Optimistic Nut

Yeah they lack something up front, but they seem tight at the back.

Must be better than the Teletubbies effort they've had recently.

You sure about that? Because ironically he almost always used to have number 1 at club level (like he did at ManU for example), and 16 for France (probably kept it after being Bernard Lama's number two when he was first selected). Anyway I've just remembered a good current example... Bordeaux's first choice keeper Ulrich Ramé (who lives just a couple of streets away from me thought I'd add) wears 16. I'm pretty sure anyway...maybe wrong. Although Jeremie Janot at St-Etienne is basically a Barthez "Mini-Me".

Yeah, first time I'd ever seen it was when we played Monaco in the UEFA Cup and Barthez was playing in that match.

Miles off topic Matt M4, but I've been wanting to ask this for ages and Ketsbaia's shiny head has just prompted me there, but why do a lot of keepers in the French League wear number 16 and those short-sleeved shirts? Surely they're not all sad enough to copy Barthez are they?

Just checked my account and I was charged the £47.95, so filled out the cancellation form. Luckily it's refundable anyway.

I bet the advertising board he's eyeing up is absolutely sh*tting himself.

Forget your tracksuit managers, and your suit and ties with the club crest emblazed on the front, THIS is how a Premiership manager of the future should dress on a matchday.

Surely then if he's serious about selling, it's in his interest to settle the case asap........... unless he's notafter selling.Oh cynical me! But I've been told by everyone that Ashley only bought the club for a quick-sell?

So are you seriously telling me that if Keegan came out to the press, and said, "I left because the club were trying to sell players above my head", and it was the truth, that Ashley could sue him? Doubt it like.

Like I said though, if Keegan said that and it was the truth, then how could Ashley sue him?

Who did we sell that Keegan didn't want to go? (remembering that Keegan said the Milner offer was too good to turn down) The Milner offer was too good to turn down - ON THE PROVISION that the money from his sale was reinvested into the team. When Keegan made that statement it was on that basis. He was lead to believe that Milner would be replaced (and not by an injured loan 'signing'). Keegan said when we sold him that "Every player had his price" - £12m for Milner was at least £4m more than his value. All of a sudden though, this comment got turned into "Whole squad up for sale", after he'd left. By all accounts the money he was promised was available for 2 more players wasn't, and Owen, Barton and Smith were all touted around behind his back at the last second. As bizarre as it seems we could currently be sitting on the same squad minus Owen, Barton and Smith (Smith ok, but Owen and Barton aren't players to lose with no replacements). Again, all speculation. At the end of the day though, they're still here so Keegan should have been happy. Not really, there's enough been said that the smart money would be on it being true. But the issue is not whether they were sold at the last second or not (clearly they weren't ), but that they were touted behind Keegan's back. Why on earth would Keegan be happy about that? He was lied to in at least two different ways? Would YOU be "happy" about that? Again, where's the proof that these players were being touted about? If this was the case, why hasn't Keegan came out and said this is the reason why he's left? (think it's pretty shocking how he's said nowt these last 3-months to the fans who are backing him despite not knowing all of the facts.) If it's because of the compensation thing, if he said that and it was true, then what does he have to worry about?

Who did we sell that Keegan didn't want to go? (remembering that Keegan said the Milner offer was too good to turn down) The Milner offer was too good to turn down - ON THE PROVISION that the money from his sale was reinvested into the team. When Keegan made that statement it was on that basis. He was lead to believe that Milner would be replaced (and not by an injured loan 'signing'). Keegan said when we sold him that "Every player had his price" - £12m for Milner was at least £4m more than his value. All of a sudden though, this comment got turned into "Whole squad up for sale", after he'd left. By all accounts the money he was promised was available for 2 more players wasn't, and Owen, Barton and Smith were all touted around behind his back at the last second. As bizarre as it seems we could currently be sitting on the same squad minus Owen, Barton and Smith (Smith ok, but Owen and Barton aren't players to lose with no replacements). Again, all speculation. At the end of the day though, they're still here so Keegan should have been happy.

Missed that. You do realise though that if Danny's right and I get a bill I'll be giving you a phonecall asking for my money. Not sure anything like that's happened to you before.

It's tells you the price you pay once you put in the code, and before you make payment.

Legend. Just bought the Argentina home shirt for minus £2.05!

F*ck off.

Fair enough him being p*ssed off, but it's certainly nothing to quit over.

What harm could it have done Shearer? He gets to work for 6-months with the squad, gets to see what they're like in training, who's good, who's not, without the pressure of being the main man, and still gets to spend his Saturday nights on the sofa with Lineker & Hansen. Then come June when Kinnear's contract is up, he's in an easy position to make a smooth transition into our manager. He didn't spend however many years getting his management qualifications to do punditry for too long surely? Think he's missed a trick tbh. I disagree, only because often squads don't react well to a 'coach' taking up a manger's role. I think he would make a greater impact on the team coming in fresh. If Shearer had agreed to it, how many of the players do you honestly think wouldn't have believed it was so he could take over in June?

Would Keegan have seriously had any complaints had management sacked one of its employees? At least this way we could have got a few million in for him anyway.

Aye but if the manager backs him then you have to support that decision. In which case, it's a lack of class on Keegan's part.

With Barton though, you could see, and understand, why an owner might not want him associated with the club.

I think that was more to do with several media sources reporting on deadline day rather than the Milner sale itself. The media also said that Keegan handed Wise a list consisting of Ronaldinho, Lampard & Henry but that was a load of sh*te.

Who did we sell that Keegan didn't want to go? (remembering that Keegan said the Milner offer was too good to turn down) The Milner offer was too good to turn down - ON THE PROVISION that the money from his sale was reinvested into the team. When Keegan made that statement it was on that basis. He was lead to believe that Milner would be replaced (and not by an injured loan 'signing'). Keegan said when we sold him that "Every player had his price" - £12m for Milner was at least £4m more than his value. All of a sudden though, this comment got turned into "Whole squad up for sale", after he'd left.

Who did we sell that Keegan didn't want to go? (remembering that Keegan said the Milner offer was too good to turn down)