Lofty

Blur v Oasis Oasis: Mancs Noel Gallagher Mouthy Northern bar steward Blur Damon wossname is a Chelsea fan And so is Phil Daniels, who sang on Parklife. And I liked Parklife. Which by my reckoning makes it 3-0 to Blur

Oh I see, Sorry, I wasn't thinking farther than the title. And I thought, what, me a Northerner? No that everyone North of Watford is a complete and utter scumbag, of course. There was a time when "Northerner" was the ultimate insult - I swear I remember "You dirty Northern bar steward" being sung at ... Southampton! Now where's the sense in that, you may ask. Ok. Well. For "Northern" read North London. And for North London read N17. All makes sense now, right? Dirty Northern bar stewards!

And this is for anyone who didn't get the connection:

Ok I must be really slow tonight, but I don't get that one at all. However, when I was in hospital, I did have this album (along with Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, War, Roberta Flack, Donny Hathaway and so on) on my mp3 player: And so for you, here's one of my favourite songs from this album:

The obvious answer to that is that we didn't see the punishment coming, We either didn't even know about it or expected to get off with a far lesser penalty. I would hope so, but you never can tell.

I don't get your logic there. Lens went to FIFA asking for compensation. It was FIFA who awarded £100k. Why should we pay up just for the asking, if we insist we've done nothing wrong? What seems to have happened here is that Lens thought they could get a few million quid out of us by complaining to FIFA, but as it happens Lens have also had a financial slap in the face. And here's another point. If the alleged offence is only worth around £100k - which is sweet F.A. (no pun intended) at this level - how do FIFA justify the accompanying ban. After all Roma were initially sentenced to a transfer ban of the same length, and a much larger fine. Was it £4.5 million? I'm not sure, I'd have to check.

Emmanuel, thanks for the info. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying, it appears we're being done for breaking French regulations, not UEFA or FIFA regulations, but localised French regulations. I'm not sure how those French regulations would stand up in an international court of law. I also read somewhere that Lens claimed Kakuta was "theirs" from the age of 8.5. All very strange. We're definitely being made an example of over this. There's been a complaint from France that "English clubs do this kind of thing all the time". Think of English clubs and French youngsters and which name springs immediately to mind? It certainly ain't Chelsea. But never mind all that. I'd be very, very surprised if the transfer ban isn't at least reduced on appeal. Furthermore, according to reports this morning, it'll take several weeks before the appeals process can even begin. And as the ban can't be enforced (or am I wrong there?) while the result of the appeal is pending, this means we'll almost definitely be able to buy players in January, and possibly even next Summer, depending on how long the appeal takes.

This is exactly the kind of mouthy Manc w**k bar steward who will call Chelsea fans arrogant. The funniest thing is, these Northern twats actually believe it! They really are too f**king stupid to see through their own patent brand of bullsh*t. Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful.

Yes of course. I was merely offering an explanation for whoever it was that was wishing all the crao to go Len's way.

Doesn't it just. You also have to look at the timing, which appears to have been done to maximise the effect of the sentence, because surely if we'd seen this coming, we'd have been far more likely to buy during the transfer window that's just closed.

This actually started following a complaint by Lens to FIFA. Again from what I can gather, any evidence presented by Lens has been accepted by FIFA as fact, and the club have actually been presumed guilty without being given the opportunity to present a defence.

As I wrote, this is from what I gather, source being a French journalist on the radio. Apparently Kakuta was only 15 at the time of the initial approach, and so could only have been on an apprentice contract - it is this contract that apparently has been breached. I don't know all the ins and outs of the situation, but according to this journalist, Chelsea's biggest crime/error was that they simply acted too early. Hearsay if you like, and not exactly concrete evidence, but the nearest to an independent assessment that I've yet heard.

From what I've managed to gather so far, there is no similarity between the two cases. Mikel was effectively forced against his will, even conned into signing with the Mancs, when he clearly wanted to sign for us. There is no suggestion of Kakuta being forced to sign for Chelsea, or indeed of any other club coming in for him. If anything the "offence" appears to have been no more than a technicality due to his age. If he'd been a few months older there would have been no problem.

