HolteExile

No chance. I think that would actually be it for me and football if we ever helped the 'Toon out by taking the Barton circus down south. Don't want to be too critical of Barton himself, as I think he's mentally ill and can't help it. But avoid, avoid, avoid.

Wow. The curse of the horizontal British boxer strikes again. No wonder they're rarely taken seriously Stateside. Except maybe Lennox Lewis. And he didn't exactly sound British. Pacquiao looked different class, it must be said. But wasn't impressed with Hatton at all. He looked like one of those bums that used to be cherry-picked to fight Prince Naseem. Part-time boxer/baker/ candlestick maker(s). No plan, no skill, no clue. Hatton should walk now. He's got his $, and his memories of beating Kostya Tzu, Castillo et al. It will probably rankle with him that, but for Pacquiao, he might have been able to finish his career against a name like De La Hoya, and seal his place in Boxing folklore. He might have caused a faded, aged Golden Boy some problems too (no chance earlier in ODLH's career). But against the very best - Mayweather and Pacquiao in their prime - he came up short. No shame in that at all. Kudos for having a go, of sorts. But time to call it a day.

I'd say I'm 70% for him. Probably down from 90% in December 08. A bad summers business in the TF market and a continuation of our poor form up to, say October 09 and that could drop considerably lower. When I look back at our home form, not just this season but over the three years he's been at the helm I don't think he's beyond criticism. I don't think he's untouchable. And I certainly don't think we couldn't get anyone better. Thats the negative. The positive is, at least from a results perspective, we've made good progress overall since August 06. We cannot exist in a constant change of flux and be looking to change manager at the drop of a hat. It hasn't worked for other clubs with bigger budgets than ours, I see no reason why we should automatically be different in that regard. For me, he has more than enough credit in the bank to earn a crack at breaking the top 4. Or failing. Our history post-war has been littered with extremes in fourtune, one great season followed by one dire one. Only under Sir Brian and, to a certain extent JG, did we have a consistent run of high-placed finishes. It stands to reason that if you are consistently closer to that end of the table over a period of time you have a better chance of eventually breaking the top 4 and beyond, than if you're constantly in the midst of a rebuilding job with new players and personnel. Do I think MON is the man to deliver what we ultimately crave? I have some pretty major doubts about that TBH. Based on some of his signings to-date and our style of football at times. The best sides are comfortable in possession. I accept we are a counter attacking side not geared/ or dependant on long periods of possession. But we have defenders who absolutely shit it with the ball at their feet, and draw undue pressure on themselves. Better teams -home and abroad- can (and have) punished that.

Think their next two home league games are crucial. If they drop points in those then Arshavin or not, I'd say 4th is there for the taking. We could be talking about close to a 10 point gap at that stage. Even with Arshavin and those who are due to return from injury, that should be too much to make up between now and the end of the season. I expect them to win both of those games however. And us to draw (or maybe even lose to Chelsea). Still think 4th will go right to the wire.

Rubbish. I like all types of music, even some pop. But that is just dire. She can't sing, can't dance and anything from the Jay ZZZZ stable is generally tosh.

Proud to be Irish, proud of my country. Who despite only having a population of just under 4 million, has continued to make waves in the arts, literature and popular culture worldwide. Not at all proud of the present government and the parasites they have pandered to for far too long. But I make the distinction between them and the rest.

Depends on your definition of fired. If you mean in the ruthless, Donald Trump manner then no, it isn't as common in the public sector. But thats the whole point, on selecting a job in that area you effectively cap your earning potential for more security. That said, I know for a fact that there have been younger teachers at the same school as my missus who have been 'encouraged' to have career breaks and think about training for another vocation. And there have been older teachers, perhaps not as on the ball as they once were, who have been strongly encouraged to seek early retirement. I also know of a local Garda, caught for drink driving of all things in another part of the country who was kicked off the force. As if losing your job isn't hard enough, he had the full glare of the local community and media to contend with. There are inefficient workers in all fields, I find it baffling that you continue to target workers who provide vital services in this country when there are far more deserving candidates.

