blandy

with a link to a .no address, maybe a third option might be good. I'd vote for "no" if you did link it.

Away tickets have to be charged at an eqivalent rate to home supporters The relevant home rate to the lower North stand is the lower holte - the price of the lower holte for that match is £32, no other offers withstanding And thats why they have been charged 32 quid for a ticket Lower Holte tickets are 28 quid, aren't they? or at least they were said to be that much in the season ticket bumpf they sent out at the start of the season. I think the 32 quid seats will be the ones in the lower witton lane, for the scousers - as bicks says, that's ( I think) what Villa fans pay for their witton lane lower seats. I'm sure behind the goal should be less (£28 ). 32 quid is a rip off, if it's for the witton end (lower north stand).

No. nuff said.

I suspect shagging the family pet whilst someone tries to sell you double glazing qualifies. "Heavy petting" I think that's called.

Excellent article and analysis and good e mails. Boy, has our club been changed

Yes there is but don't make me find the last post where we had this debate and resort to copy and paste :-) though your toaster post does deserve another airing .... whilst I can see your argument to my eye it's kind of flawed (but I could be having another dim moment) swap "gay" for "serial killer" in your example .. "don't be so daft I don't want to be a serial killer " - in other words they are unable to choose to be a serial killer , because something is stopping them making that decision. They can't actually choose to be a serial killer. in which case what makes a person a serial killer ? surely it comes down to choice ? Pretty much that supports my argument. Prove me wrong - shcoose to be a serial killer. You just can't. You're not "wired up" to commit mass murders (I hope, eek) Tony. There was something in the news maybe 3 months ago about a man who had a brain tumour. This normal bloke became sexually extremely deviant, criminally so had his intent been carried through. The tumour was found, removed successfully and he returned to normality once the pressure on his brain was removed. His brain was to all intents changed by the tumour, but when it was removed, it was fine again. There was no choice, he didn't choose to get paedophile impulses. I'd look for a link, but it's not the sort of thing I want to search for on t'interweb, frankly.

I don't dislike either of those two. Proper clubs, they are. Man U it's just some of their fans that iritate, otherwise they're alright. And Chelsea, well, don't like the fans much, nor their ticket prices, nor that oily git Kenyon, so they definitely "lose"

If it's a matter of choice, as some claim, then perhaps they could prove this by choosing to be gay themselves? Obviously, (I imagine), they would reply "don't be so daft I don't want to be Gay" - in other words they are unable to choose to be Gay, because something is stopping them making that decision. They can't actually choose to be gay. "Yes I could choose to, I just don't want to choose to" - Your mind is not wired up to allow you to choose, ergo, you cannot choose. You have the right to choose, theoretically you might claim you could choose, but in practice you can't. There's no such thing as free will.

NV will know far better than me, but I think with the Hummel deal, Hummel paid a sum up front to the club, BUT the club had to buy N shirts from Hummel at a set price of whatever - around 30+ quid. If Villa themselves (not shops) sell all the shirts, they made more, if they sell less, then they lost. High St Shop sales, at lower prices go to Hummel. That's broadly it, I think. As for Nike, I dunno, but all this recent talk of Nike somehow throwing huge sums at Villa over 4 or 5 years - I mean they are a business, and they don't simply give money to their mates. I would guess the deal would be structured so that potentially, if Villa live up to the expectations of the board and hopes of us lot, we'll do well, but maybe if we don't meet the aims, then the deal will not be nearly so lucrative as made out by posters and media. It's a powerful incentive, and shows a lot of faith in the clubs' ability to meet the aims, perhaps. Success will be rewarded, failure will not. s'how it should be. Those Americans are smart.

Honestly, Malc, you didn't even cross my mind when I was thinking of people who raised questions...Perhaps you should, mind but all I really meant was that "I heard (and read) various comments from a number of people, some walking away from the ground, some on here that held a particular opinion at the time I heard/read them" i.e. I wasn't writing in response to a person, but to a general impression from a section of people. That's a perfectly reasonable view to hold. No one will ever know whether it's right or wrong. I don't see your post as negative, just putting forward a partially differing view, which is fine.

Lovely report. Makes me wish I hadn't been sat in a nice warm pub drinking Ale in the chilly north

That's another excellent article in a recent series, from Richard, Drat and now Malc. It's good to read these tales, because not only are they entertaining and affirming in themselves, they remind us, or tell us anew what can happen in the future. top work

Aye. Wouldn't it be nice to have another go, too?

