kop205

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Just don't see why Parry was brought into it to be honest when you admit yourself that we have a good summer in the transer market - all our major targets bar one were secured. We have spent a fair amount this summer, particulalrly when compared to Utd and Arsenal. And potentially getting two players who Rafa rates for a combined price of 8.7m (with 2m of that offset by Kromkamp leaving) has obvious advantages on spending over 11m+ on one player before any further funfds had been brought in - particulalrly when that would have meant almost certainly not getting Kuyt who, as others have pointed out, was arguably the real number 1 target. Given the amount we are in debt I just don't think the 'over cautious' criticism stands up to scrutiny. The lack of investment is another issue and they probably aren't beyond criticism on that one (though there is always the argument of better the devil you know), but that is a seperate issue. Given our current financial position, I think Rafa has recieved all the backing that it is prudent to give. No ofence meant by the 'dig', I just think that Parry deserves nothing but a pat on the back for this summer and your reference to him certainly fell short of doing that even if it wasn't a stick to beat him with.

So, in summary, you think it is Parry's fault. How unlike you. I agree that we've probably missed the boat on him now though we'll see, but given what we spent this transfer window (far more than just the £12m for getting into the Champions League) I don't think there is any way we could afford him at this time. Maybe Parry is to blame for us not being able to afford him, I don't know enough about him, but to blame him for not buying him even though we can't afford him is harsh. And to say that if we got Alves we wouldn't need to strengthen in the next two windows doesn't wash with me. Fowler, Sami, Zenden to name just three are people who, this time next year, we could arguably do with either replacing or brining in quality to challenge them. You strengthen while you are already strong.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Get a grip. There have been many more deserving of hatred than him.save it for someone worthwhile. This is being discussed at length elsewhere but the fault lies with the people who sanctioned such a huge pay packet for such a staggeringly out of his depth player. To expect Diao to bale us out is nonesense.

Callaghan made his debut in place of Liddell - though of course they may have played together after that. Cally certainly played with Ronnie Moran I'd think, so that would take us back to 1952.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Read again the post of yours he was referring to. It does come across as a tad agressive. Must admit I'm curious as to the suggestion that 2/3 people could be on their way out before the end of the transfer window but would be amazed if Alves came in now. Think we may have missed the boat on him actually as if he impresses this season one of the big Spanish clubs may be in for him - I think he read recently he was muttering something about staying in Spain. We'll see.

Carra.

I agree totally that his positioning wasn't to blame for either goal and the one in the Cup Final was unreachable. I'm not as convinced he mightn't have done a bit better with the one on Saturday, what with getting two hands on it, but I'm far from cetrtain thayt he was to blame. in any case, as I've said elsewhere I'm no goalkeeper and I'm sure that if it was partly an error from him then he'll be honest enough to admit it. He seems to be his own biggest critic so he doesn't me telling me where he may have gone wrong. And I as also said elswhere, he can punch the ball past halfway!

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Spot on (though the bit about if it had been a Liverpool player is stating the obvious! ) The notion that a three game should be the maximum punishment for violent conduct is absurd when the level of violence displayed is as bad as it was in the Thatcher 'challenge'. Set a precedent, shift the goalposts, I don't give a f*** - just throw the book at the c***.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Does that mean I've won? 'Wind up a more difficult target' = 'Start an argument I have a chance of winning insetad of backing myself into a corner and ignoring anything that challenges me to review my opinion' Free at last.

But the nature and intensity of the contact are fundamentally different, as is enshrined by the laws of the games. The comparison with rugby is completely and utterly irrelevant. Tripping is a more serious offence in rugby than in football for the same reasons as the Thatcher incident is more serious in football - it has no possible excuse within the laws of the game. An incident like the Thatcher one could, in theory, be brushed under the carpet in rugby as being a 'mistimed tackle' (though I seriously doubt that it would now). In football, it is brazen assault and there is no way out of admitting that. If you think there should only ever be three match bans then fair enough, that is a different debate. If you accept that there are circumstances when particualrly violent and dangerous play warrants further action then I struggle to see how the Thatcher challenge fails to fall into that category. But anyway, thanks for more of the tough rugby stories - it really validates your authority to talk about a horrendous challenge on the football field and puts us all in awe of how tough and manly you are, much more so that that puff Mendes.

To infer: To believe to be the case; to guess correctly; solve by guessing; to reason by deduction; to establish by deduction to conclude by reasoning in logic; to draw from specific cases for more general cases No, Looks like I was right. You were implying, we were left to infer. Backfired a bit that one didn't it? Looks like that philosophy degree came in useful after all. So, I'll ask again, given as you didn't answer it the first time - how were we meant to infer that that is what you meant, given the naked hostility of your posts about Fowler? Maybe you are a bit fick after all, I don't know - I wouldn't want to risk any more charges of personal abuse. Though seriously, report me to the mods if you think I've been abusive of you and if they ban me then fair enough. Incidentally, that is the 2nd time that you have tried to belittle me by correcting my spelling or grammar. In the context of your complaints, I also count that as personal abuse. I won't go on about the personal abuse, but as once again you have made no attempt to actually answer the points that I raise (this time regarding the fundamental difference between the stuff you have posted and Cam's opinion of Fowler, which you are now mysteriously claiming to echo your thoughts) then there isn't much left to say. I honestly feel that I've tried to answer your points, rather than just saying 'you disagree with me so are therefore wrong'. Check back at some of the posts where I've gone through your posts point by point to answer them. I don't think you've done very much to answer mine other than just repeating your original over-the-top assertions about Fowler and then suddenly claiming you meant something else all along when you read what Cam posted.

What was manly about Thatcher's challenge? Pisses me off all of this faux bravado and machismo. Tell us some more stories about knocking people out on rugby oitches to show how tough you are and what a puff Mendes is. I've played footy at a reasonable level and (at less of a level) rugby. I am more than aware of what goes on. I still think that was an exceptionaly dangerous and cowardly challenge, especially on a football pitch when you don't brace yourself for someone taking you out the way you do in rugby. That is why it is irrelevant to say that a similar challenge in rugby wouldn't cause much fuss (not that I'm sure that is true anyway) - totally different games with totally different levels and kinds of physical contact allowed. It was an indefensible challenge and they should throw the book at the c***. Nonesense to suggest otherwise, but then you do so like playing devil's advocate, don't you? 'Look at me everyone, I'm being controversial. Again'.

And in rugby it is also possible to cite people and have them banned for months if dangerous play is proven. Now I don't think discussing what should happen to a football player by referring to the way that rugby operates is particularly helpful or relevant, but if we are going to then it can be equally used to support a long ban as to say nowt should happen. What went on pre-Sky is also irrelevant - if soemthing like this is caught by the cameras, it should be acted upon. To say 'Ah, but Tommy Smith wasn't banned for a similar challenge back in 1967' is frankly ridiculous. It was a horrible, cowardly tackle that could have caused career ending injury. 6 - 10 game ban for me. This has f*** all to do with 'removing the physical side of the game'. There was nothing manly about that tackle, anymore than there was in Essien's tackle on Didi last year. Some things are penalised too quickly these days but that challenege was a shocker and the 'keep the physical contact/would have been fine years ago/happens every week on the rugby pitch' stuff just doesn't wash.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.