The Kraken

It's not about whether clubs make zero mistakes in the transfer market; its the proportion of spend on players that do and don't work out. Spurs are getting pelters this season from all corner for spending all the Bale cash (and then some) on players who are under-perfoming compared to expectations. Everton on the other hand have spent relatively little, made some excellent loan signings, and Roberto Martinez is being lauded for it. We've made some amazing signings in the past few seasons. There's also no getting away from the fact that we've also spent proportionally an awful lot of money on players who haven't or aren't quite working out. It's perfectly valid and not trolling in the slightest to point that out.

Well said Duncan. Although manji is quite possibly the most bitter poster in m-board folklore so I'm not sure of the wisdom of such a benchmark.

I thought it was a twitter thing hashtagconfusedkraken

I can only think that 110 was an alt, and got thwacked by the b-an stick for that. If he got b-anned for posting a consistently contrary view then I find that a bit of a shame. He was a bit of a tit but everyone's entitled to a viewpoint, however incendiary others may view it.

I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if it did change in that regard; solely for the fact that, since its inception in 1993, the agreement has only got more and more strict. Only in 2009 was it brought in that foreigners with no "grandparents rule" relatives could play for any of the home nations (except for the 5 year pre-18 residency rule, which is fair). But I think all of the home nations see it as a vital agreement to keep integrity and not ride roughshod over each other; and for that and other reasons I think its a good rule, I like that we have it. I'm constantly amazed that the likes of the England manager and seemingly all of the British press and Sky pundit team don't ever seem to know about/reference this agreement The Januzaj debate rumbled on for days and not once did I see a press writer or TV pundit say "well, of course, there would have to be a major change in the rules for him to play for England".

Then again we could always get the left back equivalent of Gaston Ramirez

Yep, 15 goals in the Premier League last season was completely inadequate. Great analogy.

It's not a shame that's he's gone, he's clearly a pain in the arse, but it seems like his crimes have to been to be a bit negative and quite repetitive in doing so. You could argue that NickG and others of his ilk are at the other end of that spectrum. Again, not knowing all the facts its just how it seems. But its a shame if people are going to get banned for being too deliberately contrary, if that's what it boils down to. If its more than

OK then

Yes, we know this. So what was the solution? In that situation, what would you have done differently? What were the better options?

Are you suggesting he's lying?

Ha ha, he's gone!! Boom, headshot. A touch harsh, really, unless he's done something else other than ask a few negative questions.

To save people reading through a whole article, here's why (despite the huge media clamour) Adnan Januzaj can't actually play for England (and also why Morgan can't do under the current agreement).

And Pat van den Hauwe had a Welsh mother

He's not saying anything the fans weren't thinking.

Read the link I posted and you'll understand more. 2009 was the latest iteration of the agreement, so whatever Pat van den Hauwe and his mates went through has been thoroughly superseded.

He may be eligible, but unless the Home Nations change their agreement he'll never get picked.

People might want to read more into the Home Nations gentlemen's agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement

Rational response: perhaps because exactly the same person was responsible for our early season crest, which had almost every single independent pundit purring about what a good side we are. A time when we beat the now league leaders at their place, amongst others. Sorry it seems so long ago.

You can probably add Oxford to that list too, although they're seemingly back on the up. After spending 5 years in what is now League 2 they were relegated to the Conference, where they spent 4 years. 10 years after relegation to the 4th league division and it finally looks like they may be working their way back up, despite being one of if not the biggest side in the division they've played in.

At 64 years old I reckon he's past his best, to be fair.

What was the solution? What whizz of a plan would you have initiated instead?

They're not good enough. But we don't have any genuine replacement options for them. Yoshida perhaps for Hooiveld, although his performance against Villa was error strewn. Fox and Gazza are the best options we have at the moment, which is a sad indictment but a necessary fact.

One first team player in the entire back 5, and it showed. We have a weakness in reserve, but then everyone knew that. Fox and Hooiveld just aren't Premier League class, neither is Gazzaniga IMO. And we really shouldn't have lost today.

The U21 thing though; that matters not a jot. There have been various players that have played for one country at U21 level only to represent another country at full international level. Kevin Prince-Boateng being one, playing for pretty much every German youth level before going off to play for Ghana at full level. Edited for horrendous spelling.