That is utter nonsense Ian. I work damn hard in work and nothing makes me prouder than when my boss does my anual review and puts my contribution down for the year as exceeds expectations. I'm rewarded for my hardwork for that year, I'm happy and I try to maintain that level of hard work, because I know I'll be rewarded for it. People work hard to get promotions, but they don't come ever year, bonuses are there to reward you every year for your work. I think capping them at 20% is necessary though. That is enough to incentivise people to work hard. Anything more would be excess and are only paid to traders based on "profits" for that year. Incentivising them to take risks for short term profits. It's wrong and this mess has proved it wrong. But hammering all bankers and all people who recieve bonuses because of this abuse is just plain wrong I work in finance. Part of my package is commision/ bonuses/ benefits. All of these will take a hit. The target to qualify for commision has been raised three fold. Effectively making it damn near impossible to achieve in the current climate. The profit sharing scheme- whereby employees see a blanket payout in March/ April based on revenue generated last year- has been suspended. And there is to be no annual pay review this year, regardless of performace. All of this is tough. But venting my spleen and putting the boot into teachers, Gardai and others in the public sector would be just plain wrong. I save my wrath for the gangters in government, the shysters who effectively ran the country like their own personal fiefdom. The natural succesors to CJH in many respects. And Seán FitzPatrick and his ilk, who either by accident or design have helped to portray the nation as a banana republic to the wider financial community. Ultimately we will all share the burden, but targeting lower- middle income earners- as is the intention of the current government isn't any real solution. It's a vaguely right-wing approach thats next logical step will be to target or blame single mothers. IIRC, it was a HOD at Anglo Irish that had the audacity to go on national radio back in December (it might have even been Fitzpatrick himself) and actually offered the above as a solution. Before the full extent of the collapse of Anglo hit home of course. A brave government, a decisive government would go after these parasites, and at the very least put forward a program of tax increases aimed at those in the higher bracket. Be that pay/ assets. Property developers and the like, who bloated the price of houses in this country to unrealisticly outlandish levels and who - for the most part- are still enjoying the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. But that won't happen. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

What, moreso than this gem: Google all you like, if you provide examples like above it's clear you can selectively source articles to tell you what you want to hear, to fit your narrow viewpoint. As such, I can't take anything else you say seriously. Public sector workers -indeed most who work for not for profit organisations- have less earning potential than others in the private sector. I'm not a teacher, yet I (and I'm sure the vast majority of people) know this to be true. It's hardly a revelation. You could of course compare examples of, say teachers and someone poorly paid in an entry level job in the private sector. But that isn't a like for like comparison. Most teachers don't do the job for the money. It's a vocation and has always been one of the worst paid of the professions, bearing in mind the level of training and qualifications required. There will be cuts across the board, that will be the reality and no-one will go unscathed. Teachers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers. But this : Is mindless.

What you neglected to mention is that teachers who are fortunate enough to get permanent positions on leaving college in Ireland (about 6%) might get close to that amount. For the vast majority, part time or temporary work is the only positions they'll find for the first 2-4 years. So they'll earn nowhere close to that figure. Minimal holiday pay (in many cases none), minimal security. Indeed, teachers who are currently in the job long-term (by that I mean 20-30 years service) will be doing well to see 45k. Not a pittance. But after tax, not exactly a fortune either. It's all smoke and mirrors from the govt, the only people gullable enough to swallow that are the types who usually blame the teachers for the ills of society anyway. When others in the private sector were busy lining their pockets during the boom years, teachers and other public servants were for the most part no better off. A rising tide lifts all boats? Not in Ireland, clearly. Now the arse has fallen out of the economy and it's teachers who are expected to take the hit to their pensions, one of the few perks of the job. Meanwhile: The chief protagonists, the bankers who got reckless and bet the farm on property, the developers who only too readily bought into this acceptable sub culture of greed and the govt who faciltated all the above (ex finance minister Cowan included) effectively walk away scott-free. Shameful.

Whats the difference between Ireland and Iceland?

Anywhere between a 33-36, depending. Used to be a regular 32. 5ft 8 and 83kgs. Think my ideal weight is somewhere around 75kg. 34 jeans are normally too loose and look baggy around the arse. 32 Jeans look better but constrict my breathing, so it's akward if there's no 33's knocking about. Bought some formal trousers last week and they were 36. A narrow 36, but it still a bit of a blow to the old self esteem.

Neither for me. Good in the first half of the 2001/2002 season. Very good in the 2003/04 season. So what, a season and a half out of 6 years? That might be good enough for the likes of SHA (who laughably accclaim Duggary to be their second best player of all time -he was there less than a year), not even close to legend material for me. But calling him an out-and-out flop is probably a step too far. There have been many worse players to wear the C and B over the years. Was never the same player after his knee injury in 2004. Was never the quickest, but after that he always seemed to be a yard off the pace. A shame, as I reckon in a good Villa side -like now- he could have thrived. We used him as a target man, which I don't ever think was his natural game. I viewed him more as a Peter Beardsley-type forward (without the Quazi Modo looks obviously).

I don't believe there would be a big take-up for standing if it was more expensive than seats. That would completely defeat the purpose. Part of the original appeal was that it was a cheaper, more 'basic' way to house supporters and this lead in turn to the atmopshere/ industial language. Cannot see it ever returning for the reasons outlined previously (much as I'd like it to). Don't think cost would be an issue. How much would it be to remove the seats from the lower Holte for example, and install crush barriers or the bench style partitions on display in German grounds. The investment in CCTV and a fear of a potential increase in crowd-related disturbances would be the main obstacles. Who would want to carry the can for effectively authorizing/encouraging the latter? I don't think it's a given that trouble would follow automatically, particularly not at VP. But any incidents at other grounds would be seized upon by all the usual suspects and held up as a glowing example of declining standards/ an out of touch Labour party et.c. In short- outside of delighted football fans obv - too many would have potentially too much to lose.

