macdougalls perm

The Binners are playing Chippenham Town (where I now live) on July 13th and I can''t wait :-)

I think you''re spot on Lavanche!

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="smooth"]For me holty is not that key player to build a team around....[/quote] You keep repeating this "build a team around" nonsense. If it was true, what do you think would happen if that player was injured? Would games have to be postponed until he regained his fitness? Ridiculous idea! These days clubs have squads using different formations and tactics which change from game to game. No-one builds a team around one player. Your repeated reference to Grant Holt as "the tyre fitter" is disrepectful too. We all know how he started out but he''s been a successful footballer for many years now and is currently captain of a Premier League side and one of our top scores of all time. The guy''s a legend and deserves more respect than some goon trying to belittle him all the time. Just as the pant wetters were proved wrong last season, I hope Grant Holt stays with Norwich City and has really good season to prove the doubters wrong again. [/quote] Fully agree with all of this ^^^^^^^^^^^

Duncan Forbes for me

[quote user="Lets be aving you"]Freelance translator (most western European languages bar Finnish and Greek).   Useful on the Pink Un mainly in the summer, when the foreign rumours peak. [/quote] Wow, that''s impressive. I''m a lecturer

[quote user="Herman "]As an England fan I can''t wait. Really excited to see what we can achieve.[/quote] Hahah :-)

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="macdougalls perm"][quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="macdougall sperm"][quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="whoareyou"]As mentioned governments can no longer dictate much in the way of economic policy because so many multinational companies are now far more wealthy and powerful than governments of most countries.[/quote] This is the point imo. Arguing over which party caused the recession is just a red herring. It was caused by these multinational companies and powerful bankers etc. The Ed Balls and George Osbornes of this world are just the puppets in the financial game.[/quote]Indeed, but it was obvious that as soon as an inevitable cyclical recession occurred that we would not be able to balance the books day to day as commitments without any control had been made on PFI, welfare, public sector, immigration et al that were totally unsustainable once tax revenues fell due to falling GDP. We are all now unfortunately reaping the whirlwind from 13 years of  ''socialist'' profligacy for decades to come.   [/quote]Well, we got there in the end.[/quote] And this ^^^^^^ [/quote] I don''t understand. Are you saying we shouldn''t discuss the effects of immigration on our country? [/quote] I''m saying that without immigration and the subsequent cheap workforce our economy would be in much worse shape that it currently is. And you can file that under FACT.  [/quote]   There are always downsides as well as benefits to belonging to any large organisation. But overall belonging to the EU has brought the UK trading benefits that it would not enjoy if it wasn''t a member. And this will only increase if the mooted mega US-EU trade deal goes ahead. The UK would really be out in the cold if it wasn''t part of that. And not just economically. The UK''s political influence in the world, such as it is, comes from being part of the EU. Otherwise we are just another middle-ranking nation. The "special relationship" with the US does not exist. The only country with which the US has such a tie is Israel. [/quote] I agree with what you are saying here completely but I don''t see how it relates even vaguely to the benefits of immigration? Can you enlighten me please?

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="whoareyou"]As mentioned governments can no longer dictate much in the way of economic policy because so many multinational companies are now far more wealthy and powerful than governments of most countries.[/quote] This is the point imo. Arguing over which party caused the recession is just a red herring. It was caused by these multinational companies and powerful bankers etc. The Ed Balls and George Osbornes of this world are just the puppets in the financial game.[/quote]Indeed, but it was obvious that as soon as an inevitable cyclical recession occurred that we would not be able to balance the books day to day as commitments without any control had been made on PFI, welfare, public sector, immigration et al that were totally unsustainable once tax revenues fell due to falling GDP. We are all now unfortunately reaping the whirlwind from 13 years of  ''socialist'' profligacy for decades to come.   [/quote]Well, we got there in the end.[/quote]The left are in denial and screaming ''racism'' as usual when anybody mentions that immigration may be a cost to the UK taxpayer.  Just look up information on the higher crime rate proportionately (impacting prisons, courts, police etc) , greatly increased birth rate proportionately (impacting on hospitals, schools, welfare etc), language problems (impacting translation support, welfare) and increased competition for employment resulting in high unemployment of our own youngsters and thus also impacting welfare costs.  Then we have silly EU child benefit rules which mean we are paying out for 40,000 +   children in Poland whose fathers work here. [/quote] But you choose to conveniently ignore the contribution of an (exploited) immigrant workforce to our economy. How convenient. 

