PaddockLad

How come they were big mates then?....Sir Bob and Fergie both disliked Clough as it goes, and he did have a reputation for pissing his peers off badly. No one says things like that about Fergie. Fergie has huge power in the gme, hes the "go to" man for directors for references before they appoint managers, and for his fellow managers before they buy players, second opinion sort of thing. I imagine that pisses a lot of people off. The way hes come across via the media since hes been manager at manu doesnt bother me in the slightest. He likes to be in control, and makes sure he is. Nowt wrong with that, the image that portrays is irrelevent.

Yeah but that would depend on what Rent's and HF's folks did for a living...if theyre doctors or lawyers then you're pretty much right. If theyre dads worked at Swan Hunters in the light plate shop probably not, more like the opposite tbh.

Fuck all to do with "class", its about income. They wouldnt let any of us lot on here within a million miles of the Carlton Club in London, thats to do with class. But some of us may be able to afford the fees to join. Thats to do with income. Huge difference.

Stevies not middle class, he's middle income.

Joe Harvey nearly signed Fergie from Dumfermline around 1966...he went to Rangers instead, understandable as he was brought up 100 yards away from Ibrox. A mate of mine went to a non-league managers seminar in the 90s, he's an ex semi pro player and was looking to move into the management side. The FA set it up and the list of speakers was imressive; Hoddle was the England manager at the time and he spoke, think he said Graham Taylor was there as well, cant remember who else. Anyway Fergie was booked for an hour in the afternoon but spoke for 3 and my mate said he learned more about football that afternoon than he had in his previous 30 odd years on the planet All his ex teamates from his playing days say he's the one who organises reunions, wip rounds when one of his ex team mates' wives has died, that sort of thing. Him and a journo called Patrick Barclay had a mutual friend who Barclay knew hadn't been well and mentioned the bloke to Fergie one day. Fergie went on to tell him what the exact nature of the problem was, what the prognosis was, the treatment he was getting etc etc...it was obvious that hed visited the mutual friend quite a lot during his illness, all this and still finding time to run arguably the worlds biggest football club. Like him or loath him, not many people he's worked with slate him. Only the bell ends in the media who he's treated with a fair bit of contempt over the years. But as somebody mentioned he's only done that to protect his players and club. He's a fuckin genius really. Wish we'd had the board with the foresight and gumption to try to get him in the mid 80s, he spoke to Wolves and Arsenal at the time so may have been open to it eventualyl joining us....our modern history wouldve been a lot different if he had.

Rodger's inexperience shining through. Joke of an appointment. It has to be said that the outstanding candidate for that job was Alan Pardew

We've had huge success in bringing in someone better in as well, so thats good

This is Mike Ashley we're talking about, he only does a deal if it meets all his criteria. If we keep everyone we've got then under those circumstances its a good window iyam.

The Journal not really telling us anything we couldnt have worked out for ourselves tbh. If we hold on to everyone we've got, I'll be ok with that really. Good point about Wenger, he virtually invented the system we use for transfers which almost certainly rules out him paying daft money for Cabaye or Tiote. Chelsea on the other hand....

More like we're not going to pay daft money for a player with a year left on his contract. We've signed 3 players for central midfield, whatever other posistions/roles they may be able to cover Anita,Bigi and Amaltifano are all central midfileders as far as I can make out. Cetainly smells like Cabaye or Tiote will be gone by Saturday morning, but that may well not be the case if we play hardball on the transfer fee and clubs wont pay it. Going to be a very interesting few days....

No, its all the other shit you post as well that makes me think you're mental. And if you speak to others in your family or at work like you speak to folk on here then all the above is plainly bollocks. If you don't, then you're a WUM. So you're either a psycho or some sort of bored man-child. Not sure why you keep inflicting yourself on this place, but I suppose its a free country isnt it?

Debuchy to Real Madrid.....anything in that?.....is it, as they say nowadays.. "all over Twitter"?.....

If the flouncer isnt a WUM, he's got zero emapthy for anyone. Sort of kid who tortured kittens. And we all know where that leads.... Frankly, if he stands by everything he says on here he's one scary fucker.

Not sure mate, but its a good excuse to play this

Villa have 5.6million within 30 minutes drive. The population of Northumberland Tyne and Wear,Teeside,North Yorkshire and Cumbria is 2.5million. During the season, more people go to watch Newcastle and Sunderland per month than watch Liverpool and Everton, despite Merseyside having a population more than 500k greater than Tyne and Wear. In some ways, we're much the same as any other set of supporters. In other ways, we're fuckin exceptional I cant be arsed with this lot, beating them 6 nowt gave me a lot of pleasure as they acted like fuckin arseholes at Villa Park 09, but if we sent them down I really wouldnt give a flying fuck either way.