Calander year -Ashley Young. Closely followed by Laursen. Season to date - Petrov.

Think membership might be dependant on a bit more than two decent results against the Sky 4. Everton have been 'best of the rest' for the past few years, thats how the rest of the country view us at present. No mean feat in itself, many sides would swap places with us in an instant. But to be thought of as part of the 'establishment' means operating towards the top end of the table over a consistent period - 3/5 years minimum, and being genuinely in the hunt for the games biggest prizes. We are closer to that aim than we were in 2006, but there is still a long, long way to go yet.

On the basis that always means just that : always as in they always finish lower than, there will always be an underclass, Birmingham City have/will always be a laughing stock. It's a description/statement/ summing up that can only be based on past history/ indicators and current information to hand. You've had the dictionary definition of the word. It's been made clear to you that there is no realistic comparison between Everton/Liverpool and SHA or ourselves. Care to revise your original statement?

Don't get you. Explain this to me as if , I too, had a problem with big words. Like always. What mistake?

Didn't need to twist your words, the weakness and inaccuracy of your original statement was easily open to ridicule by anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language and a vague knowledge of English football dating back further than ten years.

Exactly the same for us with small heath but in our instance smal heath actually broke an agreement that neither club should take the name of the city Hasn't worked out too badly though has it? Imagine if there had been broad agreement from directors at both clubs many moons ago. Birmingham United? Why should the urchins down the road be allowed to lay claim to any of our early successes? Quite happy we have the name we do have, it's one of the reasons I love the club. Aston Villa, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur? Unique, individual. Manchester/ Newcastle/Oxford United? Manchester/ Bristol/ Birmingham City? Bland, unimaginative.

Not disputing that old chap, just pointing out it hasn't always (there's that word again ) been the case and could change in the not-too-distant. Not sure why it irks me to the extent it does, I guess its like when B-lose had their brief revival in 2003 and ill-informed outsiders were trying to suggest they could be the bigger club. Based on a few years underachievement from us. It's not a like-for-like comparison, I know. But comparing one of the most succesful sides in England (Everton), to a club who had an open top parade for winning the Leyland **** Daf is laughable.

Whats ill informed about you getting the wrong end of the stick? Not once have I mentioned 'always' the post is written in context of current and future. And no I have no crystal ball, butI have opinions and common sense. OK, so you're actually just using words you don't know the meaning of. Just for your benefit: Always Dictionary definitions: 1. every time; on every occasion; without exception: He always works on Saturday. 2. all the time; continuously; uninterruptedly: There is always some pollution in the air. 3. forever: Will you always love me? 4. in any event; at any time; if necessary: She can always move back with her parents. 5. Past, present and future. Kind of at odds with your 'common sense' endorsement of yourself too. Self praise is no praise and all that.

Tiresome. You made a comparison with one of the countries biggest clubs and our piss-poor local rivals. There is no comparison. Always in the shadow of their rivals. Where did you say from now on originally? You've merely revised a wholly inaccurate statement with a new element of guesswork. If you had actually said the above initially, I fail to see how you could possibly know. Unless you have a crystal ball in your possession. It's just as likely that Laurel and Hardy could run the redscouse into the ground, and Everton could revert to being the biggest club in the city. It was the case before, could easily happen again. On balance, since the formation of both clubs Everton have had a far longer period of being the 'biggest.' Even if they aren't at present. I'm no closet Evertonian, but it pisses me right off when I see ill-informed opinions about football from the post Sky generation being offered as fact. Nothing personal.

Ah, but thats not what you said originally. Who's the more succesful side overall? Easy one, that. Everton always in Liverpools shadow though? 'Fraid not. BTW, Everton won the FA Cup in 1995 when Liverpool won nowt, pipped them to the league title in 1985 and 1987. And historically Everton were the far bigger of the two, before Shankley/Paisley. Dig me out the comparitive history when SHA could ever claim similar.

Agree with this, particularly in light of the loss of Highbury and Maine Road. I often wonder why the bigger clubs don't take the approach of their European counterparts and build below ground level. That way, if space is tight around the ground, they could still get an extra couple of thousand in. Real Madrid, Barca and Porto all have grounds set below ground level, there are prob more too. Would be a far better option than the souless identikit bowls that are all the rage nowadays. If the Toffees did this, and maybe bulldozed that stand that houses the away support (Gladwys?) that would give them close to 50,000. That stand might have been acceptable 20 years ago, but cramped viewing, wooden seats and obstructive pillars are no longer on. It means that any new stand wouldn't have to go to higher than the original buildings, so the residents couldn't complain, they'd have extra seats overall + they wouldn't have to move. Job done.