meregreen

Jordan Rhodes is 22 and scored 40 goals this season. Would prefer him over Grant any day.

Brilliant. Have to say the economists point about the Tories and their venture capitalist friends using the situation to implement their private sector versus public sector dogma is spot on. They both came over as pretty ignorant of facts.

Vastly overated player. Worst finisher when one on one I have ever seen anywhere. Sell as quickly as possible.

Baker I think has looked pretty solid. Cuellar was poor against Bolton. I'd go for Baker and Dunne at the Baggies. Clark and Baker will probably be our future pairing.

Funny how the number of people who can't be bothered increases so rapidly whenever the Tories get in.

It's all getting a bit silly now. I'm going to watch a match, I wish Mr Muamba a long and prosperous life. I will not be indulging in an oversentimentalized round of clapping.

Oh FFS, behave yourself I've watched the game for 50 years. I've seen some truly great strikers at VP. Gabby aint one of them. He's more of an athlete than a footballer. Quick on the run but painfully slow to react on the pitch. Not a clever player, and lacking a good first touch. One on one he is probably the worst I have ever seen, his latest howler against Stoke, where he not only missed the goal but the Holte End ! being but the latest example. He may well love the Villa, but if thats the criteria for playing for our club I'll get me boots. He constantly throughout his career goes on huge non scoring runs, even under MON. I say again if we can mug someone for 12 million quid I'd snatch their hands off.

Please God let this overated waste of space leave. If we can mug someone for 12 million I'll be over the moon. Robbie Keane should have opened some fans eyes to what a real top class striker is all about.

Most of these so called kids ie Herd, Bannan, Clarke, Albrighton etc. are 22 or 23 years old. They are not kids. What you see now is probably what you are always gonna see. Some may improve, but at those ages most have more or less already reached the kind of level they will be performing at.

IMO thats exactly what we need. We couldn't clear out most of the shite in a cost-effective manner without triggering a few "relegation release clauses" No one is going to be daft enough to buy Dunne or Collins off us are they? Collins is pretty near the final year of his contract, and I think Dunne is as well. So both will probably be shipped out cheaply. Sooner the better.

He's a very poor striker, and has been for a long time. No brain, no finishing ability, little or no guts. Please let this waste of space leave my club.

I will renew. After 50 years watching them, what else would I do. I've been through darker days than these. It's funny though, even the Third division days were more fun than this. Oh well, keep the faith.

Can't believe how many people still defend this mediocrity. The guy isn't good enough. When Bent is fit again he will be dropped, and hopefully offloaded in the Summer.

And me.

On his form yesterday, nowt.

Well, well, well we agree that the Iraq War was indeed an illegal invasion in 2003. I am glad we agree on something. Firstly I would like to point out that I don’t believe in war – its brutal there are no winners only causalities. If History teaches us anything its that men and nations behave appropriately once they have exhausted all other alternatives. Do I believe in the right wing extremism that Argentina imposed? Absolutely not what happened was ridiculous. I think there could have been other ways to have resolved the situation – who knows. People are quick to take the moral high ground and point out and criticize Argentina for invading the Falklands aggressively but seem to forget that we invade countries illegally, apparently for oil. The argument I have is that there are often two sides to the story that are not always evenly put across. To suggest that I believe the Island should be ethnically cleansed is laughable. If the Islanders want to remain British I truly believe they should absolutely have the right to remain British that does not mean the land has to belong 100% British. I find it difficult to accept that in 2012, Territory 12 000 miles away deserves to be British for eternity. 30 years on, not only is Argentina a democracy but Argentina and South America are extremely vital economic trading nations. Brazil is one of the fastest developing BRIC nations in the World. We the UK are in times of economic hardship. This changes the dynamics in a lot of aspects. It’s in our interests to keep positive relations with as many countries as possible. Thats just my opinion..! So its wrong to invade Iraq for money, ie oil. But its okay to allow two thousand people to have their land taken from them because its in our financial interests to do so. Interesting double standards there.

Oh really you cant just go over to another country and invade them. Do you remember that illegal war we had with Iraq which 1 million people died in...? Oh dear. 1 million is yet another fact you appear to have picked for effect rather than accuracy. The body count for Iraq currently standc at between 105,890 and 115,694. Appalling of course, but not as you say,1,000,000. Check your facts please.

In what sense? He wasn’t an MP until 1987... Now that is worth a ! Yep, that's a tremendous example of total pwnage! George Galloway supported the invasion of the Falkands are you saying he didnt. Who cares what Galloway thinks? But if he wasn't even an MP, he didn't as you say, vote on it. You appear to have been found out big time in a blatant assumption.

