rainman

yep. the man who personally appointed the members of the kangaroo court in last years mississippi burning trial of little luis is now looking to export their malevolent influence to europe. can't wait to see what those pesky foreigners make of the square balls in the bag for the draws. can halsey et al officiate in their games? can see another ban coming because we are clearly to blame for the euro crisis and the credit crunch, (on the balance of probabilities, anyway). joy of joys. when he says that he put his club allegiances to one side in europe, is he tacitly admitting that this rule doesn't apply to his position with the fa? Gill confirmed as FA nominee to replace Thompson on UEFA executive committeeBy Sportsmail Reporter PUBLISHED: 16:59, 4 September 2012 | UPDATED: 16:59, 4 September 2012 ..Manchester United chief executive David Gill will put his club allegiances to one side in his bid to represent England on the board of UEFA. Gill will stand for election as the Football Association's nominee to the influential 16-strong body that decides on the European football governing body's policies. An election will be held at the UEFA Congress in London next May when all the 53 member nations will each have a vote. Main man: Manchester United chief executive David Gill Gill faces something of a challenge in that he comes from a strong club background and is also an executive board member of the European Clubs' Association, though he would stand down from that body if he is elected to UEFA. Gill, a long-time member of the FA board, said: 'I fully understand that I will be representing the FA, I have been on the FA board for a number of years so I believe given my experience of club football and the way the FA operates I can play a key part in ensuring England is heard at the top table in UEFA. 'I fully understand the role and responsibility and who you are representing.' Gill confirmed he would step down from the ECA in May next year and said the links between clubs and UEFA were now much stronger. He added: 'I think you have seen a real sea change in UEFA over the last few years under Michel Platini's presidency and the change in the relationship between clubs and UEFA as evidenced by what they have done on insurance and pay for players on [international duty] so we are all moving in the same direction. 'I have to make the case and explain why I think I could be a valuable member of that body.' Outgoing: Geoff Thompson is stepping down from the UEFA committee Gill will be standing to succeed England's outgoing UEFA vice-president Geoff Thompson, who has been told by the FA that his services are no longer required in Europe. Thompson is a popular figure in UEFA and three years ago was elected with 47 out of a possible 52 votes. Gill will need to try to tap into some of that good feeling and UEFA president Platini said his strong club ties need not be a negative - others such as former Ajax president Michael van Praag is also UEFA executive committee members. Platini said: 'For me it is a decision of the FA. David Gill will run and he has to convince the voters to vote for him. But we have members of the executive committee who work in some clubs.'

My kind of tea every night. Except on nights like this when as it's an away game I'll got the pub to watch.

