cornish sam

[quote user="City1st"]I would suggest that the words " to which the club is committed to"do point towards wages, as why use the word ''committed'' rather than spent ? The figure would also roughly fit with what those wages would be over the course of their contractsthough more curiously is why the board felt the need to add this postcript to the accounts [/quote] Surely the to "which the club is committed" refers to the fact that most transfer fees are paid in installments and as zipper says there is potentially 3.5m to pay in performance related add ons. Having said that, is it possible that the reason the net figure seems so high because we have only included the part of the fees that we have so far received in order to minimise the profit and thereby pay a little less tax?

We''re such a load of dross that yet again we have had over 60% possession and more than 15 shots. Yes this is worrying that we aren''t getting the results and teams seem to get as much success from one shot on target as we do from 6 but that doesn''t make the team a load of dross it just means that we are very nearly there...

Obvious troll (paper) is obvious... At this stage of the season you can only do emergency loans with a maximum duration of 93 days so this falls flat at the first hurdle.

I think the most disappointing thing about this result is not that we are no longer top, there''s going to be plenty of that this season, but rather that the loss for Fulham increases the chances that Magath will have been sacked before we go to the Cottage. It''d be typical of the Fulham hoodoo that we get the new manager bounce when we go there...

[quote user="GenerationA47"]Definite strains of Sir Elton wafting through my mind... As in ''the circle of life'', rather than ''goodbye yellow brick road'' or ''I guess that''s why they call it the blues'' (because I''m not a waste disposal executive).[/quote]   For me it was McGrandles in the Wind..

I''m going to have to disagree with you there city 1st, on more than one count. If it was just spiralling wages that they were trying to stop then why can''t benevolent benefactors spend as much as they like on transfer fees? Also, it''s not like it''s the banks that are loaning the money to these clubs with spiralling cosy''s, it''s the owners. My use of the sugar daddy term might not be quite accurate but it is the owners putting the money in and it is when the owners are unable or unwilling to continue throwing their own money away that the problems start. Spiralling wages were just one symptom of a greater ill. Also, have you ever actually watched NFL properly? To claim it is not a ''proper sport''s is just down right wrong. I''m not going to get into an sediment about it but just because they wear pads doesn''t make it any less of a sport. On a side note, the draft would be one thing that might make football fairer, totally unworkable I know, but, if we had regional and central academies, not affiliated to a club which there was then a draft from every year with the lowest placed team getting the first pick (or trading or selling it) then it would make for a far fairer competition, stop the hoarding of promising youngsters, put the best youth in a team they were more likely to get game time and ultimately benefit the national team...

Whilst I agree that the rules that have been put in place do not seem to make football fairer, to some extent it does. Do you think that it is fair that a grubby little club can be bought by a billionaire and then just go deeply into debt to the owner and buy their way to promotion? The main drive of the FFP rules in the football league is to reduce the impact of sugar daddy clubs climbing beyond their means so should the sugar daddy leave they would still be sustainable. For the FL fairness is not therefore the ultimate aim, but rather sustainability and protection of a community asset, if you want an example of exactly what they are there for look no ruther than Gretna, a small club who in the space of about 6 years went from Scotish non-league to the UEFA cup, Brooks Mileson then gets ill and dies and less than a year later they have been liquidated and no longer exist. If the FFP rules are stuck to then clubs can grow organically and sustainably. The main problem with the FFP rules is the name, not the intention.... Having said all of that, the premier league, in trying not to put off foreign investors and the sugar daddies have actually only put a break on clubs growing organically as well whilst not stopping them get themselves more and more in debt. The UEFA rules could be argued to have the same intention as the FL rules, trying to stop the sort of situation you got with Anzhi, a very similar story to Gretna but with bigger names, more money and a warlord...

[quote user="chicken"]I wouldn''t read too much into shirt numbers. They can change easily enough. It meant more in the old days but means less now. The only time it really means something is when you have a high profile player with one of the traditionally much coveted numbers suddenly doesn''t have it anymore. Otherwise some players pick their own numbers that an be anything within reason.[/quote] A case in point being Remy who has apparently turned down the no. 9 shirt at Chelsea in favour of no. 18

SSN have just said that ''the deal'' for russ is definitely dead... So they made something up, asked and got laughed at...

Last night odjidja saved my life Last night odjidja saved my life when he scored a goal Last night odjidja saved my life Last night odjidja saved my life with a goal

Or at least it would if it exists....

If it gives people a strength and purpose does it matter if it''s true? If life is ultimately meaningless then who cares if their life is built on lies?

