jacquesderrida

I only caught the last 20 minutes of the game, online, so I can't really make any comment on the overall performance. I'll leave that to others and – no doubt painfully – learn all about it. Maybe this isn't the right place to say this (the Match thread) but over the last few games I've seen online (living abroad, I try and manage one VP visit a year, but that's about it) I've noticed that Dunne and Collins seem to be: a) playing much further forward; stroking the ball around. Is this just me, from the distance of a dodgy stream? the thing is, they seem to be playing as if they've been told that they need to distribute much better, play smart passes on the floor; but neither of them is bloody Messi. Remembering the shambolic Liverpool match: in those last 20 minutes, while we 'retained possession', every passing move in that dumbduck period seemed to be coordinated by Collins or Dunne. And to absolutely no real effect. Hmm. Does that make sense? I just keep seeing seeing Dunne or Collins marauding into the opposition half and that seems quite disturbing. (Why Collins on the halfway line with ball and not Barry, for instance?)

Gabby and Charles/Zog don't seem to click, going by their body language. This concerns me. I'm over-reading this??

Albeit watching on a crappy internet stream, Jenas looked quite lively to me. Lovely volleyed pass to Bent, putting him one-on-one (the chance where the goalkeeper blocked, but Bent was adjudged offside, incorrectly). I don't think I'm making this up.

And Razor shows remarkable clairvoyance. Bugger.

BRMB asks me for a user name and a password when I try to "listen live" online... Am I to assume that they're being geograph-ist (i.e. non-UK located folk are buggered)?!

Precisely. As I understand it, if the 'fit and proper' ruling is applied to the takeover, it will also impact on News Corp's (or is it News International's) existing holding. In other words, if they are deemed not 'fit and proper' to own the entire company, that ruling, logically, extends to their existing holding. I'm a bit confused by the whole thing, but wasn't NI's latest move – withdrawing their initial offer to spin off Sky News in return for ownership of BSKyB – an attempt to circumvent OFCOM? Because, it's clear that in the current environment, it would be very hard for them to pass that 'fit' test. The 'fit and proper' test OFCOM rules on? Instead, now that NI is saying it's going to hold on to Sky News, the whole deal gets passed to the competition commission: i.e the body responsible for ensuring that no company has a monopoly in any given industry. Ironically, Sky's initial offer to get rid of Sky News was a way of them avoiding the CC: OFCOM is known to be pretty easy going compared to them, I think. But now, Murdoch clearly sees the CC as a better option. It's also a body that takes years to make rulings, I think: so maybe the hope is that we will all forget about what's happened as time goes by. Is this right? This is how I see it. I admit, my knowledge is a little patchy on all of this. What I would say is that, clearly, Murdoch is an utterly malign influence. Whether you're a left-winger like I am, or a free-market fan: surely we can all agree that this guy is just in it for himself. He presents himself as an ultra-capitalist, all about the market: but he's not. He's a control freak, a wannabe totalitarian. If reports are true, there will be cross-party consensus tomorrow, backing the Labour motion to censure him, endorsing the idea that he should withdraw his bid for BSkyB. If this happens, it will be interesting to see how he responds. I get the feeling that we'll see the true face then: will he ignore what everyone is telling him? If he does, christ, it'll be interesting to see what happens next... As a left-winger, if you'll forgive me, I can't help adding: although Gordon Brown was clearly not suited to being a Prime Minister in a modern world, I really hope that some of the stuff we've heard today mellows some folks' opinion of him. He was and is not a bad man. He was targeted and **** over by the Murdoch press, vilified and crucified. You don't have to like him, but he was a man who TRIED to do what he thought was right. (He was **** from the start, because he never looked the part, nor sounded the part: oddly, we always complain that we don't want image-obsessed politicians; when we don't have them, we destroy them...) And Brown's economic plan for recovery is kind of proving itself to be the right one, no?

