zequist

Wealthier ownership and (at least in Spurs' case) sponsorship deals that dwarf ours. I think Spurs shirt sponsorship with Mansion is worth 3 to 4 times what we get from Chang. But no, I would not want us to be like Man City (throwing stupid money around and still sucking), or Man U (leveraged to the hilt and in serious trouble if the owners ever got called in). I wouldn't mind if we were more like Arsenal, though, meaning a team that is rich enough to pay the elite players those 80-100k a week salaries they want and make a big transfer to improve a key position when necessary, but that doesn't have unlimited resources and seems to make building from within and retaining the talent they develop their first priority. That's already what we kind of try to do anyway, just on a lower-budget scale. The new stadium would be nice, too!

Ah, but Chelsea's next two games are against West Ham and Fulham, our closest pursuers. So not only will they get those points, they will lock up sixth place (minimum) for us at the same time when they stomp our rivals into the ground!

The runner-up of the League Cup NEVER got a place. That slot always went to the next-highest in the standings if the winner qualified by another avenue. Louis and Maghull, you are correct. The original plan when they were announcing this last summer was that FA Cup runner-ups would no longer be the first alternates for Europe, but in the fall they went back and tweaked it. The relevant note is in the November issue of UEFA Direct (link: http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/downlo...83_download.pdf ) it says on page 14: "Losing domestic cup finalists will still be able to play in the UEFA Europa League if the winners qualify for the UEFA Champions League. In taking this decision, the Executive Committee was anxious to stress the importance of the domestic cup competitions and to preserve their appeal." So that's the kicker. We'll get in even if we lose, because Chelsea barring some kind of disaster is going to be in next year's Champions League. BUT, if it was a case where we finished in fifth place (an automatic Europa qualifying spot) and then were playing the FA Cup final against some Championship team, they would not be guaranteed a spot for losing to us, because we aren't going to the CL. In that instance, the spot would go to the 7th place team instead. I also found this note on another site: "For all countries, the Cup Winner, if they don't qualify for a better position from their finish in the standings, gets to start in the latest or tied for the latest Europa League qualifying round of any team from their country. This means that in England, Spain, and Italy the Cup Winner gets the same treatment as the team that finishes fifth in the standings, while in the 18 countries other than Liechtenstein ranked 35th or worse, the Cup Winner gets better treatment than the second place team in the standings." So if we won this thing, we'd still skip to the last qualifying round even if we don't overhaul Aston Villa. It unfortunately does not say, however, whether a "Cup Runner-Up" gets treated the same as if they were a "Cup Winner" in this scenario, so if we finished sixth and lost to Chelsea, I don't know what that would do to our starting round.

40. Only missed Oldham and Swindon, which I doubt I would've thought of even if the time limit was an hour. I tried not to read too many of the comments before trying it, but I can't say that they might not have helped jog my memory on two or three others.

Here's more company for ya. I'm 31 next month. I know what you mean, though, all these young whippersnappers on the thread when I first looked at it this morning were making me feel like I should be getting a senior discount on my membership here!

I think there's only been one season since the Premiership began where all three promoted teams went straight back down again, even though the pundits almost invariably seem to make that exact prediction every preseason. So the odds are very much in favor of at least one of the three teams that come up next year surviving. As for which one, I could see Birmingham finally making themselves stick this time, if they make the right moves on the transfer market. Reading's beaten the odds before; no reason they couldn't do it again. I could also see Sheff United sticking around this time, if they make it back. They almost did it last time, and this time they would have that extra 10 mil from West Ham to play with, on top of the promotion money. Don't really know enough about any of the other teams in the mix to guesstimate their chances.

Renault's boss has some rather childish comments: http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/racing/f1/ne...tory?id=4076086

Our path to the finals: Macclesfield, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Boro, Man U. One thing's for damn sure, if we do win this whole thing, there isn't a soul alive who can claim with a straight face that we didn't earn it! It just occurred to me that if we do win, in fact, it will mean that we singlehandedly eliminated 25% of the Premier League from the tournament this year. Not to mention four of at least the top six (if not top five) teams in the standings. That would have to be a record of some kind, I would think.

Jags, no doubt about it, for reasons I already got into on the game thread. In fact, this was probably my easiest MOTM decision for any game all season.

