Fowllyd

His back's been playing up - they reckon he was bowling well below 80mph in the second innings at Edgbaston. You won't trouble Smith and his boys with that...

Bloody whippersnappers...!!

Isn't it more a question of holding his registration as a player? If we do, then he's allowed to play for us and for nobody else (without our say-so). The contract is an agreement between player and club as to payment, length of time tied to club and so forth. Players have been known to play without contracts before, I believe.

Think you've answered your own question there!

Glad to see Harmison back in the team - I think there are major doubts about Sidebottom's back, which would explain his being dropped - or maybe that should be 'rested' . I can also understand the need to beef up the bowling for a must-win match (a 3-0 series loss would be unthinkable, 2-1 is at least vaguely respectable). I assume there was no certainty about the final selection when Bopara was called up; no other explanation would make any sense!

I don't know about you, Steve, but I'm old enough to remember the four-captain fiasco of 1988 - Chris Cowdrey in particular, who hadn't played international cricket at all if memory serves!

Can't see how you're going to get a rebate unless you've actually paid something. But I do admire the avidity of your reading - and counting!

Good summary. I reckon (4) is the most plausible explanation; none of the others stacks up as well to my mind. I think Tommac was always a middle man, hoping to make a tidy sum by brokering a deal. He believed he was closer to PA than he actually was, and bigged himself up no little, but in the end he was just a mass of hot air. Can't see any serious skullduggery though - if the share price was being deliberately inflated, who actually benefited from this? None of the major shareholders sold significant quantities, and nobody else holds (or held) enough to make it worthwhile.

But how will we all get by on a mere three posts a day from the master? Bitter tears will be shed by many, I fear.

Aren't you going to subscribe, Scoobs? Your audience awaits...

More likely means till end of 2008/9 season, which would indeed mean we need to get him signed longer-term as soon as possible.

Ye gods! Can this truly be delldays and alpine on the same thread? It's just like old times... And yes, I do mean that in a nice way!

I think that's a little more information than was strictly necessary, old chap...

What level of membership and posts does the P*mpey forum have? All this makes a vast difference to the running costs. For that matter, you could always use Foreversaints, which I'm pretty sure is free. You'd only be communicating with half a dozen other people on there, though... And are you seriously suggesting that this forum is an offshoot of SFC?

No surprises there then. Journalists are essentially lazy sods, plus of course they only really give a monkey's about the Premiership. Every August, as sure as night follows day, they confidently predict that the three teams relegated the previous season will be straight back up. Every single season they're wrong, to a greater or lesser degree, but this never stops them making the same prediction the next time around.

Have to say I share the same concern, but I still think he's the right choice. Maybe that's simply because there's no other option that seems realistic, but I also think he'll do a good job as captain. What effect, if any, it has on his batting remains to be seen.

Just what it says on the tin really...

I'm sure it's not, but I wouldn't agree on either count. KP is a highly intelligent cricketer - don't be deceived by the brash exterior and the occasional rush of blood to the head. He thinks a great deal about his own game, and apparently is the hardest trainer in the England squad. There's certainly a level of risk there, but then there would be with any appointment. It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

Bet it seemed like a very fine idea at the time though, eh...

Wow, way to step out of the shadows! I think I prefer Thedelldays to Wonkey!

Chances are that those on the Echo site were exactly the same people you find saying the same things on here; of course, over the weekend they only had the Echo site as this one was out of action! If you're worried about negativity affecting the players, then surely it's best for those most likely to be negative to carry out their boycott threat? After all, they'll have precious little effect on anything from outside the ground. More generally, any negativity in the ground itself will quickly disappear if the team starts playing good football and winning - witness the comments on the West Ham game on here. Let's just hope that happens, eh...

So does either of you have any bright suggestions as to how this site might be funded then? Presumably your own pockets would have to remain untouched, so what would you do?

If they choose KP, which looks likely to the point of near-certainty, I reckon it could go one of two ways. It could be the making of him as a cricketer, or it could prove a disaster. Captaincy did no favours at all to Ian Botham or indeed Andrew Flintoff, but I get the impression that, behind the brash exterior, KP is a far greater thinker about the game than either of those two. Here's a question, and the way you see the answer will, I think, say a lot about your thoughts as to KP's suitability or otherwise: if he'd been captain on Friday, would he have got out as he did when on 94, with a century and so much more there for the taking? My own feeling is that I wouldn't want to see a captain doing that, so I'd hope that he'd have shown more patience. On the other hand, would you lose a lot of KP's essence as a player if he had to rein in the impetuous streak which he so clearly has?

Given that Poortvliet reckoned he'd be playing his intended starting 11 (injuries permitting) against West Ham, it seems likely to me that McGoldrick is his first choice as main striker. Didn't go to the match myself, as the lure of beer was too strong, but I have to say the result impressed me more than somewhat.