guardian's roy greenslade blog K***** M*********'* lawyers seek Hillsborough police apology K***** M********* says he suffered 'personal vilification for decades' over the S**'s Hillsborough coverage. K***** M******** is fighting back over his infamous Hillsborough coverage. He has instructed lawyers to write to South Yorkshire police seeking an apology for being misled by its officers in 1989. The S**, 19 April 1989 He argues that the lies promulgated by the force in the aftermath of the tragedy in which 96 Liverpool fans were killed prompted him to publish a front page headlined "The Truth". Writing in tomorrow's issue of The Spectator, the former S** editor speaks out for the first time in detail about his fateful decision to use the headline. It led to him suffering, he writes, "personal vilification for decades". M******** reveals that it was necessary to have his house patrolled by police and that he has faces physical danger should he enter the city of Liverpool. He admits that he was wrong, but believes "the people who have got away scot-free are South Yorkshire police." He is therefore seeking recompense for "the lies their officers told". In a key passage, he writes: "Now I know — you know, we all know — that the fans were right. But it took 23 years, two inquiries, one inquest and research into 400,000 documents, many of which were kept secret under the 30-year no-publication rule, to discover there was a vast cover-up by South Yorkshire police about the disaster. Where does that leave me?" Talking more broadly about Hillsborough, M******** highlights the countless other publications that ran the same "copper-bottomed" story. He goes on to suggest a political motive for The S** being singled out by a city for which he and the paper "had nothing but warm thoughts … prior to that ghastly day." "Liverpool fans didn't turn on other media, only The S**. That has always puzzled me. Was it picked out because the paper had always backed T*******, while the city had always been pro-Labour?" Under "The Truth" headline were a series of headlines accusing Liverpool fans of having urinated over policemen who were trying to rescue people, of beating up one policeman and of picking the pockets of victims. Footnote: I have written previously about the reason the Daily Mirror did not publish the story in the same fashion as The S**. Source: The Spectator and what a real journalist does:- Hillsborough report: why the Mirror refused to accept police spin In October last year I wrote a blog item headlined The S**'s Hillsborough source has never been a secret - it was the police. So today's confirmation came as little surprise. A couple of months later, I also wrote about the former S** editor, K***** M********, having falsely claimed that the front page article he published in 1989, "The Truth", was filed by a Liverpool news agency (which he retracted within 24 hours). That allegation prompted a former Daily Mirror reporter, Gordon Hay, to email me and give an interesting insight into what happened the night The S** ran its controversial story. I am now able to tell it for the first time. Three days after the tragedy, the Mirror had three reporters in Liverpool - the vastly experienced Syd Young (now retired), plus Christian Gysin (now with the Daily Mail) and Hay (now running a media consultancy in Scotland). The London newsdesk called to alert them to copy that had been filed by Whites news agency in Sheffield that afternoon (here's a pdf copy of that). It made serious allegations against the Liverpool fans, claiming they had been drunk, had pick-pocketed victims and had urinated on policemen. The trio were told by the newsdesk briefer that he had previously called the paper's two reporters in Sheffield - the late Ted Oliver and Frank Thorne (now freelancing in Australia) - with the same information. They had looked into it and rejected it as untrue. They told the desk they could not stand up the allegations so they would not be filing. Oliver actually said that if such a story appeared under his byline he would resign. So Young, Gysin and Hay made calls too and couldn't find any supporting evidence for the allegations. Indeed, all the indications they were getting suggested "the Yorkshire cops were trying to divert attention away from their own failings." Hay told me: "We discussed it and, having agreed that we could not verify the claims, passed on [to the desk] our suspicions about the Yorkshire police spin." He was full of praise for the response of the night news editor, the now-retired Mark Dowdney. Hay said: "Despite the pressures on him and the knowledge that others might run with the story, he sided with his men in the field and spiked the story." Well, he didn't actually spike it. But the Mirror's extreme scepticism about the claims - properly reflecting the views of their five reporters in Sheffield and Liverpool - is clear from the angle the paper took, exemplified by the headline, "Fury as police claim victims were robbed." Very different, in other words, to "The truth". Why Whites news agency filed its controversial story One of the most revealing documents to emerge today is a memo from Whites to the London Evening Standard's news editor about its original copy. Clearly, the paper had raised queries about the authenticity of the allegations made in its copy sent on 18 April. Dated 12 June, the memo mentions four unidentified senior police sources plus "a leading MP backing many of the police claims." It states: "All the allegations in the stories we filed were made unsolicited by ranking officers in the South Yorkshire force to three different experienced senior journalists who are partners in this agency. All four ooficers involved had been on duty at Hillsborough. The first claims of bad behaviour came on Saturday April 15th, a few hours after the tragedy, when one reporter met by chance a senior police officer he has known for many years. Without prompting the officer told him he had been punched and urinated on as he tried to save a dying victim at Hillsborough. The following day there was another chance meeting with [a] second officer who again without prompting said he had seen some fans behaving badly, including attacking police and urinating on officers. At this stage we felt it was not enough confirmation to send a story making such serious claims. However, on Monday 17th another reporter met a third officer who volunteered information and reiterated similar stories saying he had seen police attacked and had been told of fans urinating down the terraces as police pulled away the dead and injured. At that stage we felt we should tell the story and sent it out the following morning... Later the same day a third reporter met a fourth officer he has known for many years who repeated the allegations and added that Liverpool supporters had been stealing from the dead. Though he had not seen it personally he said despite fingertip searches of the terracing a lot of personal property belonging to the dead was missing and other officers had told him of pilfering. We sent out the additional details plus a report by South Yorkshire's chief ambulance officer that one of his men was injured when attacked as he treated a an on the pitch. Further quotes were sent in a later story after we spoke to the Tory MP for Sheffield Hallam Irvine Patnick. He said he had spoken to police officers on Saturday night who said they had been attacked and urinated on. He had not volunteered the information previously because he felt it would inflame a very sensitive situation. We also added quotes from South Yorkshire's police federation secretary who said he had heard 'terrible' accounts of the behaviour of some fans. In some respects we 'watered down' the allegations... We felt we did as much as we could to check the authenticity of the story in the time available and reported faithfully what we were told." Posted by Roy Greenslade Wednesday 12 September 2012 16.00 BST guardian.co.uk

