owe us ££££££ Could therefore be a loan with a view to a permanent deal which is timed to end after the date the Watford clauses have expired. Total supposition, but plausible