Super_Steve_Howey

I prefer to pit cats against small dogs in my living room in an arena fashioned from a kid's swimming pool.

I would have said it would only work on a handsome Italian gent, which I assume you are not

"The FA owe [NUFC] that much for letting them use their players." I think you need to read up about what the FA actually is, and what the rules are governing the relationship that exists between us and them. The 'borrowing somoene's tools' analogy couldn't be further from the truth. There are no shadowy shareholders who have got one over NUFC through this, NUFC are part of the FA, the activites and thus profits of the FA and the clubs are intertwined, one does not come without the other. It is purely by our being a member club of the FA that we can afford to employ Owen. The financial costs and implications of clubs employing expensive England players are the issue for clubs alone. If anything, the FA should be removing NUFC from the league for not having adequate financial arrangements if we are in such dire financial straights because of this.

"we're not benefitting football-wise by having him playing in an England shirt." I'd have a serious think about that statement. You're treating this as an us and them issue, which it categorically is not. The Premier league, transfer fees etc etc only exist because of the institutions set up by the FA. The financial loss caused by Owen's injury has nothing to do with anything the FA have done. This has nothing to do with who pays Owen's wages, he always was an England player, he was before he joined us, he will be after he leaves. It goes with the territory, call it a business risk, or call it prestige. By your logic, the FA would be within their rights not to play any player worth over a set amount, again another ridiculous statement. The monetary value of losing these players has nothing to do with the FA, there has always existed the situation that top players will play for their country. Why should this now change now the Premier League are cashing in? This risk should be accounted for by the clubs. We didn't. You absolutely cannot separate national football from league football. God knows what the end result of this will be. Do you imagine the FA is some kind of separate company, paying out dividends to shareholders? It is not. Who do you think doesn't get the money that the FA have to pay NUFC because they happen to employ an expensive asset? Incidentally, where do you think the insurance premiums you say the FA should be paying come from? Why do you think FA Cup tickets are now £95? Perhaps we are already seeing the effect of Freddies short sightedness. How will you feel when the day comes that the FA can only field a chamionship level side in a World Cup due to the financial risk? And on the day the World Cup ends up only having 10 entrants? The only way anyone can reconcile this action is if you want to see England be turned into a commercial team with the concequent contractual nightmares, and see the FA become a private company, and not the governing body of an organisation that we profit from being a part of.

You still haven't answered why we shouldn't have covered an 'asset' we already knew was an England player? What would we have done had this happened for us? This financial loss is self made, and we are blaming anybody but ourselves. Basically, you want national football to be scrapped. That's the only logical conclusion to this course of action. And for all you keep bleating on about what the FA has made, it is nothing compared to the PL and NUFC plc from utilising 'England assets'. The PL is part of an FA administered league. You cannot separate the two when it suits you. If you really want to be pedantic, perhaps the FA should be levying charges to NUFC everytime an England player performs for us, making us money. After all 'England's Micheal Owen' arguably owes part of his draw down to England. We will most likely never again be in the position to suffer from having a valuable 'asset' broken in a World Cup, but mark my words, somewhere down the line, we will suffer the concequences of this change in attitude to the football world. In the same way we once thought it important to smash the transfer record, we know suffer for it.

That's just sad. Just throw out a hundred years of football tradition, not to mention everything that is good about sport, because our 'asset' got broken. Forgetting the fact that we purchased an 'asset' that we knew was an England player, what do you think would have happened had he got injured in one of our own games? If we had cover for our asset, why didn't it cover every game we knew it would appear in? Or is the truth that we actually got lucky that it happened for England, as if it had been one of our games we would have been up shit creek? It's a ridiculous claim that will only end up with football becoming even less of a sport than it is now. The inflation caused by the Premier League and Sky are to blame for the cost of his injury. This kind of 'asset' bullshit only gives more weight to such attitudes that you need £100m to be a top four club, that the top clubs should break-away and form a protected super league, not open to lowly clubs that only have second-rate assets on their inventory.

I really do wonder what bullshit these foreigners are being fed. Surely the buying club might make the player aware that it might get cold sometimes, and the PL is the fastest hardest league in the world. Hell, maybe even show them a few videos?

Ok, you don't see what Owen's injury at the WC has to do with the FA when the FA has made millions through using Owen and other club's players practically free of charge? You don't think they should take responsibility for effectively putting another company's asset out of use for nearly an entire season? http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...st&p=311847

Whats his username?

This whole compensation lark is a disgusting abdication of collective responsibility. I fail to see what the hell it has to do with the English FA when the cost being incurred is purely down to the increase in wages and income because of the Premier League themselves and their alliance with Sky. Hypocrites.

I hadn't even noticed there was a standard PL style I won't be buying it, I think it's one of the worst since, well, since I started buying them . I'm sticking with my blue collared Northern Rock, couple more seasons and it'll be 'retro' and thus, I will be uber-cool

Vermin? Don't be daft, they eat the vermin.

Not any more he isn't

I've pissed in a plant pot once or twice at house parties, but it was because the upper floors were no-go zones dues to shagging/puking in the bathroom. Pissed up logic is great though, as fuck knows why I didn't think of going outside???

Random Fact. I once stood next to Tiff in a field, watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang drive round and round

I can't see why they need to. The set-up of the challenges produces these events. You're reading more into it than you need to, it's hardly JFK.

Bits of the races are re-shot, that's a fact, you simply couldn't film them otherwise, but they do happen as they present. Of course the plane 'hiccups' were known in advance, but they're not going to blow the whole drama and reveal that at the start, but that hardly makes it a fix. They are part and parcel of running a light aircraft. I think anybody could work out that a plane at 150mph in a straight line will beat the Veyron travelling across Europe. I don't know what to say if you really think they need to stage capsizings or breakdowns, given what the actual challenge was in the first place.

standard assured shorthold tenancy. says nout about what happens if they breach the contract. Pretty sure it basically says you can evict them if they don't pay the rent. Kind of the point of the contract. Unless you've really been stitched up.

Can't imagine a club with charvers in. The ones I use, the little shits wouldn't dare.

Pretty sure it can be done quickly if you stick to the legal process and do the correct things (don't ask me ), but I'm sure the law is always on the landlord's side. Spot hire a decent solicitor, it will save time and money in the long haul. Make sure they absolutely no grievance (or correspondance/proof of) with which to have reason not to pay. Budget for them trashing the place.

1. Why they would need to. How unfunny do you think these challenges are with fixing? 2. What they actually fixed? Blowing the Italian engine block? What funny bits didn't actually happen?

Ah right, you meant 'fixed'. Can't see the point really, or what they are supposed to 'fix' exactly.

Please expand. I can't see what your point is.

What was staged?

I'm fully aware this is most likely a wind up post, but here are my views anyway, just incase you were actually being serious.