K-Carlsen

You can not compare those two terms at all though. Calling someone "black" is not the same at all as calling someone "Der Butthammer". One is an acceptable term to describe someone's ethnicity, the other is a derogatory term to describe someone's sexuality. To say that it's ok because "it's what gays do", is a very silly view to take in my opinion. To assume that he engages in anal intercourse, just because he's admitted to being a homosexual is just ignorant. I understand what you're saying, but do not completely agree with you Let's turn it around... let's say this story was about Hitz going Tiger Woods on lots of women and someone called him "der pus*yhammer" etc, would you then respond: "...that's a derogatory term to describe someone's sexuality. To say that it's ok because "it's what heterosexuals do", is a very silly view to take in my opinion. To assume that he engages in vaginal intercourse, just because he's admitted to being a sex addict is just ignorant." If yes, fair enough. If no: I feel like the problem is that we make homosexuality into something special, when it isn't. Just like heterosexuality isn't. It's just different sexual orientation. If we are to accept it, it should not get treated any different than what it is. Meaning, something that happens before birth and is not a matter of choice. It shouldn't matter. Like skin color, haircolor, height etc. But somewhere along the way we have decided that it's ok to joke about X, but not Y. Haircolor, but not race. Height, but not sexual orientation etc. When none of these things should make a difference in judging a persons character, because they aren't a part of a person character at all. It's labels, "he is a gay man", "he is a black man", might as well say "he is man with DNA". If, and notice the IF, it's "OK" to make sexual jokes, then why not homosexual jokes? What makes the homosexual version cruel if the heterosexual version/counterpart is funny? Homosexuality shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of, it becomes that because it is not treated as something normal.

Slow clap for gay jokes already. Very supportive and not the least bit offensive and immature. Oh no, the butthurt is strong in this one. But seriously, have a yourself for being so right on. It must be great up there. Me? I'll laugh at whatever the **** I want, thanks. + I don't see how that can be so offensive. I mean, I understand it because it is that way and people react to it, but if you look at what he said it was just a creative way of expressing what gays ACTUALLY do. Hammering butts It's like certain people doesn't think it's right to call a black person, black. "no, don't call him black, call him culturally enriched", like black is something to be ashamed of? If we have a color we call black and someones face has that same color, it would be unnatural to not use that word to f.ex seperate that man from another. In the same mould, a gay man has and/or desire sex with men. Why is it then wrong to state that that is the case? All people have some sort of sexual instinct and orientation. Some people are what we call "gay". These people were born with a slight different brain structure than people of other sexual orientations. That should be the end of story, imo. One day we will hopefully have no gay parades and no gay pride movement, just like there is no heterosexual parades or heterosexual pride (it is however a good thing right now because it helps young homosexual to accept themselves, when their surroundings might not). There should be no reason to be proud of something you were born with, something you never got to choose. I have a few friends that is "gay", they are my friends because they are fun to be around. If there is anything they have or should be proud of, is that they grew up to be just that... likeable people.

It feels like:

Nah, wouldn't trust mashiter, his stories usually has a rear end.

Heineken!

Yes! Get the confidence back in his game and he can be a very good championship player. Maybe a good premier league player in the future, but he isn't as of yet.

Aaah.. 2004. Cech, Grygera, Jankulovski, Nedved (!), Rosicky, Baros, Hubschmann, Koller, Galasek, Smicer etc. What a team that was! What happened?

There best side is their ladies team. Managed by Tim Halfhead Isforehead. http://www.birminghamcityladiesfc.co.uk/managerCoachingTeam/tim_college.html

Yes, in one week from now. Will probably happen. Hope so for both Villa and Marc.

This. ...is more important than this. There are many talented players out there, but it is those with the right mentality and determination that actually makes it.

Based on these transfers my estimate is that our total expenditure over the year is about £5.56m 1. We save £19.24m on salaries. Within that I have put Bent on around £75K a week (based on google search), Holman on £30k, Fonz & Bannan on £20k + estimated that Stoke pay us 50% of Irelands salary. Might not be exactly right, but I would recon it's close to those figures. 2. We have recieved around £4m in transfer fees. (2m from Bent's loan fee, 1.75m bannan + crowley & willams) 3. We've added £11.7m to our wage bill. And that is "being careful", might not be that much. Estimated 25k in average wage between the 7 new ones + 50k in improved contracts for existing players. 4. We've spent £17.1m on new players. That's included £1.7m for Helenius, £1.6m for Luna (spanish reports says it was €2m) and £4,5m for Kozak. So... £19.24m saved a year + 4m received = £23.24m £11.7m added to wage bill + £17.1m spent = £28,8m £28.8m - £23.24m = £5.56m If Stoke pays Irelands full salary and we are able to ship out Given & Hutton (salaries 100% paid) we would actually be able to break even

Was never that much. Read outtakes from aalborgs half-year report which stated that result before taxes was improved by £2.3m compared to 2012. It is believed by the aalborg supporters that £1.7m of that came from the sale of Helenius. Most of them say that the fee was 15 million danish kroners, which is equivalent to exactly £1.703.820,-

Think you can include Janoi Donacien and Daniel Johnson in the squad as well. Listed as first team players on the OS.

Given (and Hutton) can still be loaned out, right? As long as they drop down a division? Heard somewhere that football league has one extra week for loans or free transfers

あなたジュリーbが変装している？

Went on loan to notts county a while ago

Just been announced he's gone on loan to Wigan. Hmmm, ok. Probably a good signing for them then. Still hope we're in for a surprise, but looks unlikely. Could do with one extra midfielder in the squad, even if it isn't that exiting AM we all wanted.

I know we are probably done, but with Fellaini and Herrera probably joining Man Utd tonight it would be interested to see what the response to a Nick Powell bid would be. Crewe fans are still raving about how great he was (keep in mind that he played with Westwood and Luke Murphy who doesn't get too many mentions in their forums these days).

Hmmm.... but hopefully with someone else?

For comparison: Don't agree, nose isn't right. Think it's bowery myself.

If that's the case his hair grows at amazing speed. Was bald in his last game for Bastia on saturday

Looks more like Bowery to me.

Yes, yes, yes! But we can't afford him. Unless it's a loan with option to buy next summer.

....or that defender from pescara. Capuano.

Understand the perspective of "what if benteke gets injuried" etc (AND that kozak isn't necessarily a "back up"). But what if Westwood can't play for a few months, who's gonna dictate play and drill passes? Still think we need another midfielder.