M'crayons

If we had the data to compare the average number of kilometres a player covered in a match in the 70s, with the average distance covered today, what do you think they would show? I'm not sure boots have come all that far since these to make a significant difference either: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-1970s-Adidas...2QQcmdZViewItem

Exactly. We don't have many players who are capable of finding goal-scoring positions like Nolan does. The best thing any of us can do is give the lad a lift so that he is confident in his finishing.

I had to bite my tongue at two fat bastard rent-a-commentator twats who were mouthing off at Nolan and others all match, only to stand and cheer when he was subbed off. Yes Nolan missed a decent chance, but generally I thought he did ok, and made a nuisance of himself by getting into the positions he did. Those who think it's appropriate to boo the Club captain are far better off staying at home.

Where does this figure of ?15million come from anyway? What has happened in the one and a half seasons since we bought him (apart from him getting older) that is supposed to have increased his value by ?6.4million, which is way out of line with even football inflation over that period?

My money is on the charges disappearing by the end of the week.

Remember that Lee wasn't really using Faye.

In terms of sprinting in a straight line without a ball at his feet, I don't think that Anelka does have that much pace, a bit like Diouf. So, when desire is factored into the equation, I'm not that surprised to hear that Dunne (now that he has lost his excess weight) matched him for pace in a sprint.

The idea that he still has the raw pace he had as a teenager is a myth.

Broadly speaking, I agree with you. But it's precisely because I'm anti-spongers, and that for every one Al Bangura, there are plenty who don't contribute anything, even if they would dearly like to, that I believe that the systems that control people's legal residency status have to be fairly robust. If Bangura's current legal reason for being in the country is his status as an asylum seeker, and the tribunal has found that he does not have a good case for asylum, then I have no problem with the requirement being placed on him to secure another legal means. And as I say, I think he will.

Agree entirely. Some of what people are saying about Meite, just because he was bad when the rest of the team of bad, is unwarranted IMO.

You must have a passing familiarity with The Wanderer to bring it up yourself, so I'll let you decide that one. Apart from the holiday comment, I don't think much else of what No Balls wrote was intended to be flippant, much less a wind-up. So what part of my contribution to this reasonably serious discussion has wound you up?

If I absolutely had the choice, it would be: finish 3rd, draw Fiorentina - Florence at the end of February, just as it's warming up.

I'm not trying to sound hostile, or up myself, but surely you appreciate that it's perhaps for the best if our asylum tribunals apply a more exacting standard of interrogation than this!?

My apologies, I thought you actually wanted to discuss this topic seriously.

What exactly am I supposed to be looking at? The first sentence on that page reads: "Sierra Leone, in West Africa, emerged from a decade of civil war in 2002, with the help of Britain, the former colonial power, and a large United Nations peacekeeping mission." Are you saying it's not safe for anyone to live in Sierra Leone in 2007, and as such, we would be obliged to take in every single one of its inhabitants if they arrived on our shores tomorrow. All I'm saying is that it's a decision for the tribunal to make, and their information is a little more in-depth that a 'country profile' on bbc.co.uk

FFS. No, I don't. Most days we hear that it's a simply matter of common sense that all those people who are in the country illegally should be packed off straightaway on the next boat. The asylum tribunal is charged with deciding whether or not an individual has a valid case for asylum. They found, in this case, that it was probably safe for Bangura to be in Sierra Leone. Under these circumstances, Bangura has to find another legal basis for staying in the country, and that shouldn't change just because he's a footballer. It's already far more attractive for people to try and enter the country on spurious asylum claims than it is for them to apply to be a legal migrant worker with a visa. Given that most people who come into the country from abroad are under the sad misapprehension that this is some sort of bountiful land of opportunity, why would anybody apply through the more stringent channels, if they believe that all they need to do is secure their big break of a regular income source in order to stay in the country? All that this decision means is that the tribunal didn't believe that he has a valid asylum case - and surely none of us can comment sensibly on how safe it would be for this lad to be Sierra Leone. Therefore, it's not unreasonable that he has to secure another legal basis for being in the country. For example, our law states that a footballer from outside Europe only automatically gets a work permit in this country if his country is in the top 70 of the FIFA rankings, and he has played in 75% of his country's games in the last 2 years - should a player be able to get round this system by merely making an asylum claim, and becoming a first-team regular whilst his application is pending? No, sometimes we have to accept we have systems for a reason and that it's not all just one big beaurocratic conspiracy engineered by grey charlies in bowler hats. Anyway, for what it's worth, I believe that once he goes through the proper channels, he will secure a visa, just like Calvin Zola did.

Economic contribution would be extremely relevant for an application to be a legal, working immigrant. But when an asylum tribunal is asked to decide on someone's case for asylum, it doesn't matter how good at football they are.

What are these strange immigration laws then? Most folk would agree that if asylum is the basis of someone's being in the country, and then a tribunal rejects their case, then they should then be returned to their country of origin to apply for a work and residency permit through the proper channels. Should being a footballer make any difference? Anyway, for what it's worth, I think he will be allowed to stay. This exact scenario has been played out before in the case of Tranmere's Calvin Zola from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Some of my photos here: http://www.wanderersways.com/forum/index.p...um&album=97 Though the album appears to be back to front, with the sports bar pictures at the end.

Terribly sad, and a bit weird for me because I share the same name as one of them, and have just got back from my travels to a few messages inquiring after my safety, with people having heard my name on Match of the Day.

I've just come on to ask about that vest and those bottles of wine... did the wine actually make it out in the end? As for the trophy, I was an accessory to Victor Meldrew getting it about 15 metres out of the door when one of the staff from the bar came out and reclaimed it.

I was in the sports bar and had a few faces put to poster names for me. Impressive turnout from you lot.

I was asking about your flight, not your medical problems. Yeah, I'm on the same one anyway.

What time's your Zurich connection? My flight to Zurich is from Amsterdam, as I'm living in the Netherlands this year.