Actually, if you want a silver lining to all this, then the timing of this nonsense couldn't be better - a couple of days after the transfer window has closed gives us the maximum time to sort out a successful appeal in time for the next transfer window. Because there is no way in this world that this punishment handed out by FIFA is anything like appropriate to the so called crime. And from where I'm sitting, I fail to see how we can't get this overturned on appeal. If not...

Fishing for death threats no doubt. Well tough sh*t, they won't get them. While we may hope and pray that these c**ts in suits get what's coming to them, nobody here is going to suggest that anyone anywhere does even the slightest harm to these bar stewards.

This is so f**king ridiculous, it's beyond farcical. f**k 'em all. Bent bar steward mother f**king sh*t house w**k bar steward c**ts. There's taking the piss and there's taking the piss, and there's this, which is nothing but victimisation. If we're guilty then so is every other f**king club in world football. c**ts. bar steward f**king c**ts in suits. f**k 'em all.

Opera 10, recently released. Fastest, sleekest, most secure, all round best browser ever. http://www.opera.com/download/

No need to apologise. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I actually made that point several times during the "debate". What's not acceptable is when pure invention (and be fair, who on this forum can truly be said to "idolise" Michael Ballack? It's this kind of fabrication used as the basis of an argument that I find objectionable, especially when, as I believe, the aim is not discussion or even argument, but disruption - call them trolls, call them wind-up merchants, it's the same difference as far as I'm concerned, people like that are just taking the piss.

Let's not forget the true "Arsenal sign Messi" story:

What yorkleyblue said here

Bollocks. You've written sweet F.A. that's actually relevant to anything on this forum. And you're even trying to get me to start the whole thing off all over again, accompanied by a clumsy little sidestep further designed to push all the blame my way. I may be a little naive when it comes to things online, but I'm not that stupid. You've been sussed - you're just a f**king troll.

And now of course he (sexelk) acts the innocent. It's classic troll behaviour though. Use a mickey mouse theory to disrupt a forum - nobody here idolizes Michael Ballack? No problem to sexelk, he says everyone does and based 99% of his entire posts on that little invention of his. Stick to your guns come what may, carefully pick and choose what you reply to - i.e. the least relevant, the most easy to distort, add a few half-truths for good measure, and there you go. Wait for someone to bite, sit back and act the innocent. CFCnet were right about you. You're just a f**king troll.

Oh that's easy - sexelk would have blamed Ballack! As it is, he's blaming Ballack because we only won 3-0.

Actually no I haven't. The whole point is that it's impossible to hold any kind of meaningful debate with someone like yourself who bases their entire counter argument, not on what's actually been written, but what you say has been written elsewhere, and constantly attack what you state to be a widespread attitude of which there has never been any evidence on this forum. I asked you to base your replies upon what I and others here actually wrote. You ignored this so I repeated my request. You ignored me again, so I tried making a joke of things to put a stop to it. This didn't work, so I told you to f**k yourself.

Should I? Read my last vaguely on topic post again, the one where I stated that you've lost the right to respect. Because that, is just about the size of it. You've repeatedly spouted all kinds of drivel, based, you say now, on what happened over at CFCnet, from where you are now banned. And now it seems you've been using your experiences there as the basis for the inane garbage you've been inflicing on this forum. You call Chelsea fans in general idiots based on what you say happened at CFCnet, and you are apparently not only blind to any positive attributes of Micheal Ballack's game, but also seem to think that Chelsea fans on this forum and elsewhere are absolutely in awe of the bloke. Which is very strange, because I have never seen one single comment to support that argument. In short, your anti-Ballack rants have gone past the boring stage and are now irritating in the extreme. So I post a picture of yourself, which is freely available online so it's not like it's a big secret or anything. Then a little bit of banter - "whos' this sexy b*stard" you say, I resist the temptation to give the obvious f**k yourself type reply, and you don't like the little bit of mild banter, based not too imaginatively, but not too nasty either, on the accusations of trollery which you say came your way at CFCnet and on the idiocy of your stance on Ballack. And that apparently, is too much for you to take. Well you know what sunshine? Go and f**k yourself. And preferably elsewhere. Go and f**k yourself.