peterms

As usual, I fail to see the point in what has been posted in the first instance, here. Other than to antagonise and get a reaction, that is. Which again, would appear to be the norm.

I am trying very hard not to make this too personal to the poster, as there is certainly more than just he that appears to be guilty of the negative, sarcastic and antagonistic approach to their posting.

But I can fully understand why certain people will no longer be reading the contributions by such people, and I for one am spending less time on here these days because of similar reasoning.

I am all for a good debate, but I am failing to see the point of a lot of posts and threads these days...

I agree.

For me, this raises a question for the mods.

I suppose it's fine for poorly-argued rants to be posted on the messageboard, as long as they conform to site rules. But if you're going to place something on the front page - and mods have to vet something before it gets there - doesn't it have to pass some sort of test, like there being a point to it, or containing at least some standard of logical reasoning, or not being evidently factually inaccurate?

Do you think the piece in question is one which you really want as a flagship article?

Because for me, it falls rather short of what I would expect to see as the acceptable standard of a front pager. This is the "shop window" of VT, and if you think this stuff is the sort of quality you want in the shop window, I have to say I disagree.

Not quite sure what some fans are trying to say here.

Should Martin just go out and sign players for the sake of it or should Mr Lerner pay way over the odds to sign players just because he is a billionaire.

If we get players in they will be the right players at the right price, if we dont we wait till the summer.

If we were still under Ellis our work this transfer window would be done.

Yes, we want the right players at the right price.

I think the comments are just impatience, and high expectations, especially after years of being held back by that footling clearing in the woods.

I can understand the impatience, but I think that some of the expressions of it, especially when they sound like doubt in the motives or capability of the new lot, are misplaced and premature. Give them time.

A wee bit? Is he crazy?

Don't take it too literally. The expression is used to mean more than just a tiny bit.

OK - if you would rather have Nugent - wheres the bid ?

If the bids were conducted through the press, I would be concerned that they preferred to be seen to be trying to get a player, rather than actually get him.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing business privately and quietly, except that it fuels your apparent suspicion that nothing is happening.

I said a few months ago that I thought we would try and exploit the untapped markets like Eastern Europe and Africa. On seeing some of these latest link, it seems I may have been right (depending on their authenticity of course).

Seems like a bloody good idea to me, gettable talent at rock bottom prices.

It's hardly a new and original idea, though, is it? The point is spotting the ones who will do well in a very different setting.

Nii Lamptey, anyone?

Who has been doing it though? There seems to be a lot of African and a little Eastern European talent floating about in the Spanish, French and Italian leagues and sometimes they make it over here via those countries. But it seems fairly rare for an English club to go straight to the source and take the gamble like they do.

There seems to be a stigma in this country related to Eastern Europe, even though they've produced some bloody good players and teams over the years.

To be fair, there's been restrictions on the number of non-EU players you could use - so you have to be picky.

French clubs have often concentrated on the parts of Africa where they have colonial/linguistic connections, partly familiarity, partly because it's one less hurdle for incoming player to face, perhaps.

Spain has had similar ties with South America.

Maybe we haven't used our African links as well as we could have. And Eastern Europe probably has been underused.

On the other hand, I agree with the argument that we should be trying to develop our own players, not just going for the cheapest option. It's not been great in terms of winning games that we have finished with seven academy players on the pitch. But in the wider perspective of UK football, I'm quite proud that Villa have encouraged youth to this extent instead of doing a Bolton.

I said a few months ago that I thought we would try and exploit the untapped markets like Eastern Europe and Africa. On seeing some of these latest link, it seems I may have been right (depending on their authenticity of course).

Seems like a bloody good idea to me, gettable talent at rock bottom prices.

It's hardly a new and original idea, though, is it? The point is spotting the ones who will do well in a very different setting.

Nii Lamptey, anyone?

Well, it was mildly diverting at the time, but the hotel phone saga has become a bit tedious. Why not start a separate thread for those who really want to carry it on, and leave this one for the main business?

I didn't really think anyone would be so bloody stupid as start phoning hotels :shock:

That's nothing. There's a car full of people on their way with zoom lenses, directional mikes and extending ladders as we speak.

Hoar Cross Hotel: 0871 716 2607

Feel free anyone.

Website says it's 01283 575 671.

Ok.

I will admit I have seen Ferguson on the telly a few times. Sometimes hes been anoymous. Sometimes excellent. Thats both for Blackburn, Rangers and Scotland. I wouldn’t call him world class. I wouldn’t call him rubbish. I would say he’s on a par with someone like Petrov, but better than Hendrie. He’s not quite the same as McCann, though he can tackle.

Therefore to read he’s shite with no backup, just seems strange. I would question his ability to play in the premier league, because of his previous and also his subsequent return to Rangers. The point is if he was available and at the right price, would he improve our squad. To which the answer, if he played to his ability is yes.

Undoubtly other positions are much much much more urgent; we need width and we need it quickly. But we know now is not the best time to buy players, and if players of his ability are available, then they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I tend to think that its a powerplay at Rangers which may be entering an end game.

If he doesn't really want to leave Rangers and his relationship with the manager is the problem, then maybe a loan deal is on the cards.

And given the likely problems in getting exactly who we want in January, this might be a short-term measure which adds to the squad without closing off other options. Worth considering, I'd say.

I think SWP is starting to realise its not all about the money, money is a big motivator no doubt, but the difference in the wages he'd be earning might be made up by playing each week, getting the chance of international football and building up your reputation again.

Yes. And if it is only about the money for him, then we wouldn't want him anyway.

