St Jim

It'll be mostly St Mary's

Generally yes, but consider the life LA has had. He is had to fight and work very hard to become and elite athlete in his discipline, then he had to spend over a year fighting cancer, not just cancer in one place but 4 places in his body - testicles, abdomen, lungs and brain. Riding the tour and keeping fit enough to do so puts your body and mentality to it's absolute limits, isolating yourself from the outside world putting yourself through hell. 7 years he did this for then 3 more years after a 3 1/2 year sabbatical. He's had the constant battle of the drug allegations and has has the USADA pursuing him for years. It certainly appears that Lance will not be in for a fair fight and given all the battles he has gone through I do not blame his decision to not fight it. He's probably just been broken by the constant badgering by the USADA. Another question I have surrounds the motives of the USADA. 1984 LA Olympics were clean in regards to the US athletes, however the was and still is rampant speculation that many of them were on PED's. The officials of the LA olympics refused to supply the IOC with a safe and subsequently the medical records of athletes were stolen. In 1994 these records were discovered to have been destroyed. One of the scientists involved in the testing commented in a recent documentary that he thought the samples all looked very watery, (insinuating that the athletes were using diuretics). Samples of the 1984 US team were still available so he retested a couple of random ones only to discover that with modern technology, the trace elements of drugs that were not detected in 1984 were present in the samples. Given this, given they are happy to pursue LA and given they have no issues in investigating the past, why have the USADA not pursued the 1984 LA Olympic team?

It's throwing up a bit of an issue between the USADA and the UCI. That in itself is a major issue but also that the USADA is a private organization not subject to governmental oversight and with no apparent authority or legitimacy (apparently). If this is the case then the way the USADA is run is severely open to being run with a not necessarily moral agenda. I mean who scrutinises the USADA and their actions? If, as they are, private companies are authorised to act as a country's NADO then surely they would need some government (or public service) oversight to ensure they are being run in a moral and non-corrupt manner. As I have mentioned, IMO it is the responsibility of the USADA to present evidence they find to the sporting governing bodies (like the UCI) who should then make the decision about punishments etc. You make a good point about LA only referring to not giving a positive test and not saying he doesn't take drugs but unlil the USADA or the WADA have physical evidence (i.e. a positive sample) then the presumption has to be of innocence.

IMO this is an absolute disgrace. The USADA are a private body assuming themselves the role of the NADO for the US and have severe question marks over their conduct. My take is quoted below but please discuss. and

Your avatar doesn't agree with you.

This.

It depends if we are being asked to provide proof of income (that we will pay the installments - which in it self will be the contract betweent he clubs) or act as guarantor. If it's the latter then we will be liable.

Apologies. I have removed it from the post.

Gotta love twitter - this has just come in and relates to a story 9 days ago fans.tottenham ‏@fans_tottenham Gaston Ramirez rejects Spurs offer

not very, just seen it word for word in an article on the Independant website yesterday.

A fair assessment I'd say. We all clearly remember "I will get my money back" and he is fast running out of options, particularly since the FL grew a pair (a small pair mind but a pair nonetheless).

What is the FL quota for loanees in any one season and at any one time? So far they have 5 - Mikkel Andersen on loan from Reading Kevin Long on loan from Burnley Paul Connolly on loan from Leeds Jordan Obita on loan from Reading Conor Clifford on loan from Chelsea I assume this will lead to the inevitable barrage of emails from us nutjobs to the FL who will quickly stuff them in the bottom draw and dish out the bog-standard response that they are looking into it and no decision will be made on PFC until a later date........by which point PFC will have pleaded poverty and how unfair it is they are not competitive, signed another handful of loanees and sent out a bunch of their youth on loan.

Why waste 3786 posts when 42 words tell the whole story so far

I would argue that only a small number of large value transfers are paid upfront and do you have any evidence that the fee for Ronaldo was paid upfront as I can't seem to locate any either way.

care to enlighten me?

As I have mention several pages back....... Ultimately it's a business decision in that is Ramirez worth paying for up front.

So on this thread we've gone from believing Sky & BBC reports, to believing 2nd rate UK tabloid journalists, to believing 2nd rate Italian tabloid journalists, to scraping the barrel believing agents......what next? believing that the PFC numbers do actually add up?

Is that Pompey maths ?

If you are so convinced why are you still posting on the Ramires thread?

And so the saga continues......... Simon Peach ‏@SimonPeach Ramirez negotiations "definitely ended" & #SaintsFC looking elsewhere says his agent. I'd suggest games are being played & it's still on.

I don't know how to respond to this as I can't tell if you are taking the p155 or not. I'm not, indulge me. Bologna have massive debts hence the need to sell Ramires but they need to obtian a certain amount from the sale to cover a required amount of the debts. If they don't then the will need to get a financial loan to cover the shortfall. We wouldn't just pay the money for the player upfront for a number of reasons: 1. No deal is structured as the whole amount upfront 2. It'll set a precedent with us that if a selling club play poor and hardball then we'll just roll over get our belly tickled and pay the full amount upfront 3. Why would we want to pay cash upfront, when we may not have it immediately but know that it can be covered by future revenue we'll receive. Even if we do have it it is financially better for us to have it in our bank account for a year or two, earning interest or be used on other deals. 4. Why on earth would we be responsible for sorting out other clubs financial issues. 5. It keeps us in a strong position if Bologna are so desperate for cash.

I don't know how to respond to this as I can't tell if you are taking the p155 or not.

Wasn't the fan's fault guv, it was Chinny, Storrie, al Mirage, Al Fatman, the Gun-Runner, the Gun-Runner's son, the Dodgy Serb, Saggychops..........oh and now the beer. tell me, what message does it send when a club rightly punishes a fan (by giving a life ban) for assaulting an official (push, smack, punch, kick ...they are all forms of assault so don't try to play it down by giving it the "it was only a push" - i've seen people serioulsy injured from a push), only to overturn it (probably after the publicity died down)? Disgusting club, disgusting fans and from my experience living there, disgusting locals!

Could be why they didn't sign them before the Plymouth game (maybe the players held out so they wouldn't be played and not cup-tied) and played kids.