Grant(aka_eddy)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the English government really wanted to bring in this ban did they? They were pressured into it by the non-smoking lobby after coming up with a (not very clever admittedly) compromise about non-smoking food pubs. I really dont know what brought it about but i'm pretty sure if they didnt want it it wouldnt be here. I also think the disturbance to the smokers outweighs the presurre from the anti-smoking lobby and they will have known that.

I rarely go out in a group of less than 6 people and they are mixed in smoking and not smoking. The nature of smoking means people are not able to not smoke in comfort for several hours so they would wish to attend the smoking premises. That leaves the rest of the people with a choice of splitting up the group or also attending the smoking premises. That to me is not much of a choice at all and would completely nullify the whole point of having two types of premises. In reality i think the vast majority would fall into this category as we already make the decision to attend smoking premises and in the vast majority of cases still do because that's where we want to be. SO although the isea of seperate premises seems a nice simple clean split to match the simple clean split between smokers and non-smokers, in reality it isnt like that at all.

Sorry Dundee, i'd edited my post as i quoted the wrong text....should be a bit more relevant to the points you're making and possibly a bit less early morning grumpy!!!

But then you take away the non-smokers choice of working in places where smoking is allowed. Anywhere smoking is allowed indoors, a group of people is effectively excluded from that place - simple as that - therefore smokers will have to give up their right to excersise their bad habits and desire to kill themselves in public rooms. If there was a choice of smoking or non smoking places no-one would be 'excluded ' from anywhere. That's like saying you're 'excluded' from Chinese restaurants if you don't like the food. People should have a choice - smoking or non-smoking establishments. Seems like a sensible solution to me. Then smokers could carry on killing themselves happily while all the other people who dont like smoking can go to their nice clean-aired pubs. People could choose to work in a non-smoking pub rather than a smoking one if they so choose. Choice - it's what living in a proper democracy is all about. In a democracy a compromise is better than banning something that is not illegal, IMO. That goes for anything, not just smoking in boozers. Thats not really an 'adult' choice is it, nothing to do with it. Not all pubs bars, restaurants, public buildings are set up to accomodate this 'adult' choice that you suggest so logistically it would be a nightmare. Since the focus seems to be on pubs, very few are going to go through a building process for this idea, considering issues of fire exits, capactity and so on. The segregation issue would also negate the idea of the local boozer somewhat, would a group of friends spend their night in seperate rooms etc depending on whether they smoked. Would most people end up crammed into the smoking room anyway because it was easier to stick with those people. In terms of seperate premises, well why should there be. Why should i have to walk twice as far to one pub, why should groups get split up or have to spend the night at the venue they didnt want to, why should businesses lose trade. Sorry but i find the idea ludicrous, the practicalities and reality of that scenario are entirely unfeasible. Not smoking affects no-one, it's a non action. Smoking is an action that affects people. In the past it was considered acceptable for that action but since the health issues have been highlighted and alot of people have moved away from that culture i'm happy that this mistake has been recitfied. Smokers are being forced to smoke in a way that doesnt affect other people, the choice is with you whether you want to continue to smoke or not, most i know are using it as an incentive to give up a habit they want to lose. Oh and fair play to the government for bringing in something that will lose them revenue. Ok they'll probably have to make it another way but still, it wasn't the easy option for them.

There are a number of sites where posts like Vivas are accepted and even welcomed, I really dont think this is one of them. Generally people dont post links like that unless they hear first hand from a credible source and are that convinced by it that to an extent they are willing to stake their rep on it. So in that context i dont really think he's getting a hammering at all.

My first thoughts were that this was a satirical attack on the kind of transfer post we had in January. My revised thoughts are that you are very naive if you expect anyone to treat such a tenuous link with any degree of credibility.

We have Maloney, Berger, Barry and Young who can play left wing. Young on the right. I'd be very surprised if a right sided player didnt come in as Gardner, Petrov or Gabby are all out of position when they play there.

cheers! That's replacing Gemma Atkinson on my work computer, we'll see how long it lasts!

I'm with Rocafella on Koumas, i really cant see anything that special in him. That said he's not a bad player either and has some strength and verrsatility that could be useful. But he's a very poor mans James Milner from what i've seen. He could at his age perhaps step up, or be decent cover, but first pick in a team gunning for top 6...not on what i've seen. Oh and top reason for not wanting to sign Sidwell...."because he looks like a corpse!". Homo-erotic genius....cracked me up!

