-A-

Fielding an ineligible player is not the same as failing to fill in the correct form, and what I've shown is that the FA does not oppose the kind of third-party involvement of MSI. There was no reason for Tevez and Mascherano not to play, they were, by the procedures of the FA, the Premier League and FIFA, our players. Points deductions are only implemented for the most sever of non-footballing reasons, and failing to file the correct, non-consequential paperwork, is not that.

Uh ... what? Liverpool had no involvement with Mascherano when he was at West Ham either, how is that relevant? Or is it only West Ham that can be guilty? I'm comparing the structure of the arrangement which had the pair at West Ham, and Mascherano at Liverpool, to see whether it is the nature of the deal that's breaching rules, or whether it's the paperwork involved with the actual transfer. At West Ham, both players' registration was owned by the club for the duration of the 'loan.' West Ham paid a fee to MSI, probably paid a fee to Corinthians, and MSI continued to pay a fixed wage to the players above that of their contracts at West Ham. After the duration of the 'loan,' the registration would automatically revert to MSI. Additionally, an offer large enough (£30M was suggested) would force the agreement to be terminated. At Liverpool, Mascherano's registration is owned by the club for the duration of the loan. Liverpool paid a fee, reported to be £1.5M, to MSI, and might well have had to pay West Ham for the early termination of the loan deal. MSI continue to pay a fixed wage to the player above his contract with Liverpool. After the duration of the 'loan,' of 18 months, the registration will automatically revert to the control of MSI. Additionally, an offer large enough will force the agreement to be terminated. I still contend that the only difference between the two arrangements is that Liverpool correctly filed the paperwork declaring the involvement of MSI. The fact that their deal is also a temporary transfer shows that the Premier League is not opposed to third-party involvements, no matter what the rules state.

The verdict has already been made, and we haven't been fined any points, we were fined £5.5M. Unless Whelan and co. actually go through with their threat to take this to the courts, that's how things will stand. West Ham don't own the player though, MSI do.

What are you saying? A loan does not mean that you own a player, he is still owned by MSI in the sense that there is a contractual obligation for his registration to revert to them after the 18 month loan period. This is exactly the same way the West Ham deal was done. Yes, in a sense, both clubs 'owned' the players, but only for the duration of the loan period. Loans should more correctly be known as 'temporary transfers.'

Loaning a player means you own them? Exactly the same situation of ownership was present in the West Ham deal as in the Liverpool deal. We loaned them, Liverpool loaned them.

Yes, there are some misconceptions going on. Tevez and Mascherano were never ineligible in the true meaning of the word - their registrations were correctly held by West Ham and they were eligible to play for us. The only wrongdoing has been in the failure to correctly inform the authorities that MSI still had a financial interest in the players - which everyone and their mother knew on the day of the transfer anyway, including the FA. The fact that the FA chose to ignore the information means that they themselves were trying to ignore the issue, where they would have to make a decision. The contrast with the situation regarding Mascherano's employment at Liverpool shows the issue - he still isn't owned by them, he's owned by MSI, yet Liverpool aren't facing the same accusations of third-party interference, purely because they filled out the correct paperwork to announce what everyone in the FA knows already. No FIFA rules have been broken either, since this arrangement is perfectly common and accepted in South America.

It's weird. I pretty much blasted through Easy and Medium and then ran into a brick wall at some track on Hard, 'Woman' I think. I completed the first 5 songs on Expert, even, but I can't beat that fucking solo. I think it shows that Hard is the point where you actually need to put in some practice and know the songs, rather than relying on sitting down and sigh-reading the notes.

We've taken six points from them this season, that's all I need to know. Last away team to win at Highbury and the first to win at the Emirates

Yeah, I think I forgot to exclude everything other than her boobs from what I voted for.

Surely the best single post in the history of any of these polls?

Roll on the top 5 and, at least 4 of whom I voted for. I'm so commercial

So that's £200M including transfer fees, wages, all potential bonuses and agents' fees, over 7-8 years?

Our team is too good to be relegated. West Ham in the Premiership makes more sense next year than Charlton, Watford, and Sheffield United put together.

What's up with Carly Pope's eyebrows? They have been magnificently constructed, but me no likee.

That doesn't look a fucking thing like Winona Ryder, that's Brandon fucking Lee!

I'd imagine some of the more staunch conservatives and conservative parents might, but literally damn near everyone on the internet (and all the gamers I know in real life!) think of him as a joke. ...and the judges do as well.

Lasers can cause scratches on CDs if the console gets knocked or moved around while the CD's spinning in the drive ... or at least, I know this can happen on the 360 so I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same with PS2s. Another possibility is that the disk just got scratched. Did you leave it in the box? Do you have an annoying sibling/friend that might have scratched it and not told you?

The amount of money paid is entirely irrelevant. The wanted the player, they bought him. It's only when you have a spendthrifty chairman or concerned shareholders that the fee paid has a bearing on your judgement of the player.

Well here's a possible suggestion for some rules: The rise of a new software company has led to a group of dedicated computer nerds accumulating a great fortune. As is inevitable, they turn their attentions to the computer game industry they obsessed about as youngsters (and continue to do so.) Ploughing their money into an entertainment division of their corporation, they recruit the best of the best in their field and being purchasing the rights to potential games, new and old, significantly influenced by their own nostalgic memories. 1) You are to create a jewel case cover for a new video game (approximately square dimensions of medium size - details are up to you.) 2) This game must be a sequel to a title at least ten years old, to tie in with the tastes of your paymasters. You cannot dramatically re-imagine the nature of the game. 3) These guys have terrible, terrible taste - so the game you choose to follow on from must be awful, if it happens to be well-known. If it's obscure, it may be simply 'bad.' 4) You have to make the new game look awesome. Like, really awesome.

Pah, David James and Cech both better than van der Sar, but most of the rest of the list is fine enough. Can't really complain about Ronaldo winning both at all, though I would have had Essien in in place of Gerrard or Giggs, regardless of whether that's a proper 4-4-2. As far as I've seen, Scholes has played better than Giggs this season. I've seen some horrifying performances from Giggs in the last few months.

I saw her and recognised her as someone, but it was pointed out to me on another forum that it was definitely the woman you're talking about.

I fucking hate Watford and Boothroyd in particular, he's such a prick. I'll possibly come in my pants if Man U draw at the Bridge and then we nick a draw at Old Trafford on the last day of the season to stay up and deny them the title. I've heard nothing but gloating from my United-supporting mates about how they'll send us down