igor biscan

I remember us playing Parma right after we signed Gary Mac, and we absolutely bossed the game. There was also the SuperCup vs. Bayern, when Heskey looked unstoppable.

No offense, but if you think FSG can't make difficult decisions, then you have no idea about their history with the Red Sox. This is the same ownership group that traded away one of their most popular players (Nomar) in the middle of the World Series winning season. This is the same ownership group that once ok'd a trade for A-Rod and taking on the majority of his $252M contract. This is the same ownership group that spent $51M just for the rights to negotiate with Matsuzaka. These guys jettisoned Pedro, Lowe and Damon (all fan favourites) once they realized that they could no longer produce at the levels that Red Sox needed them to in order to stay competitive. Firing Roy Hodson probably won't even make the Top 10 list of "massive" decisions these guys have had to make over the past 10 years. Chill out and let nature take its course.

i think the robbie keane deal proved that you can't just assume you can change our system or expect players to adapt to unfamiliar roles and still produce as expected. i'd rather that 20-30M be spent on a some better attacking midfielders. does anyone have any idea how the goals to game ratio compares between the torres/villa combo for spain and the torres/gerrard combo for liverpool?

i don't think a torres/villa partnership would be any more productive than a torres/gerrard combo....the understanding between those two seems a level above what torres/villa produce for spain. i see no need to break them up just for the sake of doing so.

Letter from the Grave: Think Tank: Online Only: The New Yorker thoughts?

1. Slumdog Millionaire 2. Dark Knight 3. In Bruges

TheStar.com | Hockey | Leafs could use a saviour like Habs' Gillett lol...we're living in a bizzaro world.

again, the myth of the democratic congress overruling bush and causing general chaos appears - its false! they just got a majority less then 2 years ago...2000-2006, when most of this spending occurred, was under the noses of a republican house majority.

mccain / obama contributions from freddie mac and fannie mae: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact Check: Did Obama ‘profit’ from Fannie and Freddie? « - Blogs from CNN.com btw, economy wise, i agree with you. these morons running around acting as if regulation is going cause this entire financial mess are absolutely retarded. i'd be interested to know how much money some of these guys are getting from accounting and law firms that will clean up once some of these regulations come into play. as far as ayers go - look, even if he did help him launch his career, and they did some speeches together, what exactly is the issue here? should every single person ever associated with ayers be disqualified from public office? if i'm not mistaken, there were a lot of republicans and former reagen administration officials involved in these same boards. like it or not, he's a respected member of ths chicago political establishment, any politician from the area is likely to have some sort of connections with him. as far as wright goes, obviously obama knew he held some radical views. but at the same time, the man has done a lot of good in this world - in some of the poorest areas of the country. we have to stop viewing things in black and white - the world is grey. i don't care if obama was practicing witchcraft as long as he could instill enough confidence in investors to get the dow near 15,000 again. like i said, politics is a dirty business, for every rezko that obama is associated with, i could bring up a charles keating (who btw, SHOULD be in jail for the rest of his life) on the part of mccain? what's the point? how does that help solve america's problems? it's all just noise clouding the real issues. is there anything factually incorrect in the rolling stone piece you'd like to bring up, or newsweek or new york times articles i mentioned? it's easy to dismiss them as left wing propaganda, but that's a knee jerk reaction. mccain is an hot tempered buffoon who shouldn't be let anywhere near the white house. i don't know how you can compare a lack of judgement in choosing friends 20 years ago to the lack of judgement involved in invading iraq. i don't know how any fiscal conservative can support someone with such a moronic mortgage buy back scheme, who has supported such ballooning deficits, and who thinks cutting earmarks are the biggest obstacle to fixing government spending. look at the national debt since bush took over - these republican programs just simply don't work! is there a media bias? of course. part of it is admiration - obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he was able to live the american dream, succeed beyond anyones wildest expectations. who would have given him any chance against hillary clinton 2 years ago? the other part is the media getting tired of the lying and manipulative mccain campaign, and realizing his whole "straight talker" shtick was a facade. mccain has no one to blame but himself for surrounding himself with the same people he condemned in 2000. i'd like some figures on this world poverty act assertion btw. thanks.