It really is 50/50 whether that was a penalty - even after a gazillion replays from five different angles it's still not clear. Half the time I think it was, half the time I think it wasn't. Ultimately I agree with the announcers on TV - if it's that iffy, then you shouldn't be calling it. And I'd say the same thing if it had gone the other way. Anyway, my MOTM without hesitation goes to Jagielka. Apart from that one potential mistake, if it was even a mistake, he was f'ing immense the whole game. Everything Vidic was for them, he was for us - an absolute rock at the back in a match where there was no room for error. Every read, every clearance, just one smart play under pressure after another. He was my MOTM after 90 minutes, and my MOTM after 120 minutes, and it was so fitting that he'd be the one to take the clinching penalty. In fact, it seemed so perfect that I started celebrating as soon as I saw that #6 on the shirt walking up to put the ball down, because I knew right at that moment that the game was over. I won't disagree that Neville was also critical, though. More than anyone else on the squad, he's the one who's been in those pressure games before and knows what kind of effort it takes to win, and that really came through. He did what captains are supposed to do - he led, by word and example. I also thought the way he calmly stepped up and nailed the second penalty after Cahill yakked the first one was just as important in its own way as Jags' winner. I'm still giving my vote to Jags, though. Without him, I don't think it even gets to penalties.

Did we just win a shootout? We NEVER win shootouts!

Nice through ball by Fellaini. Too bad it was Neville on the other end.

Anytime you want. Religion is a subject that I find quite interesting, so I'm always up for a chat.

Okay then, I have a guess, at least. ...Born in Blackpool, raised in Manchester ...Used to sell peanuts at Old Trafford ...Went on to play the father in "Frasier" John Mahoney

Is it a sitcom that's still producing new episodes, or is it an old one?

Actually, you pretty much have it completely backwards. For Christians, faith in God is not about arrogance, it's actually about humility. God himself set us the example when he sent Jesus to the world, not as a king or a conquering general or a wealthy nobleman, but as a poor and humble carpenter from backwater Judea (Galilee was basically the armpit of the kingdom). Christians are called, not to feel proud and special and think we're better or holier than other people, but to humble ourselves and serve our fellow man as best we can, and to do our part to make this world a better place for everyone. Again, I think you have it backwards. In fact, for many Christians, the truth is that we don't know, and our faith is far from "absolute." If you read about the lives of many of the most respected and revered Catholics and Christians, you would find that almost all of them had times of doubt and uncertainty at one time or another - times when they struggled with their faith, questioned what they were doing with their lives, wondered about the paradox of a God who was supposed to be kind but let so many horrible things happen in the world. Even someone as devout as Mother Teresa had a very long period of tremendous doubt in her life. Saint John of the Cross (who also experienced those doubts) even gave a name to that feeling: "the dark night." It's defined as a time when a person feels completely abandoned by God, and which can lead even ardent believers to doubt God’s existence. There have been a lot of essays written on the subject of doubt's compatibility with faith, and many theologians have concluded (which I agree with) that having doubts is actually a healthy part of having faith, because it forces you to stop and think about your beliefs every once in a while, to re-examine and re-codify them, and also to think about whether your life is meeting the moral and ethical standards you think it should, relative to those beliefs. So no, I do not know that those other people who follow other faiths are definitely wrong, and mine is definitely right. The only thing that I know is that I have no business passing judgment on others' beliefs; ultimately only God can do that. There is a parable in the New Testament about two men who go into the Temple to pray. The first man thanks God for giving him blessings beyond those of the less fortunate, and then rattles off all the religious obligations that he meticulously observes (in other words, "see how holy I am"). The second man prostrates himself and begs God to be merciful and forgive him for being a sinner. We are told by Jesus that it is the second man who went home justified in God's eyes, not the first. Unfortunately, the extremists who go around trumpeting "God is great!" to everyone they talk to and wear t-shirts with self-righteous slogans like "Embrace Jesus or burn in hell" seem to have forgotten the essential lesson of that parable (exalt yourself and you will be humbled; humble yourself and you will be exalted). In fact, my experience is that those self-righteous people frequently have the most un-Christian attitudes of them all. Pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins for a very good reason. When it comes right down to it, isn't that really all that any of us can do? I mean, I'm Catholic, so I don't go in for predestination; I was taught that good deeds done for the right reasons count for something in the next life. But even with that chance at free will, the ultimate disposition of my soul is still in God's hands, not mine. I can only try to be the very best person that I think God wants me to be, and hope that I'm getting it right.

But who, and from where? There are only a handful of keepers in the world who would be a significant upgrade from Howard in the first place, and most of them would be prohibitively expensive to bring in on transfer, if they were even willing to come here. You're not going to get someone who would instantly command Howard's job with a free transfer, and if we use the fees paid for Peter Cech (7m pounds) and Shay Given (8m pounds) as rough guidelines for the level of quality we'd hope to bring in (I assume nobody has any notions of shopping in the Gianluigi Buffon district - wasn't his last transfer something like 32m pounds?), it's very hard to justify spending that much money when our budget is limited to begin with and we have other areas of greater need. One thing's for sure, I guarantee you that if we did buy an expensive upgrade at keeper, Howard would be gone - he'd be far too valuable an asset in the transfer market for DM and BK to keep him around just so he could spell our new glamour pickup for 6 or 7 games a year. And then we'd be right back to the same problem we have now. A strong starting keeper, and a revolving door of uninspiring backups.

