The9

I somehow suspect not. Though she did do that Ladies' Day thing and get her photo taken with 5 of the unattractive goons.

I'd take that as the highest possible critique of her man-appreciation skills.

Not quite the same situation as when you're in financial crap and trying to cut all expenditure though.

Yet somehow no-one has come to the conclusion that we're doing the same thing with Guly ?

Counting does not appear to be your strong point.

Rowe looked very good indeed against Liverpool last week on LFCTV, and still had a pretty decent game in the tonking they got on Friday, too - he's certainly worth a run at Barnsley if we plan on giving a few kids a look rather than putting out the first team to try and win the tournament... He won't get number 11 though... probably won't get 15 or 19 either, but there are a pile of numbers from 27 upwards free which academy players usually get.

We have an average to unattractive side, says the wife.

Except he's now out for 6 months.

I've seen him score goals by running past people with the ball, sprinting, and getting on the end of through balls on YouTube, so I'd say he was more mobile than the bloke we usually stand up there, and he's also more of a target man than any of our current wide attackers (eg Lallana/Rodriguez).

That's because I'm not a troll or a WUM.

Frankly there is no chance of me even attempting to read that shattily-formatted heap of toss.

The relationship is nothing like as pronounced anywhere else on the pitch as it is between a creative central attacking midfielder and a mobile striker.

You would certainly hope so, or he'll be on his way. His only get out so far was that there was no-one capable of making the runs he could exploit with his passing, now that excuse has gone he has to start delivering. Unfortunately, he could also probably do with a break, he hasn't had a summer off since 2011.

Such luminaries as Johnno Forte and Aaron Martin have been the most recent incumbents.

You mean joint top English Premier League scorer Danny Welbeck, right ?

Gosh, please start another thread slagging Ramirez off, they are enthralling.

For the record, football league newcomers Newport County have a system that does this, albeit only for about 5000 seats, but scale isn't really the issue, it's the crappy system. Which is less capable than one used by a poky L2 team that only even needs to sell tickets about 1/5th of the time.

We're just about to get a big ol' wad of Prem cash for last season and will be getting more next year, as will everyone else. I'm inclined to think the reason where was a shatstorm about funding in the summer was because Cortese's worked out that next year EVERYONE will have tons of extra cash already floating around, and he wanted to spend big this year before the cost of players signing for Prem clubs ramps up ridiculously in line with other teams' expectations. Obviously as we'd already spent some of last year's money on players last summer, we needed more investment to get ahead of the game. I'm not worried about the spending, I do however reserve the right to question the amounts, because unlike those skatebags down the road, I have an interest in making sure the club I have a season ticket for isn't spending money it can't afford because I would like the current level of success to increase, rather than being a very short term temporary measure and have my club as a byword for financial recklessness and embarrassment to the division we're in. Richard Scudamore on BTSport on the weekend was very keen to point out that the FFP rules were intended to prevent teams doing what Portsmouth did, and I think we should all be grateful that that specific example isn't a popular one.

Well even if it was, we didn't have enough of it left to hand to front it up for Gaston without a bunch of fartarsing about.

MiniBarcelonaSaint was saying similar things on Facebook earlier. Strange, the missus is always complaining that none of our team are lookers.

Or just give it to a centre back for 5 years or so.

As we need to use continuous numbers unless the Premier League Board approves otherwise, and we also have to name 25 senior pros if we have them, I would be pretty sure that the supposedly "free" numbers have already got Sharp, Hammond and Lee's names against them unless we do sign other players. We don't have to publicise that though, which means we can change the ones that haven't been announced before September 3rd - if we sign other players. It's FAR too much of a coincidence that the "free" numbers coincide with Sharp, Hammond and Lee's previous numbers though, as well as Forren's former number 15 not yet being filled. Barnard and Forte are now numberless, but we'll need to name them if we don't sell them or sign anyone else.

Incorrect : http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/19/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

I think you'll find forum protocol is to state "Rule 1".