Technically i know nothing about it at all. The shot does have that 'doctored' look about it but it is still beautiful, nice one! Actually if you have it in a larger format can you upload it to imageshck so i can nick it for a background. Ta.

Well Newcastle seem to want Barton, Liverpool will go for bigger stars if anyone in the CM role, Arsenal have enough youth coming through, Man U have just spent 51 million on their midfield and Chelsea cant afford anyone plus have just added Sidwell. But if his heart really isnt in it then he should not bother and his career will stagnate at West Ham.

I think for the last year every time someone mentions SWP I always point out his inability to retain and regain possession on a bad day and instead suggest Milner. 90% of the player with none of the drawbacks of being lightweight or inconsistent, far more of a team player and can switch flanks. Cheaper too....oh and younger....in fact it isnt really an argument imo. Come home Jimmy!

I hereby declare that if we sign Fred, i will have his name upon my shirt!

In an ideal world we'll get the best players for a fraction of the price and then coach and motivate them to new heights....so I hope we're not the biggest spenders. But since it's not an ideal world we'll probably need to spend quite a bit. Man U have already spent far more than we will imo and Liverpool will probably break that further. I think we're looking at about 30 million net and though it wont have us in the title race i'm pretty happy with that.

Anchorman. (I'm in a glass cage of emotion. I immediately regret this decision. What's that Baxter, you know I dont speak Spanish! Sex Panther: 80% of the time, it works every time! It smells like bigfoots dick! etc etc) Not even on the poll! Tony you suck!

Yeah i'm aware of that one kkr. I just feel (and i dont think i'm alone here) that this thread has drifted really quite far from it's intended purpose. While I appreciate it's easier to moderate as it keeps all the transfer related bickering etc in one fecking huge thread, it is also nearly impossible to use for the intended discussion.

Is it possible the mods could consider implementing some guidelines for this thread? It's becoming increasingly difficult to wade through with very little in the way of genuine tranfer rumours, speculation or suggestions. Also could there perhaps be a "Tranfer window Success O Meter thread"? Perhaps without such a wank title, but you get the idea....4 more months of this thread in it's current format doesnt exactly fill me with joy!

Not, as the case proved to be! I stand by my comments though....we're still picking a load of toss in that midfield!

Any chance the Sissoko row can carry on via pm because i slipped into a coma half-way through reading that.

At Coventry, Newcastle, Blackburn and Liverpool. vs At Charlton. Quite important to remember that imo as it makes 1 in 2.7 look very good. I'm a big fan of Darren Bents, i think his all round game is under-rated. He is a very direct player so doesnt always look as good doing it as a flair player might, but he does link very well and plays some good killer balls.

The thing that makes me positive we can nick him off Pompey is that Harry Redknapp is a wheeler dealer, he'll take the money as he knows he can use it. There arent too many managers as willing to sell as he is. In terms of price, well my first thought was £8 million. Pretty top end and £5 million or so would sit alot better.

We're not in a position to get really top level players as yet. The odd one like Carew we may get lucky with but generally we're looking at player to take us to the next level. Until we get Europe it isnt really going to happen.

How does a striker with disciplinary problems help the team? A defensive midfielder that people know will rough them up i'll give you, but no-one is scared of Bellamy, not at all. The only thing that will worry people is his pace. I just dont get comments like that at all.

I'm not sure people are doubting his talent so much as questioning whether it is what we need or if there are better options without the baggage or who offer something a bit different. Bit too similar to what we have and far too much baggage for me. I think there's younger options at better prices (not necessaarily cheaper) who offer a bit more than Bellamy. He will do well if he comes though.

And the same way he already tamed Bellamy @ Celtic. I'm not doubting O'Neills ability to handle problem players but Bellamy and Berger are hardly on the same level. Berger has never had disciplanry problems or at least not serious ones. He was sent on loan for an argument about team selection (i.e. him not being picked), not for beating a team mate with a golf club, being arrested for assault or generally being a gobby arrogant word removed. Of course it could be that very severe disciplinary approach which is good for Bellamy, rather than the Liverpool way of glossing over things. But the Berger comparison still doesnt hold much weight imo. Plus Bellamy was only on loan at Celtic for a relatively short period of time, his problems since certainly show he wasnt 'cured'. O'Neill may get him settled down but he'll still be an areshole!