which is in greater manchester. moved there from his home in hertforshire. did i hear somone say "so he could be nearer the team he supports?"

i actually liked him, but i think his development became restricted. i know that a number of norwich fans wanted him back last season. in our situation i would have thought he is worth a go here. spain have picked him regularly through the age groups, and i suppose they must know something about football, (maybe that's why they don't pick enrique). however, i have it from a reliable source that one of our ex-managers believed that he lacked pace. (a bit pot/kettle/black that one).

leaving aside my own opinion that he's rubbish, let's look at this sensibly. the arabs pay £8 million for him. he can't get a game for them, so 2 years later they decide to make a £2 million profit by off-loading him to us. where is the evidence that he's improved in this time? let's not forget that he was kept out of the english euro squad by downing! if we do get him, where is he going to play in a 4-3-3? he's downing mark 2. let's swerve this. we've signed enough overpriced, overrated british rubbish in the last couple of years, because they're used to playing in this country. yes, and most of them are used to losng in this country as well. there are better players at better value.

ray kennedy he ain't. and unfortunately, brendan - bob paisley, i think you ain't. love to be proved wrong on both counts. history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes, it echoes.

kuyt - workrate and goals? bellamy - pace and goals? maxi - football ability and goals? if you "don't think he is signally better than anything we have here" then let's not bother. we would only be repeating recent mistakes. michael owen - ???

John smith, Peter Robinson, anyone?

So, 1 flukey season in a side set up for him? He's not good enough, never was, never will be, to play for a club wishing to win big shiny things. I would like to see us return to those ambitions. He wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to that shambles today. Still, I suppose if the yankee-doodle-dandies, bully their newly appointed management scapegoat into signing him in order to flog some replica tat to a bunch of socca moms we'll end up saddled with him. It's just that he doesn't seem to fit the fabled moneyball formula. You know the drill - young, skilful, undervalued, sign him up and and then trade him on for some loot in a bull market. But hey, it's a game of opinions. Oh yeah, and he got Bellamy booked last season after butting him. Wonder who the ref was?

is it just me? surely the truly embarrassing point about this whole sorry episode is that we were ever linked with him in the first place?

Got me there. I meant to put Glenda.

The old toilet drunk has come out, (oh how I wish that were true), in today's press saying that his transfer policy has always been backed by the septics. He said something similar a couple of years ago, that, over more than 20 years, his owners had always backed his transfer policy and made the funds available for him to buy any body he wanted. Believe it happened with the ladyboy when we'd agreed a much cheaper deal for him. He also said that the only two players he didn't get we're because one was impossible for him to sign because he would never go there for obvious reasons (Gerrard), and the other, (alonso), because he wanted to play for us And benitez. I believe shearer also told him to "do one", back in the day. Just remembered, that glen hussein also knocked him back for us. Our current problem is that we are not as attractive a proposition these days. There is too much competition out there. We have to have a cunning plan. We need to be cleverer than mr clever of clever street, in clever town. Let's hope the uncle sams' have made a cute choice.

Linker and chiles for me. They both think they're funny. Both are smug and useless.

My view is that Luis is entitled to express his opinion. The last time I checked, we were, as yet, a "free" country. The club, (not dalglish), let him down badly by their inept handling of an unlosable case. The abuse of suarez continues in the media and from opposition fans. The club should take the same stance as the nhs, railways etc who publicly state that they will not tolerate abuse of their employees, and will support their staff, by prosecuting anybody they believe to be doing so.