"foreward" is 'forearmed! or something. Thanks, but Steve Wade is worth publishing, my ramblings,bluntly, aren't. They're occasionally diverting maybe, in a pass a few minutes, semi-coherent outpouring type way. They're what the internet is for. Click on "fish" in my sig line and they're there for free - or the past few years ones are, anyway.

People (well me) hate (consistently) long ball football because it relies on percentages, on power, on chance (and depends on having a big lummox (to out-muscle the opposition). There's no art to it, no beauty, and while it's a skill I suppose to execute that style, it's not a patch on "passing" football. Unlike JC, I do care what type of football we play. I want to win first of all, sure, and beggars can't be choosers, but both Arsenal and Bolton win. I'd pay not to watch Bolton. But I'm picky. I want to be entertained, and that means good players, with skill and commitment. I want a desire to impress, but not to show off, and I want the team being greater than the sum of it's parts. Good football also comes from confident players. Not people confident that they can kick the ball 60 yards in the general direction of... but just confident that they can express themselves while remaining disciplined to the basics of the tactics.

I agree with you Ian. But that's another subject - The thread (I wrote)

Can't say as that's my perception or impression at all, Malc. I think that tactics he generally uses, and the players he has brought in are the opposite of that, tbh. Petrov, Young, Carew, Maloney etc are all creative or attacking players. He stuck Luke and Gabby in, playing them wide, off JPA, early on, too. In a couple of games against Man U and Arsenal away he obviously wanted solidity first, and to play on the break with pace, where we had it. It's another thing he's obviously keen to introduce -more pace. I'll agree it hasn't really come together yet, but don't agree that he either sets us up, or changes during games, to be more negative or defensive.

Ahem!

I like them. All the ones I've met or known have been top. Actually all but one. But still...

Rev has a point, though. Newcastle is the only club around for a population of around 800,000 people (Newcastle plus all the towns around it. Sunderland, Hartlepool, Boro, Darlo are all chuffing miles away. Villa has a whole load of clubs on the doorstep. Although Brum is 3 times the size of Newcastle, it also has ALbion and Blues within 3 miles of VP. And then Wolves and Cov and Walsall pretty close by too. There is basically no competition for Newcastle in their area at all. That's not to play down the excellent support Newcastle get, but it is a factor.

Exactly, Oz. Maybe the reaction just shows, for once, what I wrote to be right. There's no middle ground with opinions on Lee. Which seems sort of apt.

Good article. I think the reason I dislike the Blues as much as I do is the one you mention - "they hate us". It seems to me that there is a huge part of that club which defines itself by "hatred of the Villa"rather than by any particular pride in their own entity. You see it in Manchester too, with City fans and the emnity for United, though at least with Man City they have had periods where they've actually been successful. Generally though the long overshadowing of one club by a near neighbour is going to create resentment which turns to dislike and then to hatred. It makes them bitter and jealous and distorts their perspective. With Wolves and Albion they have alternated and both have the tradition and trophies. With Blues and Villa only one club has the successful record. Blues are at their best when they forget about trying to get one over on the Villa and just concentrate on their own club and plans and games. If they did that more often, I'd stop hating them* and settle instead for severely disliking them. *maybe.

Small heath for me. Judging by the reaction in the away end at Anfield when West Brom stayed up - a significant minority cheered - hatred for the Albion is limited. The reaction (again at Anfield) last season when small heath went down was euphoric. No contest, small heath are absolutely, these days public enemy number 1. When I were a lad, there was a lot more widespread dislike of the Albion, but then they disappeared off to the Endsleigh Leagues and it seems to have faded away due to their unthreatening ineptitude. small heath on the other hand have revived their rancid rotting corpse a bit and so concentration is more on their foul and unclean stench.

Top article Chris.

I like music from all of the decades in the poll. I think Punk was hugely refreshing. It changed the way music was "made" for the better, as well as spawning some quality bands. It suddenly became clear that "anyone" could start a band and make music. It changed the way record labels behaved, to an extent and that was a good thing. It brought music with a conscience much more widely than previous "niches" There have been fallow periods (for my tastes) in all of the decades, but if I had to pick one decade from the list for as the best, I'd pick the 80s, just. Still plenty of Punk, Still the best of the 70s bands going, then kind of post punks stuff all the way up to the Stone Roses and Manc music. New Order, Joy Division, Echo & The Bunny Men, the Weddoes - proper indie bands. Talking Heads, REM, Talk Talk, and all that Stuff Paulo likes, Oh and the Magnificent Blue Nile. the 80s was great, despite all the crap.