Oh and we'll sign nobody, thats how Mike rolls We may let one or two go.....got to be for big money mind, think of Andy Carroll a couple of years ago and you'll get the gist of this deadline day, complete with the club chopper sat on the tarmac at Woolsington..."too late to bring a replacement in" etc etc

What the fuck is a wing forward in Association Football you ludicrous fucking viking twat???!! Sort it out. A striker is a striker, a forward is a forward and a winger is a winger. Thats the way it is. Stop trying to fuckin confuse things/me

Being honest,theres only a hardcore from any club who go on a 4 hour flight to a european footballing backwater for a relatively meaningless game, especially at short notice and 400 quid a pop for the flights from London. Trust me I looked, and then youve got to get to heathrow/gatwick etc, in the middle of the peak holiday season in the UK, when the kids are still off school. There well be a bit of a "walk up" from Mags already in Greece on their holidays. Sunderland supporters haven't had to worry about anything like that, ever

FTAO lovethebobby and j2j..... if you can, get a bootleg of Saturday at V fest Hylands Park......Squire fucking loses it in a brilliant way on Fools Gold, completely overshadows I am the resurrection at the end......still cant beleive how brilliant they were, been grinning like a twat all week

If Stevie's appearing in your dreams mate I'd seek professional help if I were you

Howman have you missed your flight?