Well it depends on how you look it at. In this case people are using the Bible (or a mistranslation of the Bible) to support a theory, so pointing out the major flaw in their Biblical interpretation is internally consistent. And incidentally, there is a great deal of support for the truth of many historical events reported in the Bible, in the historical record and in the archaeological evidence uncovered from other ancient civilizations. The miracles and elements of the divine, on the other hand, are matters of faith, which we'll get to in a second. But here's the difference, Mike. Religion, by definition, is all about faith, which is pretty much exactly what you described - believing something even in the absence of conclusive proof. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, heaven and hell, the sacred mysteries, etc., just as there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of nirvana, nature spirits, the mother goddess, Gabriel appearing to Mohammed, or whatever the dogmas of your particular faith are. You either believe it or you don't. When we're talking about the origins of a word and of a holiday, on the other hand, or those other examples that I gave such having a causus belli on another country, those falls into the realm of evidence that CAN be reasonably proven or disproven. To take things on faith in those matters, without evaluating the available evidence properly, is at best naive and at worst potentially dangerous.

I'd just like to see a second keeper who might stick around for more than one season, for a change.

And I'm just pointing out that the ONLY reasons those people would have to come to that conclusion have their roots in two theological writings of dubious accuracy (one questionable, the other flat-out wrong), and an incorrect translation of the Bible that substitutes "Easter" in a few places where the original text actually says "Passover." I'm a librarian and researcher by profession - sourcing and documenting evidence is what I do for a living. And what I find toe-curlingly embarrassing (and I'm not singling you out here, Mike, just speaking in general terms) is when people take claims that are totally unsubstantiated or have been conclusively proven wrong by anyone with half a brain who's bothered to look at the evidence, and accept them as if they were undisputed facts. In this case it's fairly innocuous because none of us on this forum are going to run out and murder a Catholic for practicing pagan rituals (which, BTW, if you asked any Catholic if they did, they'd either laugh out loud or look at you like they didn't know what the hell you were talking about). However, that kind of un-critical acceptance of "facts" based on sketchy or non-existent evidence CAN lead to some very dangerous thinking if the wrong people take it to the wrong conclusions - racial and ethnic discrimination, unjustified wars (like Iraq), vigilante killings of innocent people, holocaust denial, "end of the world" suicides (see http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/10end.htm for example), and so on. That's why it's so important to look at these things with a critical eye, and not just pass it off like it's the truth just because this or that web site said so.

First problem with that: the Festival of Ishtar was an ancient Babylonian celebration, not a Roman celebration. The Babylonians had long since been wiped out by Jesus' time. Second problem with that: whoever wrote that is probably a Christian fundamentalist from one of the sects that rejects Easter, and they are following some very questionable, far from conclusive, and on some levels thoroughly discredited sources. The theory about the word Easter being derived from a goddess named Eastre comes from the Venerable Bede in the 8th century. However, there is no other historical or archaeological evidence to support Bede's claim that this goddess even existed, which has led to all kinds of debate among scholars about whether she was real or an invention of Bede's. Ishtar wasn't linked to Eastre and Easter until a thousand years later, by the Protestant minister Alexander Hislop in his 19th century book "The Two Babylons." The problem with using "The Two Babylons" as a source to support ANY kind of argument is that Hislop basically wrote it as anti-Catholic propaganda and conspiracy theorizing, claiming that only Protestants worshipped the true God and that Catholic practices were all pagan practices grafted onto "true" Christianity; the book is full of factual errors and dubious connections, and all of his theories have been completely discredited by any reputable religious scholars. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter (especially the "etymology" section) http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

"Content from this channel removed at the request of the copyright holder." :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

True, I was thinking more of it affecting his confidence rather than his physical skills, but I won't disagree with you about that being the weakest part of his game.

I wonder if the injury is affecting Howard's play. He looks like our worst player today, and it's very rare to say that/ Glad to see the interval. The way they were going it seemed like the only thing that might slow their momentum. God, I hope this game doesn't turn into another Portsmouth!

In that case, it sounds like the answer would be loyal Fulham fan Hugh Grant. He played the boyfriend of a NY mafia boss' daughter in "Mickey Blue Eyes," and he also worked as an assistant groundsman at Craven Cottage in the 70s.