Indy, those things you mention are just beliefs, they have not been empirically proven, they just make sense of the theories we have to explain other things. I''m not saying they''re wrong but at the moment there are various competing theories for these things and much like early prophets different scientists are convinced all the evidence supports their argument and disproves the others. I can''t see an m-theorist nailing a treatise to the doors of cern anytime soon though! (as an aside my favourite candidate is a form of m-theory, that our universe is just one of many universes that exist within a 13 Di mention a lot space where the fundamental forces are represented by strings or membranes and when they collide a universe is born with the laws defined by the intersecting and proximate forces)

The problem with a belief that there is no greater purpose (a faith of its own) is that encourages a nihilistic attitude, why does it matter what I do? Life is meaningless anyway, it''s just my genes carrying out their purpose, self propagation and survival. Unfortunately, if too many people believes such a thing then society breaks down. That in itself may not be such a threat as it was at the outset of religion but when society was less well structured stable and established that was a very real threat. Even now religion gives many people''s life a purpose that they wouldn''t otherwise have.

[quote user="City1st"]what is laughable is when these cranks start warbling on about evidence and proof .... and logical explanations, when the whole foundation of their view is belief the suspension of rational thought ie faith ...... accepting whatever illogical old tosh imaginable, because it was written in a book on that basis Jack in the Benstalk is true [/quote]   Unlike science, which is also based on belief, belief that the base principles are correct and the model of physics (for example) is consistant, even when we know it isn''t (macro and quantum physics are almost un-reconcilable in many respects). Also how often have you had faith in something? Faith that NCFC will win, faith that a parachute will open, faith that a friend is telling you the truth? Faith in itself is not the suspension of rational thought. Religious faith is the same as any other faith, it is just based on something that you do not believe (the bible is to an extent a work of fiction, but you cannot deny that taken as such it does contain some good messages, treat others as you expect to be treated, don''t kill or rob people for example). Th eissue is not the faith itself, it is what people use the faith to justify. The bible, like the torah, the qu''ran and the Tao should not be taken as statements of fact and gospel, they should be taken as lessons in how to live your life as a better person. Seperate them from the worship and the things that have been done in their name and they make a lot more sense... Unfortunately you get crakcpots, the same is true of science though, take Josef Mengel for example, he would argue that what he was doing was in the name of science and learning, you or I would say he was a barbaric crackpot that caused undoubted suffering to thousands of people.   As I said before, I''m not religious but evangelical atheism is as much of a narrow minded, unenlightened position to take as religious fundamentalism. Accept that some people have a different basis for belief than you, move on. They are not all mad because they believe these things, they are not flawed human beings because of it and they are most certainly not culpable for the deeds that are done under the guise of their religion (unless they themselves are perpatrators, in which case pillary and chastise away). Their beliefs are deep seated and no amount of reasoning, badgering, ridiculing, or dismissing of them will change them so it''s pointless getting worked up about it.

[quote user="Buh"]The fact that science can''t prove something (yet) doesn''t make it weaker, it makes it stronger. Religion is full of mysteries and myths and problems that it has no way of getting around because it is literally set in stone. Science can discover, change, mould or even rip up our understanding of any subject and start again if it needs to. That''s what makes it strong. Science will always trump religion because it can always adapt. Being wrong is not a crime in science it just means you didn''t have all the facts.[/quote]   I''m confused, how does not being able to prove something make it stronger? I think that what you are trying to get to is that the fact that science can admit to not knowing something and through the maliability it gains it''s superior position. That is a reasonable arguement against (most) established religions but isn''t in itself any evidence against there being some kind of higher being or superior entity that has been involved in the development of life the universe and everything. Just because the human condition forces us to try and understand things that are beyond our understanding and so things were explained in the way that made sense to people at the time doesn''t mean that the underlying article of belief is invalid. You are in the same trap as Dawkins, just because the religions are wrong doesn''t make ''god'' wrong, it just means that we aren''t accurately protraying it.   Organised religion has done a lot of damage, there is no denying that, but it has also done a lot of good. Religion has meant that humans have survived in situations where otherwise we might not have (e.g. kosher laws in the desert make total sense) it has also meant that people don''t get overawed by all the enormity of what they cannot explain. Some religions recognise that they have to adapt and they have to reinterpret what has gone before (see the Talmut) but a lot of evil has also been done through this way (see Jihadists). The problem is that religion is trying to explain concepts that are beyond our understanding or realm of experience and by the very nature of them always will be, what happens after death, what came before life, what exists beyond the stars. These are all of the same questions that science is trying to understand, the only difference is that science is using all of the modern tools at it''s disposal to answer these questions, tools that were not available when the religions were formed.

Just to be clear, I''m not saying that Dark Matter and Energy are god, I''m merely using it as an example of how there are many things that we still don''t know and probably won''t in our lifetimes yet they breed belief and faith in much the same way as religion''s have their belief and faith in god(s).

