Don't believe me but I can assure you it's true, having heard the chairman say exactly that. We (on saintsforever.com) have had more threads about De Pedro over the last year that we care to remember

Based on the latest thread regarding De Pedro on the board you mentioned, there are as many Saints fans that are concerned he will be a hit for Rovers as there are those glad your lot didn't get him. If Javi is the Spanish guy in the know on your board then:

Svensson had been better with JDP, fabrice had been spectacular with JDP and BT and SKP had got many more goals and nice football watched on the pitch.. but no idea in Blackburn, probably he is still the best player in that squad, but who knows?

and:

...I know how good De Pedro has been, I know the Saints, and I saw the club was right choosing such a class player fitting in the midfield...

then he doesn't exactly sound over the moon that we've beaten you to signing De Pedro. As for players with personal problems, this is Rovers, we collect 'em.

He's currently with MickeysNo1Fan in the Brockhall bushes trying to get a glimpse of his idol.

On the subject of Mickey, de Pedro and Gray down the left next season doesn't sound bad at all.

Morph, the argument was with some bum chogger who said all of the most threatening and creative players in THE PREMIERSHIP are foreigners.

Paul Scholes carries a huge goal threat in the Premiership (the fact cannot be denied) and along with Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Alan Shearer, they are the most creative and threatening players at their respective clubs, which basically ends the argument that the best, most creative players in the Premiership are foreign.

Despite the argument being about the Premiership, Paul Scholes 13 goals in 61 games for England isnt bad for a midfielder and I would put money on him scoring at some point during this tournament.

Even with his barren run lately, he remains England's most technically gifted player and fully justifies his place in the side.

Wouldn't call Paul a bum chogger (???) if I were you KMH, having met him briefly I can tell you he looks fierce! . Of those you mention in your post, Duff is closer to what I would call a "creative" type of player than Lampard, Ronaldo is a more technically gifted player than Scholes, although obviously more peripheral due to the fact that he plays on the wing (twinned with being a poncing great show pony), Gerrard is easily the best player in a very poor Liverpool team (although if Aimar follows Benitez to Anfield, not for long), and Bellamy is a nasty little Welsh thug, and Newcastle are welcome to him.

If you look further down the league table, you can point to Bolton (Okacha), ourselves (Tugay), Middlesbrough (Juninho), Portsmouth (Berkovic / Yakubu), Man City (Anelka), Fulham (Legwinski / Malbranque), Villa (Angel), and make a case for all of them having a foreign player as their most creative / technically gifted / dangerous. Only really with Liverpool, Newcastle, Everton (Rooney) and Southampton (Beattie / Phillips) can you unequivocally say that the most dangerous player at the club is British, and we haven't even mentioned Arsenal. If you took a straw poll of the top five players in the English game, my guess is that most people would give you a pretty similar set of answers, and in the majority of cases most of those players would be foreign.

This isn't to say that England lacks good players, and if anything the influx of foreign talent has only helped to improve the English game (eliminating the drinking culture of many clubs, improved fitness and technical abilities amongst our own players), but to deny the impact that players from abroad have had (and continue to have) on the national game is crazy.

Anyway i'm off to put £20 on Scholes to score first against the Swiss tomorrow, and if he doesn't i'll be straight on the phone to talksport..........

I sincerely hope he does (and not just for the sake of your wallet!). If he could find his touch again (especially from distance) it would add another dimension to our attack, which we sorely need right now. My problem with Scholes is that, in terms of his contribution to the national team, he is solely an attacking player. To my mind this means he has to be able to create and score goals in order for him to justify his selection. Defensively he is the poorest of our midfield four. Whenever he puts in a tackle he is as likely to get booked as win the ball, so he needs to be doing the business on all fronts attack-wise to justify his place in the starting XI. When he is at his best Scholes can destroy the opposition single-handed (remember the hat-trick against Poland at Wembley?), but we haven't seen that level of play from him in an England shirt for a while now, hopefully we will tomorrow.

If Kennys Magic Hat insists on highlighting Scholes "huge goal threat", is it not fair to look at his recent scoring record to judge the extent of that threat? How else would you suggest one judges a player's likelihood of scoring a goal in any given match? Did I say he was rubbish? Did I even say he should be dropped? Am I a whole country? Nope to the three rhetorical questions (although I did once get mistaken for Sweden). I simply pointed out that calling someone who hasn't scored a goal in over two years a "huge goal threat" was rather strange, without making any sort of reference whatsoever to the rest of Scholes game.

I still don't see your point about putting a man on the line, how does this in any way block the keepers view?

It allows the opponents to move players, who would otherwise be offside, forward and stand as close to the goalkeeper as they want to.

Fair enough if the freekick is indirect, but in this case Zidane was only ever going to have a shot at goal. Why would he limit his available target area by putting his own men in the way or risk having a goal disallowed for obstruction if he scored? When taking a direct freekick you rely on your other players to create space for you by their movement (thus hopefully taking defenders away from the goalmouth), thus giving you a bigger area to shoot at, or so it seems to me.

