Saint Mikey

The Secret Footballer alluded to the fact that this sort of thing happened much more frequently than was reported. Often shielded by the media with bans going on 'behind closed doors' masked as an injury. The Premier League more than happy to comply in order to protect their brand. I think he made the statement that next time a player is missing for length of time with a suspicious injury, you'd have to ask the question... Based on this, I'm guessing Delgado was a skag addict of Trainspotting proportions.

Or photographed in the training kit with your initials on it.

Just backs up that we're very unlikely to finish Top 4 anytime soon. £400m turnover v £100m. It's like a Prem v C'ship side. Ticket income £100m v £17m. Shirt sponsorship £45m v £1m. These are massive chasms that are never likely to be bridged and thanks to FFP can't be supplemented by outside investment. Also shows that fans need to get used to seeing players being sold. It's part of our strategy!

Pay Up Pompey, comes to mind.

21/22. Got my Steve's mixed up with Howey & Watson. Good quiz!

My company is far from cutting edge and we installed something like this nearly 10 years ago. Can't believe that 'company x moving from paper-based to online' is a story.

I thought, that like Brazil, Argentinian clubs had benefited from a big TV deal in recent years? Ala the 'Premiership'.

Cuba is excellent. Make sure you spend some time in Havana, as it's so different from Veredero. Have to agree with Turks though, the Canadians are absolute cocks. Had a very similar experience at the hotel I stayed at. Anyway, as mentioned they might be the least of your troubles - as the place is soon to be flooded with yanks!

It really isn't. Klopp has competed at the top end of an elite league for a sustained period of time - winning it twice. He has also performed well in Europe. As much as Koeman has done a good job for us, he's not in the same league as Klopp - yet.

It nice to see that the PFA is sticking to 4-4-fücking-2! How many teams actually play this now?!

How much did Groves cost us? I can't find him on Soccerbase, or Speedie for that matter. Lists that we paid £575k for Dixon - quality ROI. Up there with Osvaldo and Ramirez - comparatively speaking. I remember watching Dixon's laboured performances, he was diabolical in a team that was desperately short of quality (Le Tissier excepted). How we managed to stay up under Branfoot, I'll never know. According to Soccerbase we also flogged Rideout that year too, for £250k. Pretty sure he would have scored more than the 1 that Dixon managed for us...

What one of arguably the best players this league's seen? One of Utd's best ever players? That may be more of a factor. Are you saying that if Ryan Giggs was black, he wouldn't have got the coaching job? I don't see Scholes at Utd anymore, or the Nevilles or Butt... Chris Ramsey now banging the same drum. I wish someone in the media would have the balls to stand up and ask some pertinent questions when this crops up in interviews. It seems you can't without being labelled a racist.

The obvious key is to get more black and ethnic people into coaching. That way over time, more will make it through to management. The point that is thrown about, that there are (x) amount of top black players in the Prem, so there should be (y) amount of black managers is a load of ****** for a number of reasons. Picking up on Turkish's point above, I think less and less top-level Pro players will become managers now, due to how much they earn. Will a player who's amassed a £40/£50m fortune decide that getting dogs abuse and working 12 hour days is worth the hassle? Look at the British managers in the Prem. Pardew, Pulis, Allardyce, Dyche, Monk, Pearson all had modest playing careers, or played at a time when there wasn't the same money in the game. All probably needed to work in football which has partly driven their motivation to succeed. Generally successful players don't make good managers. It's becoming more of a theme that people with modest playing careers are doing a better job in management, again prob a desire for achievement. They are, of course, exceptions - Guardiola being a prime example. I just can't see that in a game where a club like ours, who go to great lengths to gain an advantage by even taking custom made mattresses to away games, would allow the colour of someone's skin or their race to be any sort of factor in the decision making process. If we did, we'd potentially be handing this advantage to an opposition.

I think this attitude genuinely hurts the prospects of black and ethnic managers. Same as Ince who had a couple of decent appointments in the bottom division followed by 3 failures. He moaned he had to start at the bottom, yet has proved he was only good enough for the bottom league. The stats show that very few black players take coaching badges (in comparison). So, they're bound to be under-represented in the game. This attitude screams of entitlement though, especially when backed by a record like Barnes has. There are plenty of white British coaches who got one chance as a Mgr and that's it. Les Reed springs to mind, as does Ricky Sbragia and I can't see John Carver getting a Mgr's job.

We are so weak at CB. Not just now, but in years to come. Who else is coming through? Deir? Chambers maybe. Anyone else? Smalling and Phil 'Bryan Robson' Jones haven't turned out to be the answer and I can't see either suddenly turning into anything like the quality of recent years. To think at one point we had Terry, Rio, Campbell, King, Woodgate, Carragher kicking around. No-one is anything near the quality of these players, and we still won f'all with them!

Urban Dictionary: No mark: Also commonly used in Merseyside to describe an underacheiver, with no friends, no ambition, no job, but who often has illusions that he is someone or thinks he's important.

You really are one angry, jumped up little internet warrior aren't you?! I wasn't accusing you, I was asking a question to continue the debate. Of course, anyone with low self-esteem would see that as a dig and go on a massive rant... Can I ask what you are doing personally to help the eradication of sexism? Or are you just working on aggressive posturing on message boards instead and trying to appear holier than thou? Massive sense of humour failure with regards to iansums comment too. You've spent too much time trying to blow smoke up the asses of forum no-marks like Coxford Lou and lapping up the compliments. Take a look at yourself.

KRG, what exactly is it you want? No sexism at all? As pointed out, that is unrealistic and probably never going to happen. All we can really expect is to try and get the overall majority of attitudes to change. This is what is happening, but you can't expect a dramatic change of attitude when you've had 100s of years learned behavior instilled in people. All you can do is gradually educate and change people, so generation after generation it becomes better. Society has to evolve gradually. When you enforce massive change on society it doesn't bode well and usually sets that society back (look at Communism for an example, or any sort of Dictatorship for that matter).

I wouldn't say we live in a sexist society. I would call Saudi Arabia a sexist society. No doubt improvements need to be made, but society as a whole (in this country at least) has come a long way since even the 90s. Looking back at what was acceptable in the 70s & 80s, is laughably different. Things will change gradually for the good, but there won't be a sea-change overnight. It's just important that we keep heading in the right direction with education and awareness. Applies the same to all prejudices, racism, sexual orientation etc. etc.

You didn't say did you. Nah, you're OK - you can see my views here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?44373-Charity&highlight=charity#.VQGe7vmsX78

So you want to do a skydive, but want other people to pay for it? Begging - masquerading as a charity event.

Top 5 Big Time Charlies: 1. Brando 2. Ince (Paul) 3. Gallagher (Noel) 4. Crowe 5. Beattie (James)

That's an amazingly simplistic view you've taken there and shows a complete lack of understanding. So simplistic, I'd even call it idiotic. It's not just people from Pakistan who are called Pakis, is it? It's people from India, Bangladesh, the Philippines etc. etc. It's the connotations of the word, it's what it implies that is the problem and what people are offended by. You're not offended by being called a Brit, because it's not supposed to be offensive. Calling someone a Paki is a derogatory word that is meant to be offensive. Same as the 'n' word.

This thread is steeped in nostalgia. Top 5 from historical chat sites (in no particular order): 1. Amygate 2. Ted Bates statue 3. Javi: 'I keeel you' 4. Paul Allen & the yacht spotters 5. Other takeover related characters: Mickey Fialka, Barry the Briefcase, St David, Marc Jackson, Helpme Rhonda

What's the betting that they 'appear' to have made a modest profit, cued by a lot of back-slapping and sick induced articles from Nobhead Neil.