My question though is, do we really need more short-term solutions? Especially, should we really buy short-term solutions? To get 1 or 2 in on loan, yes, but to buy them? Seems strange to me. A Stelios on a free and at most 2 years, yes, but not to buy him and sign him for more than that. IMO.

It comes down to what's available. If we can't get the long-term solutions in January, and if short-term people aren't easily available on loan, what then? At the moment, we're struggling even to cover all the positions. We have to get more players, by whatever means possible. If short-term purchases are all that's available, then that's what we will have to do.

todorov? no thanks

Phew. I'd be very worried if we signed him. He's not a player to take us forward, IMO. Isn't he just sh**e? :?

Huntelaar seems interesting but can we get him? If we're still in the top 6 come january then I guess we can.

Geremi is another good shout but less possible, I think.

Maloney or Milner is almost for certain, I think.

I'm not too sure about maloney - he reminds me of julian joachim a bit

Celtic fans I've spoken to really rate him. He seems to be one player they would be most disappointed to lose. More so than Petrov, who we're happy with...

How good is a 3.2 megapixel camera??

Which one? Pixel nos are just one factor. My smartphone has 2mp, but it's crap as a camera...

Anything that fits up a womans arse, that'll do fer me

Made a chocolate fondue tonight. Never seen the kids eat so much fruit.

Fortunately, I did not follow Rob's advice in my choice of ingredients, or else I'd be waiting in casualty at the moment...

How much did you pay for the 20d pete ? (if you dont mind me asking)

It was £550, body only, 3-month guarantee. I was originally looking for a 350d, but this was only £50 more than a new 350 with the standard lens, so I talked myself into getting it with another lens... :oops:

Consider buying second hand. I got a second-hand Canon EOS 20D body from these people, with new lenses to go with it. I was very happy with the service, the discussion and advice I got over the phone, etc. Only problem was they wouldn't post it to my work address if I paid by credit card because the address was different, so I had a needless visit to the parcel depot to collect it. Right now, they seem to have a Nikon N70 for £50, quality category 5, which is the lowest of their 5 bands ("marked but working"), but incredibly cheap.

If you buy from a reputable dealer who will do a thorough check before accepting something for resale and who offers a warranty, it's a pretty safe bet and you can save some money to go towards a good lens. For the same money, you could have a new camera body with a not very good kit lens, or a second hand body with a much better lens.

If you want equipment reviews, this site has quite a few.

I do not want Padfield.

His interview on Five Live, he sounded like a bumbling idiot with no grasp of the English game. Again, it matters little, he won't be involved in the day to day running of the club.

My impression was that he could have been talking about anything - a food processing plant, a farm, a manufacturer of radiators. He was discussing a potential business investment which would make money, and that's about as far as it went for him. I got no sense of understanding what is different about this particular kind of business.

If that's the person they chose to front up the bid and impress people, then I have to say it didn't do anything for me.

If I was the board I'd lock Ellis in the toilet with a stripper and only get him out when his signature is required.

I was thinking along the same lines, except my version was the boot of a car in a lock-up in Hull or Salford or somewhere.

If I was starting now from scratch I'd go down the Canon route

I just did (he said smugly). Second hand body and a couple of good lenses. Just off now to play with them on holiday...

cannot decide if I should

Start out gently bentley, by getting a cheap dslr such as the pentax ist or one ots verious guises at a cost of say £350.

Or a Canon 350 for about £485 which is a slightly better camera,

Or wait for the new Sony which looks rather spunky (in the old fashioned sense) at a cost of £6-700 when released. My initial thought was as its only ever going to be a hobby, that the pentax, say with a cheapo 55-200 lens as well as the standard fitment.

Opinions?

I've just spent a while checking photography messageboards before buying, and some advice which struck me as very sound was this.

Camera bodies, beyond a certain point, won't add as much quality to your pictures per £ spent as lenses. The quality of your shots will be governed more by the lens quality than the body. And a good lens will last a lifetime, with proper care, where a body will be easier to replace. So buy the best lens you can afford, and compromise on the body to meet your budget.

But as Bicks says, you're buying into a system, so decide which manufacturer you will go with, because you'll be stuck with them for a long time, unless money is no problem. Decide on a system, get an OK body and one good lens, add another very good lens as and when you can afford it, and in time upgrade to a better camera body.

But the promotions you see on offer are often bundled with eg the Canon 18-55 lens, which gets pretty poor write-ups compared to other Canon lenses. It sounds like many people go for the best body they can afford and don't bother too much about the lens quality, and that seems like a mistake.

A corrupt crook.

Wonder if Tony's accepting his hospitality for (one of) his holidays again this year?

You could argue that about Birmingham though, biase aside Izzet,Upson,Pennant,Taylor,Forrsell,(heskey) are all good players good enough not to go down.

So i dont by the players thing.

West Ham had too good a squad to get relegated as well, a couple of years back...

Man U, by a mile. "Arrogant" is too mild a term for them - they take this quality to new dimensions. Preening, self-obsessed, vain, ungracious, self-righteous, hypocritical, jealous bunch of tossers who can't contemplate that anyone else should do anything but shine their shoes.

Two examples of crass behaviour from a catalogue of thousands: Fergie complaining that Chelsea have "bought success" (after he bought Horseface and Veron for record sums, but probably before he bought Christiano "dying swan" Ronaldo and Shrek for further bucketloads, I think); and some nameless clearing in the woods on 606 complaining that Gary Neville should be sold, as "He's good enough for England, but not for United". These comments perfectly illustrate the hypocritical arrogance of the club and its hangers-on.

I just love to see them get shafted.