I don't think questioning the effectiveness or otherwise of one policing tactic against another equates to blaming the police for hooliganism. Nor does mentioning the fact that the media are drooling at the prospect of English (and from what we have seen, only English) fans rioting, equate to absolving these drunken idiots from blame, although if unscrupulous members of the media are willing to pay other fans to start trouble with the English so they can report on the terrible spectre of "English hooliganism" (as has been alleged), then they (the media) would, in that instance, be very much at fault - I assume incitement to riot is a criminal offence in Portugal?

Having just re-read this thread from start to finish, I can't find anyone saying that the media or the Portuguese police are responsible for the violence. Most are simply bemoaning the fact that, due to the weight of history, English fans are judged by a separate standard to others, especially in the eyes of the police and press. None of this excuses the disorderly behavior of the English fans in Albufeira, but if we are going to judge the behavior of our fans in Portugal, it should be measured against the conduct of every fan out there. Those that create disorder should be dealt with regardless of nationality, and such events should be reported on without national bias towards or against any one particular group.

Near and far posts being relative (perhaps I should have said "covered" and "uncovered" posts). I still don't see your point about putting a man on the line, how does this in any way block the keepers view?

if you put one man on the wall, the french players could all have stood in the keepers way and obscured his view. it would have been far too easy for a dead ball specialist to simply pick his spot - knowing the keeper would be totally unsighted.

The problem is that James arranged his defenders then stood slap bang in the middle of the goal (the one place Zidane wasn't going to put the ball), with his view obscured by the wall in front of him. Seems logical that he should have either A: put a man on the near post, trusting him to be there if Zidane put the ball round the wall and allowing James to cover the far post if ZZ went up and over, or B: positioned himself more towards the near post to cover the shot round the wall and hope the wall did it's job if Zidane tried to shoot over the top of it. In the end he did neither, and it cost us a goal.

SCHOLES is probably Englands most CREATIVE player with his little passes to get attacking moves going, his superb passing ability and huge goal THREAT with his runs into the box.

He's so threatening he hasn't scored a goal at international level in well over two years now. That's the funny thing about being a "threatening" player, sometimes you actually have to back those threats up with action...

It does seem strange that all the violence has been localised to Albufeira though. One report I saw said this was down to differences in the style of policing in the Algarve to the rest of Portugal - basically that whereas elsewhere the police have been taking a softly softly approach, using spotters with digi-cams to identify ringleaders and nicking them before trouble really starts, in the Algarve (whose police are well used to invading hordes of Englishmen) they simply steam in on horseback and start cracking heads, then work out who was innocent and who was guilty at a later date. Looks like one approach is working and the other one isn't.

Should imagine that his international opportunities have been somewhat limited since the emergence of Vicente (now he does look the business, just a shame he'd cost the earth), Torres, Reyes et al. If de Pedro is free and he's good enough then it could be a smart move, and it would give the likes of Jemal Johnson another year or two in which to develop with a view to replacing de Pedro in the fullness of time. Regarding Nicky Butt; good (if limited) player, and would certainly be an improvement on the ageing Flitcroft, but £5 million? Naaah.

We will come 2nd in group after losing to France, and then loose in the Quarter Final to Portugal, who will have won Group A.

France to beat Germany in the Final.

Exactly what I reckon will happen as regards England, but I think it's going to be Italy vs Holland in the final.

Well well, I just came back from the match, and dear me Pedersen had an awful 90min!

Sure he is just doing his bit to lower his price tag in order to facilitate the deal . He certainly sounds as if he is keen to sign for us given the chance, and despite the other clubs said to be interested we are still the only club (that I know of) to have tabled a bid. Whilst that remains the case it's sensible to increase the bid incrementally to get the best deal possible, so I'm not too worried at the moment. The only cloud on the horizon is that we have a tendancy to respond slowly when other clubs do go after a player we have set our sights on (as in the case of McBride, although in retrospect it was no great loss), either because we are unwilling or financially unable to get involved in a bidding war.

Alan Smith signs for Man Utd. confirmed by the BBC here.

I reckon Smith will wait and see what happens at Anfield re Mr O'Neill before he makes his decision . Unless he's already made his mind up to join the Scum - (in which case I owe Morph an apology..  )

Any time you're ready phil...

Currently reading "Brighton Rock" by Graham Greene. Only 100 pages or so into it at the moment, but it's shaping up to be the best thing I've read in a very long time. Can certainly see philipl's point regarding Greene's omission from the Big Read top 200, and will be hunting out some of his other novels as soon as I finish this one.

By the way, if you MB denizens are suffering your own personal Football Jones' - catch the Libertadores matches this week... all tremendous matches: Boca/Sao Caotena (spelling?), River-Cali, Santos/Once Caldas &

San Pablo-tachira... of all these teams, only Tachira is a cinderella...