Its waffle in that its his opinion about the games....heres some facts in the "legacy" thread about what the true sporting legacy is likely to be: David Conn guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 August 2012 19.30 BST Will London 2012 inspire a generation to do more sport? Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA It was the key pledge supporting London's bid to host the Olympics, made winningly by Lord Coe and the then-prime minister Tony Blair: that a British Games would "inspire a generation" to become more involved in sport. A nation still heady with the glories it has witnessed now expects greater sporting opportunities as a legacy of the Games and their £9.3bn cost, but the Olympic torch has not burned away the stubborn realities dragging people the other way. Modern life for most besides those few full-time athletes is increasingly sedentary; Britain's sports facilities are old, tired and seriously underfunded, and being further depleted by swingeing government cuts to local authority budgets. The slashing of the £162m funding of school sport partnerships imposed by the education secretary, Michael Gove, in 2010, has received most criticism in the context of developing a genuine sporting legacy, but encouraging adults to be more active is a greater challenge. Critics say in the seven years since the Games were awarded to London, no sufficiently coherent plan, backed by will and resources, has been developed by the government to capitalise on the post-Olympic rush of enthusiasm. Hugh Robertson, the sports minister, while pointing to the £1bn which Sport England, the grant-giving agency, has to invest over four years from 2013-17, acknowledges that driving up participation is "very difficult," and a major advance is unlikely to come quickly. "I think we will see an improvement," he said. "The Olympics have been marvellous, and generated huge interest. But none of the things that made this difficult have been lessened. We are talking about societal change. If participation increases, it is likely to be on a long-term, incremental basis." Some say the prospect of even gradual improvement is being damaged by the government's cuts to local authorities, which own and run public sports facilities, but have no statutory duty to do so. In Sheffield, home of gold medal-winning heptathlete and "face of the Olympics" Jessica Ennis, the council is seeking a 20% reduction in its swimming pool, leisure centre and facilities budget, including that of the Don Valley Stadium, where Ennis trains, as it wrestles with a reduction to its government grant of at least £170m over three years. The council has already "drastically reduced" its maintenance of parks, including playing fields, according to its leader, Julie Dore. "The chance of an Olympic legacy is being undermined," she said, "and the situation is only going to get worse. We believe in all the benefits of sport, and do not want to close any facilities, but when we are forced to cut on this scale, our statutory responsibilities mean that sport, leisure and parks become an easy target." Councils are being forced to implement cuts of £6.25bn, 28% of their grants from the government, between 2010-11 and 2014-15, according to the Local Government Association. Playing fields, sports centres and swimming pools, and the staff to run them, are under threat and many budgets are being cut. The LGA warned earlier this year that by 2020 funding of discretionary services, including sport, faces a 66% reduction, and could disappear, due to the mounting cost of adult social care, which councils must provide. A survey of councils by the Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association (CLOA) earlier this year found that services, including arts and culture as well as sport, are suffering reductions of around 10% on average, with further cuts to come. So far, the CLOA estimated, 2,800 jobs have been lost in the sector. "The sheer scale of ongoing cuts to local government funding represents the biggest single threat to a participation legacy for London 2012," said Andy Burnham, the shadow health minister. The £1bn government and lottery funding of Sport England is the prime national vehicle now for encouraging participation, distributed to the governing sports bodies, which have targets to meet. A central aspect of the strategy is to link local sports clubs with schools, which often have an area's best facilities, and to staunch the huge drop in people taking part in sport after they leave education. Jennie Price, Sport England's chief executive, is optimistic for a post-Olympics increase in participation, but acknowledged many governing bodies, whose role has traditionally been focused on running clubs and competitions, were not equipped for the new development drive. She cited hockey, netball and cycling as examples. "We have a reasonable chance," Price said. "Around half the governing bodies have a good understanding of what motivates participation and are evolving different models of their sports to make them attractive." The challenge of helping people to be more active has grown into a major public health issue, although there remains limited co-operation across government departments responsible for different aspects of the problem. Sport England's survey in April 2012 found 15.3m people, 35.7% of the population, participated in at least 30 minutes of moderately intensive sport once a week, the recommended minimum. Department of Health guidelines for people to be active, which include brisk walking for at least half an hour five times a week, is met by only 37% of British adults, according to research published last month in the medical journal, the Lancet. So, the nation still hugging itself with pride at the prowess of Team GB athletes has 64% of its adults not playing sport once a week, and 63% not even walking often enough to be physically healthy. The mental and physical health consequences of inactivity are the subject of persistent official warnings; the latest NHS health survey for England found that in 2010 68% of adults were obese or overweight, a growing tendency in recent times, and 16% of children were obese. The economic cost of obesity is estimated at £50bn a year by 2050, £9.7bn to the NHS. Yet despite the warnings, progress towards increasing participation has been slow, and several ambitious targets have been abandoned. Sport England's figures show there was a jump of almost 1m in 2007-08, but since then, only around 400,000 more people have been drawn into playing sport. Given the stubborn factors pulling people to inactivity, it was always controversial for Coe and Blair to claim that hosting the Olympics would inspire a generation to do more. Surprising as it sounds, while inspirational feats still feature vividly in the national mind, no previous Games has led to a general increase. Blair made the claim even though his Downing St strategy unit had stated in a 2002 report, Game Plan, that the links are tenuous between watching top athletes perform and being motivated to do sport. "There is little evidence that hosting events has a significant influence on participation," Game Plan concluded. It advised that hosting events such as the Olympics would produce surging national pride, but for a huge cost: "It would seem that hosting events is not an effective, value for money method of achieving a sustained increase in mass participation." Nevertheless, three years later, Blair pledged to the International Olympic Committee in Singapore that a London Games would do exactly that. Coe later admitted the claim was not supported by research or a strategy for how participation would be increased. Then the £2.4bn budget presented by Coe's bid team, supported by the government, rocketed to £9.3bn, a golden pot of public money which was protected even as government funding was slashed around it. That huge expense, vindicated by the sparkling and brilliantly-organised success of the Games, dwarfs the money available to build and maintain sports facilities, and run sport development programmes, across the country. Chris Gratton, professor of sport economics at Sheffield Hallam University, explains that Britain's limited public sporting stock dates from two phases: late Victorian and early 20th century philanthropy when swimming pools were built, then leisure centres, the fruits of sudden local authority financial surpluses, in the 1970s. "Our commercial facilities, such as private gyms, are relatively good," Gratton said, "but since the 1970s, comparatively few public facilities have been built." Under the previous Conservative government, cuts to local authority budgets saw many facilities decline, and thousands of playing fields sold off. A review for Blair's government by Baron Carter of Coles in March 2005 found that rebuilding sports facilities to modern standards would cost around £4.5bn. Yet no major rebuilding programme has taken place, and just over twice that figure was spent building the Olympic facilities. Gratton said all research into sports participation shows poverty and inequality lead to people being less active. Finland, which has Europe's highest rates of sports participation, thanks to a strong public health message and making facilities available locally, is a more equal society than Britain. "Poorer people suffer social exclusion," Gratton said, "which, by definition, applies to exclusion from sport, too." Robertson agrees, and accepts the cuts to councils will not help. "I do recognise that poverty and inequality affect participation," he said. "And it would be dishonest not to recognise that local authorities cutting budgets will have an impact." He pointed in compensation to changes in lottery distributions which he championed, increasing the proportion of the lottery total going to sport from 13.7%, to 20%, enabling Sport England's £1bn four-year funding. He identified too a specific Olympic legacy programme, Places People Play, targeted at making small grants to facilities in poorer areas – the initiative's budget is £135m over three years. Robertson said that while the Games were a huge success, and had given sport "a tremendous boost," the afterglow is unlikely to translate into a great upsurge in participation. "We have held an Olympics which surpassed expectations; it has produced an amazing stimulus, and a new generation of sporting heroes. However anybody who remotely pretends it will be easy to increase general participation in sport is kidding themselves." So, the claim that a London Games would inspire a generation to do more sport, is in danger of being an over-promise. After the euphoria, the battle is against sedentary culture, junk food, haggard sports facilities, too few opportunities, local authority cuts, and, for young people, inequality between private and state schools. If this landscape undergoes no post-Olympic transformation, Britons who supported the Games so wholeheartedly may come to feel short-changed by its legacy

How much left back has he played?....