LondonLax

An idiot? A racist, or a terrorist? He could be the former. I assume that he isn't the latter. He's not either. He is a 'bigot' if you need a label for him.

An idiot?

We need another Olympics to bring back the love

Racist? What do you mean? More likely political if the guy they attacked was a soldier. As i stated, giving credence to the cause. If the perpetrator's survive, then they should be charged with racially aggravated murder. Let's hope that they don't, and we are spared the fundamentalist showcase. I am trying to work out why you think it was to do with his race? It seems like he was attacked because he was a soldier, we don't actually know if he was even white do we? I don't see where racial attack has come into it from what we know so far? The victim's ethnicity is irrelevant. He was a British soldier, and the perpetrators have been reported as jabbering on about "their lands". The word 'racist' has been misused for so long that its meaning has broadened widely-remember that Emmanuel Petit called Villa supporters 'racist' for their behaviour towards him. If the government allow this to be declared a terrorist attack (and they will), then the 'cause' is being glorified further, potentially emboldening other disaffected people to carry out similar atrocities. How can you claim it was about race in once sentence but say ethnicity is irrelevant in the next? With respect my explanation immediately followed the statement regarding the victim's ethnicity. I think we may have different definitions of 'race' and 'racist'.

Racist? What do you mean? More likely political if the guy they attacked was a soldier. As i stated, giving credence to the cause. If the perpetrator's survive, then they should be charged with racially aggravated murder. Let's hope that they don't, and we are spared the fundamentalist showcase. I am trying to work out why you think it was to do with his race? It seems like he was attacked because he was a soldier, we don't actually know if he was even white do we? I don't see where racial attack has come into it from what we know so far? The victim's ethnicity is irrelevant. He was a British soldier, and the perpetrators have been reported as jabbering on about "their lands". The word 'racist' has been misused for so long that its meaning has broadened widely-remember that Emmanuel Petit called Villa supporters 'racist' for their behaviour towards him. If the government allow this to be declared a terrorist attack (and they will), then the 'cause' is being glorified further, potentially emboldening other disaffected people to carry out similar atrocities. How can you claim it was about race in once sentence but say ethnicity is irrelevant in the next?

Don't be a goose. The incident will be checked out to make sure every thing was above board and there will be no case to answer. Just be thankful you live in a country were police can't shoot people with no consequence, there are plenty of shit holes in the world with no independent complaints commission.

Racist? What do you mean? More likely political if the guy they attacked was a soldier. As i stated, giving credence to the cause. If the perpetrator's survive, then they should be charged with racially aggravated murder. Let's hope that they don't, and we are spared the fundamentalist showcase. I am trying to work out why you think it was to do with his race? It seems like he was attacked because he was a soldier, we don't actually know if he was even white do we? I don't see where racial attack has come into it from what we know so far?

It's Woolwich. For a lot of those people it's probably not the weirdest thing they have seen this week.

Well he's gone off on one.

Racist? What do you mean? More likely political if the guy they attacked was a soldier.

Don't shoot the messenger. We are all on here hanging on their every word.

He says (in a London accent): "We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don't care about you."

Yes, I'm still not sure what country he is referring to there.

I was just down there on Monday, yikes!

Not sure it's really fair to equate the Europa League to the La Liga title. In my opinion, ousting Barcelona is a far greater achievement than Europe's second-tier competition. winning just 1 league title with most expensive squad ever assembled isnt a great achievement When you consider it was against one if the greatest sides ever it seems like a pretty good achievement after all.

I agree. No way will Lambert sign a player past his prime on big wages. It goes against everything he's been banging on about all season.

You don't think we would have tried that? Obviously he'd rather £5-9m than £1-2m.

its a complete different era in English football. if Ellis was in charge still we would be in League 1 now with probably Gary Megson in charge That's irrelevant for this question. The point is would you rather success with an owner you don't like of mediocrity with an owner you do? I don't see how it is irrelevant. Ellis was a terrible owner in charge during an era where you could have a terrible owner and still compete. Lerner is a flawed owner in charge at a time where you need massive investment to compete. I would rather a flawed owner than a terrible one and if we are using your pointless hypothetical the best option would be to have had Lerner in charge of Aston Villa in the 80s-90s. We would have won everything there was to win with his investment back then.

Yeah thats what i was saying, i would even go as far to pay him 2 million. Saves us 7 over 3 years. And dont forget Given wont be hard done by as he will go to another club and will be earning a wage there. For 4 million over 3 years id hold on to him and keep him as back up. You guys don't seem to understand. The two options being suggested are paying him £5m so he will leave or paying him £9m if he stays. There is no option on the table to pay him £1-2m and have him leave the club.

There have been disciplinarian managers around for a while now though. Sourness had a reputation for it and Houllier famously kicked the 'Spice Boys' out if Liverpool. Fergie was the same at Man U. I think there will still be relaxed managers around along side the strict ones.

In the last 5 years the highest net spenders in the premier league on tranfer fees are: 1) Man City 2) Chelsea 3) Stoke 4) Aston Villa We are also the 6th highest wage payers in the permier league. We run at a massive loss proped up by loans from our sugar daddy every season. You can say what you like about the crap decisions made by Lerner but you can't accuse him of not backing us finacially.

Ha that's so crazy. Pardew must be on thin ice as well.

All clubs will have a code of conduct relating to lifestyle and behaviour. It will be stipulated in the contract that regular breaches will result in fines and ultimately dismissal.

So who is the second longest running manager? Martinez?

Hahaha Chelsea paid 18m for him just 12 months ago. The kid is 3 years younger than Benteke and scored almost the same number of goals whilst often being used as an impact player off the bench. Mourinho will use him as his new Drogba.