Pete, the headline figure is that unemployment has fallen by 88,000 in the quarter. Let's look behind the headline a bit. 61,000 of that is the increase in the number of 16-24 year olds in education. The number of people claiming JSA rose by 19,600 in the one month since the headline figures were produced. The number of women JSA claimants is now the highest since 1996. The number of people working part-time or self-employed because they can't find a full-time job increased by 46,000, and is now at the highest level since records began (1992). Figures from ONS. There is also the point (though I can't find the source) that the comparison of this period with the last hasn't allowed for changing labour market figures (entrants and leavers, for demographic reasons), meaning that a smaller proportion of those wanting work are in work now than before. The overall picture is claimants up, more young people going into education because they can't find work, more people being counted as employed (looks like success) though they are in part-time work when they want full-time work (not success). And around all of that, a headline figure which shows unemployment falling. Sincerely Peter, I applaud your lucid prose. Expertly written, sir. What is you take – and indeed, yours Blandy – on the idea of the 'Robin Hood Tax'? Unfortunately, it seems to have lost a little impetus recently. This: http://robinhoodtax.org/

It made me laugh, at least. http://bit.ly/jWA1BG

You know, I have a feeling that Randy is laughing his arse off, reading all this press coverage: "They seriously think I'd appoint him!?!" As ever, he won't play his hand until he has it done and dusted. I'm sure of this.

I don't often post, but two thoughts occur to me (for what they're worth). Under Randy's tenure, we have never ever leaked information to the press; never played that game. So it's curious to me that now, if we were interested in MacLeish, we would suddenly drop our guard and just send this supposed email: especially given the obviously contentious nature of such an appointment. Second, MacLeish suddenly resigns from Birmingham (after receiving much publicised backing from Yeung). On a quiet news day, wouldn't the hacks be asking: what's happened here? What discussions have taken place, internally? Instead, nameless sources deflect all attention from such questions towards us: that we've been sniffing around MacLeish. And suddenly, this Pannu chap can come out in the press, playing the honourable MD role: coming across as the injured party. That seems a bit convenient to me. (No questioning from the press of why MacLeish has decided to leave them, note...) Of course, who knows what's going on. But I have no reason to doubt that we'd be careful enough not to let emails leak now. And I have to question why Bloose seem to be playing the injured party card so hard (in the wretched Express, for instance). Just a couple of thoughts.

Seriously ....that would be great if we found out his jet's call sign! http://nl.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N85CL

Rather, after a Rooney-esque transplant!

Go ahead. I need a laugh. The amount of bickering on this forum is shocking. You kids really need to settle down. All of you (not just the two quoted). Can't people play nice? Amen. Striking a lighter tone, this made me laugh: http://bit.ly/lZ5WsG Who knows what the hell is going on here. Carlo A – well, he would be a coup and would be terribly exciting. But would his style work for us, bringing youth through, inevitably having to handle some journeymen in the interim before we have a team packed with stars? I'm not saying it would or won't, and I'd love to see him here. But surely we have to agree that the board and Randy have to think these deeper, long term issues through. (Which we can overlook in our enthusiasm.) Rafa – I never quite get the animosity towards him. I'd be intrigued to have him with us. Hughes – bah! A careerist. That said, if Randy happens to be convinced by him, I'd be happy to go with that. (I still have faith in RL, I really do.) The Curbishleys and MacLarens of this world – good god, no! And Moyes – I'm surely not the only one who can't see his luminous appeal. What are his credentials, exactly? (I'm not saying I wouldn't like him here, but I don't see how his experience fits for us. Why he is 'the one'. Maybe it's just me.) Let's see, people. And like that erstwhile Villa fan Pike might have been told: "don't panic". (Yet.)

We have to laugh, chaps, and stay strong together! Thanks for this, now I cant stop watching it over and over! The reaction has me in stitches, guy looks like hes being electrocuted. Imagine the newsflash: MacLaren appointed... "Ker-ker-tch-tch-ker-tch! WHAT THE FU... GET THIS THING OFF ME MAN!" (12 seconds) Exactly!

We have to laugh, chaps, and stay strong together!