[quote user="Buh"]It doesn''t matter what the personal belief so an individual are in science. All that matters is the evidence gathered and how it is presented. I could care less what Einstein believed in on a personal level. What''s important is what he left behind. His words can be mis-interpreted, his lifestyle altered or doctored but his theories and body of work are there. The universe is a beautiful and magnificent thing, the way it works is extraordinary and it is all the more extraordinary because there is no god. It''s more beautiful. And please don''t insult all of our intelligence with the "he works in mysterious ways" BS. Singing songs and believing in fairies does not get you eternal life, it''s a ploy.[/quote]   So it''s all about evidence gathered and how it''s presented, so what about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? We can only infer their existance from the testable results of various theories that are currently accepted as accurate, however, we don''t know what they are, how they work or how they interact with the matter which we can perceive, despite this it forms a corner stone of physics. It is being presented as some exotic matter (WIMPs or somesuch) and some total unknown force permiating everything, which is kind of what religions claim of god, how do we know that through the detection of dark matter and dark energy we aren''t actually seeing first hand (well second hand) ''god'' and it''s influence on the physical universe? For all we know ''god'' or dark matter could be a sentient being or beings that are physically creating the dark energy that maintains the expansion of the universe, holds the galaxies together and generally means that everything works as it does (and was created into the forms we now see)...   I''m not religious in any way shape or form, I would describe myself as an agnostic because I know that I don''t know for certain that there isn''t some form of higher being, it doesn''t matter how much science or observation we do, we still do not know everything, we are constantly discovering new things that change our understanding and cause the models to be refined, theories to be reworked and ideas to be reconsidered. Evangelical atheists are as bad as religious zealots, they have closed their minds off to the chance of their being something there that doesn''t fit the model of life and the universe that they have accepted and built their castle on.

[quote user="crabbycanary"]quote user="cornish sam"]Is anyone else finding themselves reading his name in Ronny Barker''s voice?[/quote After a series of crimes in the Glasgow area, Chief Inspector Conor McGrandles has announced that he''s looking for a man with one eye. If he doesn''t find him, he''s going to use both eyes[/quote]   Beautiful.... His wit is sorely missed....

Is anyone else finding themselves reading his name in Ronny Barker''s voice?

Balotelli, not even 50% better than mccormack going by fees.... The really odd thing about this is that despite him having a good record whoever he plays for his value keeps going down! He scores 20 in 59 for inter, Man city pay £24m, he scores 20 in 54, Milan pay £19m, he scores 26 in 43 and Liverpool only have to pay £16m. At this rate he''ll be available on a free by the time he''s 28...

I feel that in a way it''s bad business to sell for (potentially) so little to a rival, however, as others have said, bad attitude, sicknote, etc... so I''m not too dissapointed. I think that from what''s happened since he came in we can now say who the exceptions were when Adams said he''d spoken to all of the players and almost to a man they wanted to stay and fight, Pilks, Becchio, Bassong obviously don''t/didn''t, I suspect that RVW did but in that instance it is good business with his high wages and lack of suitability for a season in the championship .

Oddly enough I started reading this and thought the OP had got his Ws confused, it rings true on the whole with today''s match. Both teams were poor, neither really deserved the win. All of these people banging on about 1 shot on target, well wolves only had 3, all of which came after the sending off. Molineaux is a hard ground to go to, freshly promoted teams are hard matches early doors and we were both televised and first match of the season, to be honest I''m amazed it took us going down to 10 to lose it! The season is another 45 games, we were poor but can only get better (though Adams may be the wrong man to inspire that, jury still out on that one)

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"] Very different situations, different competitions and different rules.   Premier League acting within their own rules on the situation. Ji was never suspended, just wasn''t re-registered after coming back from international loan. The error was in paperwork, and there is no way that Poyet could have known Ji wasn''t available.   Henning Berg should have known his player was suspended, as he was sent off whilst playing for Legia. [/quote]   Not quite as different a situation as it first appears. From the Legia perspective it was just a paperwork error. The player was suspended for 3 matches, they had already played three european matches before this one, however, they hadn''t registered the player in their squad for the first two of these, if they had done then the suspension would have been served which is what they believed had happened.....   Having said all of that, the competition and rules areguement hold more sway. Add to that a different governing body as well with UEFA wanting to make examples of people and appear strong (as long as it isn''t a big club) and the PL not wanting to set any dangerous precedents and you can totally understand (though not agree with) the differing punishment...

Yes lapps, I agree to an extent, but then won''t we just be back to the situation we were in before the 90 minute rule was introduced but with a bit more money being thrown at it? English football didn''t exactly burst with success then either... I know that feeling city 1st, at work HR sweat there is no bell curves being applied to performance rating yet every team seems to have the same proportion of highest and lowest rated, odd that...