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user=" Badger"]"Well, it''s the Bank of England who are printing billions through quantitative easing who are purchasing the government bonds that are keeping us going. If we were in the Euro we would truly be in a mess as we would have to borrow from the ECB as the likes of Greece are doing." Why is this myth?[/quote]I''d also be interested to hear a cogent answer from the ''enlightened'' lefties instead of their constant rubbishing of factual information.....  [/quote] Because ''quantitative easing'' is a hilarious euphemism for simply printing more money backed by nothing. Ever heard of Weimar hyperinflation?  

[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="macdougall sperm"][quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="whoareyou"]As mentioned governments can no longer dictate much in the way of economic policy because so many multinational companies are now far more wealthy and powerful than governments of most countries.[/quote] This is the point imo. Arguing over which party caused the recession is just a red herring. It was caused by these multinational companies and powerful bankers etc. The Ed Balls and George Osbornes of this world are just the puppets in the financial game.[/quote]Indeed, but it was obvious that as soon as an inevitable cyclical recession occurred that we would not be able to balance the books day to day as commitments without any control had been made on PFI, welfare, public sector, immigration et al that were totally unsustainable once tax revenues fell due to falling GDP. We are all now unfortunately reaping the whirlwind from 13 years of  ''socialist'' profligacy for decades to come.   [/quote]Well, we got there in the end.[/quote] And this ^^^^^^ [/quote] I don''t understand. Are you saying we shouldn''t discuss the effects of immigration on our country? [/quote] I''m saying that without immigration and the subsequent cheap workforce our economy would be in much worse shape that it currently is. And you can file that under FACT. 

[quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="whoareyou"]As mentioned governments can no longer dictate much in the way of economic policy because so many multinational companies are now far more wealthy and powerful than governments of most countries.[/quote] This is the point imo. Arguing over which party caused the recession is just a red herring. It was caused by these multinational companies and powerful bankers etc. The Ed Balls and George Osbornes of this world are just the puppets in the financial game.[/quote]Indeed, but it was obvious that as soon as an inevitable cyclical recession occurred that we would not be able to balance the books day to day as commitments without any control had been made on PFI, welfare, public sector, immigration et al that were totally unsustainable once tax revenues fell due to falling GDP. We are all now unfortunately reaping the whirlwind from 13 years of  ''socialist'' profligacy for decades to come.   [/quote]Well, we got there in the end.[/quote] And this ^^^^^^

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="whoareyou"]TBH i don''t think i will be votingh for any of them at the next election as none of them really know what they are doing but Ed doesn''t even convince himself when he opens his mouth.If him and Miliband are in charge next time, we will be bankrupt within a year and there will be no money for anything. We are completely at the behest of those who are lending the government money to fund its deficit.[/quote]Well, it''s the Bank of England who are printing billions through quantitative easing who are purchasing the government bonds that are keeping us going. If we were in the Euro we would truly be in a mess as we would have to borrow from the ECB as the likes of  Greece are doing.  We will all pay though via the knock-on side-effects of inflation in the long-run.  [/quote] The bit in bold type should be moved to the ''MYTH'' thread.     [/quote] Exactly!

Fair enough. But he is one of the players on our books at the moment who I think is proven to be worth his place in a team going forwards in the Prem and I can''t see how it helps for thousands of people to be singing a song which obviously p***es him off. NWCC''s song has got it all and, heaven forbid, expresses support for one of our better players. What a wacky idea :-) but, as you were ... :-)

Great song NWCC - and a lot more appropriate. Reckon that one will work a treat!

[quote user="Snoddys Jockstrap"]i am not a simpleton and completely adore the ''used to be shite'' chant. being a paid professional, i''m sure he isnt bothered to the extent that it would affect his performance.[/quote] You sure about that? Cos your contributions to this thread certainly make you seem simple to the onlooker.

[quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"][quote user="Skerritt"]Redknapp. Hughes wastes money and leaves clubs down and out. People praise Martinez a lot but he didnt really improve Wigan at all. A good manager would drive the team up the table. Redknapp has left clubs in poor states but we are like Tothenham when Redknapp took over and he made a huge difference.[/quote]I''ve been posting here for about six years and this is without doubt the most stupid post I have had the pleasure to read. [/quote] Have to agree!

[quote user="iron_stan"]the reason he doesnt play for Ireland is because hes a luxury player, who cant really play effectively anywhere else other than behind the striker Trappatoni doesnt pick him because he would have to sacrifice the way the team lines up and in tern them vulnerable not really much more to it, he doesnt fit the system and cant build a team around someone like that at international level, he aint bad but hes not messi contrary to some opinions on here [/quote] Well if that''s how they play I think I''d respectively suggest that they change this ''system''

RIP Ron

Beat me to it Nutty :-)

[quote user="Matt Juler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]  Games 1-10 = 10 points Games 11-20 = 15 points Games 21-30 = 9 points Games 28-36 = 10 points  What''s so alarming about that?  [/quote]I''m a Statistician by trade so fully aware that you can play with numbers to change a story (as our clients often want to do, but we don''t let them)!My whole debate is based around excluding the last two games that have massively skewed the data.  That leaves us with 36 games to compare:Games 1-9 = 7 pointsGames 10-18 = 18 pointsGames 19-28 = 7 pointsGames 29-36 = 6 pointsFirst half of the season = 25 pointsSecond half of the season = 13 pointsWhat people seem to fail to understand is I''m very happy that we''re in the Premier League, I''m happy that we finished in 11th place, but just feel our team was being held back due to tactics designed "not to lose" where had we of attempted to win certain matches, I''m confident (as has been shown in the last two games), that we''d have picked up some more points.  Perhaps we''d have lost every game and been relegated on 25 points, but we don''t know, I''m just voicing my opinion. [/quote] So you don''t allow statistical manipulation except when it proves your point?! Why leave off our last 6 points - that''s crazy? First half - 25 points Second half - 19 points Why are you so obsessed with manipulating figures to make us look worse. You could just as easily leave out 2 losses in the second half of the season if it''s decided that they skew the data. If you are being straight, with no manipulation, then we''ll go with the full 38 - anything else simply IS MANIPULATION however professional you are. Simple.  

[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]We were NEVER totally dependent on other results Jack. Stop peddling this nonsense.[/quote] lol, it''s a bit like claiming Man U are lucky champions because teams below them lost more games. Don''t posters think that our league position might just have something to do with the points that WE earned throughout the full 38 games, and not just the last two?  [/quote] I honestly don''t think they get this. Or, they do, and are being disingenuous.

[quote user="Orford65"]I would love to know the actual number of posters on this board who, before the season started, declared that they would be perfectly happy to finish in 17th. as long as we stayed up.We finish in 11th. position, which is apparently not good enough because we did''nt play like Barca, and it''s all the fault of the manager who should now be sacked because we have a ready-made, far superior replacement just busting a gut to take over.The mind boggles![/quote] Exactly!

[quote user="The gut"]Fair opinion, however it is a bit of a custard cream disguised as a bourbon. For clarity the points you claim to be facts are not actually facts are they? Oh the irony![/quote] Yes they are! If there had been a dressing room mutiny or McNally had had to step in and override Hughton''s tactics he would be leaving the club. No possible way would any club or manager be able to carry on under those circumstances. So, unless Hughton leaves, this is made up drivel. 

 Yes, I think it was :-)

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="macdougalls perm"]These are your exact words: ''Can you think of a more pathetic display from an away team over those 40 years'' Fair enough, I didn''t see that you had specified ''top-flight'' in the previous line, confused by your ''over those 40 years'' line - thought you meant any team - apologies :-)  [/quote]   We beat Scunthorpe 6-0 in the Championship and they were awful, but even so I think they tried harder than WBA did! Let''s leave it there. [/quote]   Walsall with Merson also springs to mind :-)