CB Fry

I'd like a slice of that.

LOL. The days of the relentless production line of one player that Pochettino blooded for us seem like a distant memory. Oh so many, many player that he blooded.

The UKIP leaflets write themselves - tragedy when Bin Laden died, waving the little Red book in the commons, Ken's drivel from last night, a general refusal to support "our boys"/protect us/take on the enemy/etc. It's a pretty safe Labour seat so they'll still win, with the victory presented by the rabid Corbynistas as the greatest victory since Culloden.

When you write your next history book will you be portraying Sam as a more significant player than Tadic? But yeah, what a goal it was.

Waaaaaaaaaaaeverton.

Fair play to the club for agreeing to play the Senegalese national anthem before the Liverpool match. Let's hope the scousers respect it and allow us to remember him respectfully.

A seven million quid signing is blooding a young player now? Right. Lallana, a central member of the first team squad for the four/five previous seasons is blooding a young player now? Right. Shaw was obviously a great prospect but we knew that when Adkins picked him, as Koeman would have done too, unless you think Ronald would have not "blooded" one of the most expensive young players in football history.

I'm struggling to understand who this wonderful production line of young players that Pochettino supposedly blooded/developed while he was here. Chambers, fine. Who else? And Koeman has played Targett in much the same way Poch used Chambers, just probable that Chambers is better. Or should we just play young kids even when we have better players available so divs on here can get all wet about how we are blooding youngsters?

To take last season as an example, the top 3 all won 22-26 games and the bottom 3 all won 7 or 8, so basically the top three won three times as many matches. And in goals, top 3 scored 71-83 goals, bottom 3, 28 to 42, so about double. Three times as many wins and double the goals. I'd suggest there will be no significant over-index of last minute/late goals for the team in 20th vs the team in 1st, and I'd suggest the distribution will be about even through the league, in general, as the goals-for column follows league placement with only a couple of outliers (last season QPR scored more than WBA). Your theory probably sounds good in your head but I would suggest wouldn't be backed up with actual stats in any given season.

Maybe. We were going up under Pardew whatever, it's only him falling out with Cortese that stopped that. But you can't take that Championship season away from Nigel. He did it. Whatever Nige does or doesn't do for the rest of his career doesn't impact the fact that he did a great job with us. Yep, he had plenty in his favour but he still had to put a team out and do it and he did. I said many times when people were going nuts about how he was the next great young English manager/new Alex Ferguson etc that he could just as likely be the next Owen Coyle, Phil Brown, Aidy Boothroyd, Tony Mowbray etc. There's loads of managers with one purple patch at one club, maybe two and then not much anywhere else ever. I think we can agree he isn't the next great young English manager. Still love him though.

Currently 4th which if they finish there I'd be happy with that, in that there's no way they'll finish outside the play offs.

Very poor. Shame for our Nige but that is not good enough for a club like Sheffield United and they've spent a few quid too I think. I would think they're not happy down there.

How has JWP's career "stalled"?

Today, Egypt. http://gu.com/p/4ef6n?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tapatalk

He was basically the K Billy Supersound of geopolitical forecasting.

Alpine didn't start this thread, I imagine his son has been on his account again. One single line post and no replies? Nah.

The problem with the survey is shown up by this: "In fact, an earlier poll by the same company carried out in March for Sky News showed that 4.3% of non-Muslims expressed “a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”. Meanwhile, 9.4% expressed “some sympathy”, suggesting that attitudes held by the Muslim and non-Muslim populations are not that different when these questions are asked" So the index of Muslims vs non-muslims on the question is not quite as dramatic as the headlines suggests. "Do you have sympathy" is a awful, vague question and the research agency deserve to be stoned to death for setting it.

Thanks for completely agreeing with me.

Who did he "stick with"? I've given him Chambers, but Shaw clearly was a stand out and would have got game with whoever was the manager. Who else? Happy to say that players we had like Lallana and Morgan all developed under MP but they developed under Pards and Adkins too. Not entirely sure who these players are that MP stuck with are supposed to be.

Poch can be credited with bringing through Chambers but all the others had already established themselves in the first team, or the first team squad.

I accept your apology.

So you haven't found anything then. Thought not. Keep lying.

You can put your own spin on that if you like, but the post a couple of posts later clearly contextualises that one. "Continue to argue" is what you said. So that's kinda more than one post ain't it. Keep lying.

Err, you said this I asked you if religion is just a "convenient excuse" here, what is it an excuse for, what's the real reason they did what they did? Your answer was they are "sociopathic bullies", which while a nice phrase but sounds like the motivation of an one-off nutcase rather than a multinational identifiable organisation but you know best. You can, if you like, explain what the aims of those terrorists were, what they are actually trying to achieve, if the religion element is just a "convenient excuse". I'd say it was pretty central part of it really, and not a "convenient excuse" but that's just me and pretty much every expert on the situation you could think of. Indoctrination and an extreme acceptance of a worldview founded in faith is at the absolute heart of what is going on here. Pretty much the opposite of a "convenient excuse" and the dictionary definition of "total faith". The one (kind of) positive thing I will say about this people is they must really, really believe it. To swish all that faith away as a "convenient excuse" sounds like an utterly bizarre interpretation of what is happening. Anyway, youre the boss. What's the real aim of those people if religion is just a "convenient excuse"? Whenever you're ready. And on world wars you talked about people dying in the name of God. People died for lots of reasons in WW2, "King and Country" as much as anything else, but you're the one trying to link it back with religion. Faith played a part in getting through the war at a human level on all sides but WW2 was not a "religious" war. Anytime you want to accept it wasn't primarily a war about religion the floor is yours. Robert Zimmerman ain't going to help you.