a couple of things - palin's "executive" experience? a mayor of a town of 8,000 people, and 2 years as governor of a state that basically governs itself - no income tax, tiny population, huge government subsidies, and massive oil revenues. it's also a state that does NOT produce 20% of america's energy btw. see here: Palin Exaggerates Alaska's Energy Role - washingtonpost.com "Alaska is the ninth-largest energy supplier in the United States, accounting for a modest 3.5 percent share of the nation's total energy production. " sarah palin has received more scrutiny???? lol, you must be joking, she hasn't even had a press conference. do you realize the amount of scrutiny obama has been under they've even dug up his kindergarten records. as for his most famous pieces of legislation, i would assume his nuclear non-proliferation work, senate ethics reform, and his work in IL on due process for the criminally accused are more well known pieces of legislation then a bill that obama didn't even write (for the record, i don't support his stance on the bill, it is pretty despicable). explain to me how the associations you mention would have a bearing on an obama presidency? do you think obama shares ayres terrorist views? do you think he took bribes from rezko? is he as racist as wright? or is this just guilt by association? the man is a politician, he meets people, builds relationships, you could find a similar cast of unsavoury characters in any of their backgrounds. it's the nature of the game. what makes obama qualified? what do you deem to be a qualification for president? is it just legislative achievements and military history? if so, then fine, he doesn't stack upto mccain...but mccain has also been around longer, and he's had a lot more failures as well. i would place more of an emphasis on intellect, judgement, temperment. and let's not forget that obama is a united states senator since 2004, it's not as if he's been plucked out of total obscurity. mccain may be one hell of a senator, but there are just as many questions about him being an effective president as there are about obama. more on mccain here: Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone now this is where you really fall off the wagon: the Community Reinvestment Act. I'm not going to bother walking you through it, but have a gander at this: Are Minorities to Blame for the Subprime Mess? | Newsweek Voices - Daniel Gross | Newsweek.com "Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities? These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd." Now, repubicans have controlled the house, senate and presidency from 2000-2006. how can you blame the democrats for not getting regulations passed? if they had the votes, why didn't they pass it? its another ridiculous notion, just like your claim no republicans have gotten rich off this mess. how about rick davis, mccains campaign manager? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html everyone likes to trump out this other factod about obama getting more money than mccain from fannie and freddie. obama has raised probably close to half a billion dollars, mostly from ordinary folks. Of course his totals are going to be high! why don't you look at the contributions made by the actual exectuives of these companies, not the average worker? McCain has taken more from Lobbyists & Officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then Obama - $169,900 for McCain & $16,000 to Obama! is obama the most qualified candidate ever for the office of the presidency? of course not. i wish he had waited 4 more years, built up is resume and run then. but these are the candidates we're stuck with, and it comes down to a choice of who you want to lead the country, and the type of judgements they'll make. for all the experience mccain has, he was wrong about iraq, he was wrong about the economy, he was wrong in his entire campaign strategy. experience only matters if it backs up good judgement. mccain simply has not displayed this. obama has.

didn't the mancs buy tevez for 32M?

i'm still amused by the fact that anyone thinks gilette and hicks will walk away from a $1 billion investment over shirt sales, or pie sales, or programme sales, etc. i also have to laugh at those people who think bringing DIC in would be a good idea...these morons let the club get away from them over a few million quid, but then turn around and think it's a good idea to offer almost double the money a year later? this is the bastian of business acumen you want in charge of our club? we're screwed both ways...so why not just focus on matters on the pitch, and let the off the pitch business take care of itself. not all clubs who take on debt end up the way of leeds united, and as long as they're supporting rafa and working on a new stadium, i could care less about any silly shirt boycotts. football is big business now, not some sort of socialist experiment, it's about time everyone realized that.

i'd rather keep voronin and make him captain than give that swarmy cretin o'neil a cent of our club's money.

thanks...awesome find

how does the extra 10% cashback work? seems the first link and second link both lead you to the front page, not sure how they can be combined. not sure the 15% off is being applied either, all i see is the 20% off.