Exacly the point if its a small issue what the f--k was the point in going to war over it...?! For a start the Islands are thousands of miles aways from the UK. It’s a bit like saying Argentina are well within their rights to claim the Isle of the man. There is something thats been around for a long time its called common sense. The Argentines claim the islands, most latin countries back this and the majority of other countries also back this FOR THESE MAIN REASONS. You cannot translate 2000 of you own settlers at the time of the Falkland war and put them on vacant territory and them claim that you have sovereignty over those islands forever. If the local residents want to remain brittish. Why not give them money to relocate to Brittian a nation which they want to be part of. You do the Maths there are 2000 people in the Falkands. Its has cost us Billions in the Falkands. Or let the UN decide. Cheers. Your comparison doesn't even make sense. The Isle of Man isn't an Argentinian territory and the people who live on the Isle of Man aren't demanding to be part of Argentina. As meregreen said, the principle of self determination is key here. The islanders (you know, the people that actually live there) want to remain on the island as Brits. Nobody other than the islanders should get to decide who the Falklands belongs to. Not Britain, not Argentina and certainly not other Latin American countries. I find it utterly appalling that you think they should be kicked off their home just because you want to pander to Latin America. I really don't understand your reasons behind wanting to give the Falklands to Argentina. Is it the cost? Is it the cost - lol...! Do you actually no how much those Islands have cost us. As you correctly ponted out - this is a small issue there was no need to go to war over these islands. The UK is nowhere near the Falklands - it makes no sense. Where did those 2000 people come from and how long have they lived there for...? By your philosophy Australians should all come back as should all non native Americans. Incidentally most Argentinians came from Spain and Italy, should they all leave as well. The current islanders have been there since 1830. Prior to this the islands were uninhabited.If you trade the human rights of one man, we are all the poorer for it. Not all human principles should be judged by the fiscal cost.

What are you talking about? The islanders want to remain British. It's a British island. End of. What other Latin American countries think is irrelevant. They're going to side with Argentina anyway for obvious reasons. Thats where your wrong. Thats like saying we agree with everything that France and Germany say for obvious reasons. That argument makes no sense. Its not just Latin Countries that think that, the vast majorities of countries outside the SA have expressed concerns. Its only our arrogance that demands we should keep them. In fact its really only the UK that think we should keep them - that speaks volumes..! If the Islanders want to remain Brittish then thats absolutely fine - relocate them to the UK. Your ignorance astounds me. When the British settled the islands, they were uninhabited. No Argentinians have ever lived there. The islands are four hundred miles from Argentina, not exactly within their territorial waters. It is for the people of those islands to decide if they wish to be part of Argentina, no one else has the right to impose this upon them. The priciple of self determination is an important one. To ignore it, would mean that threats and coercion would hold sway. That is a road we would all tread at our peril.

Its called corruption. They should have no more right to influence policy than anybody else. Merit should be the only guide for legislation, not how much money you throw at a party.

What you say is very true and such insticts undoubtedly played an important role in human development. However, what I would appreciate one or two people taking on board, is that I dealt with the 'people's paradises' close up and from the inside. Without exception they were rotten to the core, and the poverty they inevitably created led to at least some of the "post apocolyptic" conditions referred to above... Communism allows no room for altruism. The general dislike of Thatcherite economics ignores the emergence of the selfish gene in socialist heroes such as Blair, Prescott and Mandelson, to name but a few recent leaders. I would argue these lads are wholly representative of their particular political class. However moronic their socialist spoutings before obtaining power, once they got their snouts in the trough, the selfish gene took over and guzzle guzzle guzzle was all they could think of. Be it Ceaucescu, Mengistu, Mugabe, Ghaddafi or Blair, these boys all end up at the opposite end of the line to socialist good intentions... and they will continue to do until they can spin a web out of their arsehole and catch flies for breakfast. I apologise for repeating myself again, but that's just the way it is... Depends whether you believe any of the afformentioned were Socialists in the first place. I would prefer to equate Socialism with the likes of Nye Bevan, Mo Mowlam, Clement Attlee, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Robin Cooke, John Smith etc. As for sticking their snouts in the trough. Well yes , human frailty may well cause some of them to succumb to the more base avaricious tendencies of the human psyche. But I find it overly cynical to attribute such tendencies as the norm. Indeed I believe such avaricious characteristics are to be found far more in evidence in the modern Tory party.

Thats the thing about the Tory plans for the NHS you see. It will be a slow death rather than a quick one.

Most overated player at VP. Little or no guile. Simply pacy, a one trick pony. Sell him .

Hard work doesn't seem to come into it. Bankers seem to qualify for huge bonuses regardless of their performance. Does anyone know what a bankers performance has to be for them not to qualify for an obscene bonus ?