cornish sam

I was aware that national debt was historically low before the crash, I was viewing it as not putting in a backstop plan for when the inevitable bust came along (inevitable in the cyclical nature of markets, not that we should have expected great prescience at the depth of the crash), but I can see an argument that in keeping the debt low they were doing just that. It just left us with seemingly (remember I am a lay person in economics as the bad dog exposed on a thread the other day about balance sheets) little recourse other than borrowing when the **** hit the spinny thing...

Pray tell, where am I coming from then? I thought I knew, but, obviously I was mistaken... Also did your mother never say "if you saw Jimmy sticking his hand in the fire would you do it as well?" So please educate me on my "gross" misunderstanding. If the finances were so great why did we sell off our assets? Oh yes, short term gain instead of long term stability, which I think actually brings us quite neatly back onto the topic of Webber...

I know I shouldn't respond....but, as you are well aware, that is not what I said or meant. The damage I am referring to is more related to his failure to put provision in place for the lean years during the fat, and in actual fact reduce our ability to cope with the lean through such I'll advised policies as selling off our gold reserves when gold prices were at the lowest they had been for about 20 years.

Tbf most of the damage was done by Gordon brown before Ed came along... He is actually recognised as being a very good economist, so good that he was teaching at Harvard and the chief economics writer at the FT before becoming an MP.

Don't know if it works on the times, but, if you have an android phone and chrome you can stop the page loading between the article being loaded and the paywall kicking in on the telegraph...

The journo with the byeline is their PAOK correspondent and hasn't tweeted anything, haven't checked if sporttime have on a main account...

I've just looked and that is the latest on there about tzolis. They have run many stories about our pursuit and it does read as though they have connections and we're very close (as in they almost accepted it) so perhaps the guy who tweeted does actually know someone there and they just haven't published the story yet due to embargo or similar...

That's the story reported previously about our 8 million biceps being refused...according to Google translate

Thanks, having a quick shufty around there does not fill me with confidence, it looks fancy but most of the stories posted there in the last 2 weeks seem to have between 4 and 0 views...

Oh, it's so much more! It's got breaded chicken (or pork), cheesy sauce, topped with ****loads of cheese (sometimes parmasan if you're posh) and then grilled (or sometimes deep fried if you're especially dirty)... Some places put extra stuff in there but that's the core experience...

One dish I wish had migrated south...

Oh no it isn't.

But we were talking about improving the squad. If you have one 9 and 2 6s get rid of the 9 and get 2 8s and a 7 then you have improved the squad.

How many £10m players do we currently have? Probably 5 or 6 tops (including Todd). So by that logic, we sell one of our £10m+ rated players and add three more. Surely that has improved the quality of the first team as a whole?

Another way at looking at a dale of this magnitude is that if (and that's a big if) we had moved down our list of targets then the money from cantwell could allow us to move back up to our a list... Also, those quotes from the Watford fella could be read to be saying pretty much what we have said "We want to keep the best players that we have in the squad (everyone wants to keep their best players, though it's not always possible). Sarr, Joao Pedro and the best players, or the players that we consider important for this team, we want to keep them (as did we with Todd, max, teemu and EMI, though not always possible). We are not in the market for selling our best players, we're just in the market for understanding how we can strengthen the team by signing good players, and especially signing players who we think can have an important chance at an important club (even though we aren't in the market to sell them we will if it is the best way to strengthen the team)." 'This isn't a "we aren't selling at any price" comment, it's a "we'd rather not sell but we need to see what is best for strengthening the team" comment, Webber has just wrapped it up differently.

For £40m I'd let Fred drive him there

Shola ameobi

Now if he'd been serious about the climate change/wealthy elite thing then it would've been free reign...

But he didn't say it was cool. He suggested that other people's opinions on this matter mean that they thought it getting it was cool (as in fine/alright not something to aspire to). You're barking up the wrong tree on this one greavsy.

It's the latest Scandi-drama, The Cross... I do like the kit though

Not sure if you're being serious here or not. I would have thought not, but after Matt Morriss the other day I can't be certain anymore....

It would certainly help his fitness... Also, based on that video, he really doesn't do facial hair very well does he?

Yes, but the depth that article goes in to implies that they have been told it is something we are working on and have a decent level of confidence in.

I saw that at the wulfrun hall in my first year of uni, I still have the dole scum tshirt somewhere...

Looking at that does justify Arsenal and Spurs classing themselves as part of the 'big 6'. I didn't realise that it was such a stark jump in revenue at that point!