Thought Cali were great against Cruzeiro, Moreno especially. Shall be hoping they can overturn the deficit from the first leg against River (or failing that, Boca to stuff River in the final). On the Chelsea thing, it's a sad fact of life that the mega-rich will always use the game to boost their own status and prestige, consider Berlusconi at AC Milan, not content with running Italy, controlling it's media etc. he uses his ownership of the club as a political tool. Abramovich is doing much the same with Chelsea, albeit in order to gain respectability rather than political influence (in this country at least).

You could at least learn ONE other language Some other big language like French, Spanish or German.

I can swear in French, German and Spanish (and Italian, Cantonese, Arabic, Gaelic and English). Does that count? . Seriously, some of us do speak more than one language, so feel free not to tar all English people with the same brush.

As I said in my original post:

Smith saying that he needs to leave Leeds to further his chances with England is fair enough

However, for a player who has stated time and again how much he loves Leeds, bleeds white, blah blah blah, he was very quick to jump ship once their fate was sealed. In answer to JBN's question, given the choice of playing for Rovers in the third division or anyone else at any other level / international football, I would choose Rovers every time, but that's just me. Smith, unlike Jansen (to refer back to Joey's post), has long traded on his image as Leeds through and through, so it seems strange he wouldn't give them at least a season to see if they can't bounce straight back. After all, what would he really be jeapordising? Sven withdrawing his "standby" status because he will be playing in the first division next season? I doubt it. For someone who couldn't make the England team on a regular basis even when he was playing in the Premiership it just seems a convenient excuse to me. That said, I will happily concede that these opinions are coloured by the fact that I really don't like the little scrote. As for being an idealist? Thank you Phil, that's the nicest thing anyone has called me all day.

All time favourite Catcher in the Rye...

Good Choice....

Am I the only one who found this book a pretentious load of garbage ? I put it alongside The Godfather and Catch 22 in my most over-rated category ...

I would agree with you on Catcher In The Rye, which I found so poor as to be almost unreadable, but would disagree regarding Catch 22. Whilst not quite the masterpiece it is made out to be, it is still a very good book, wickedly funny in places and an interesting study into the absurdity of war (although it doesn't hold a candle to Slaughter House Five in this regard).

Off the top of my head I can only think of a couple of players who stayed at "their" clubs at the expense of curtailed international careers - Matt Le Tissier and Steve Bull. They can hold their heads up and say they stuck by their teams through thick and thin, because playing for that team was even more important to them than playing top flight football (in the case of Bull), earning a lucrative wage at a big club, or even representing their country. Smith saying that he needs to leave Leeds to further his chances with England is fair enough, but at the same time it also sends the message that he cares more about his international prospects than the club he purports to love.

Most supporters would, given the chance, play for the club they follow regardless of whether that team was in the Premiership or the Unibond Premier, I know I would. Smith patently does not. The second he put his own ambitions before those of Leeds he stopped being a "fan", and became another self involved, self serving professional footballer. The fact that he has not ruled out a move to Man Ure, despite the fact that this would be the biggest kick in the guts he could possibly deliver to Leeds supporters, only underlines this point. As AESF says, crocodile tears from a greedy thug.

Bugger, I forgot all about this (must have entered whilst drunk). Finished 38th though.

I'm glad there is another person here that doesn't think the sun shines out of his bum. I quite like The Smiths, and his new song is pretty good, but he seems a bit of a tw_t as a person. He was boring and quite arrogant when he was on Jonothan Ross, and hopefully he won't do many more interviews. Morrissey is an idol to anti-social types who want to sit in their bedroom all day and avoid human contact.

The thing that struck me most about Morrissey on the Jonathon Ross show is how old he looks these days. I know he's been out of the public eye for a few years, but he looked like an embarassing uncle doing his "Mozza" impression at a wedding (not helped by the nasty Butlins style jacket he was wearing). Always thought he was crap anyway, miserable sod.

Working for the company operating the rail replacement services between Crewe and Stoke on Trent, my advice to any Rovers fans would be to travel down as early as possible, or get yourself over to Leeds and take the East Coast Line from there. The coaches are consistently overloaded over the weekend, and there is further disruption on the line between Northampton and Milton Keynes which may or may not impact upon journey times further down the line. I will check at work tomorrow and post a list of any engineering work which is likely to affect Rovers fans travelling down to London.

Don't know or care what the Scum et al. have made of Ron's comment (don't read the gutter press), but some of you are really stretching to defend the indefensible. Regardless of whether or not he meant his comment to be aired, aired it was, and in the light of that his position became untenable. The points about free speech and political correctness are bogus; in almost any job these days, if you use racist language in a derogetory manner (which Ron certainly did), you are guilty of gross misconduct, end of story. Knowing this, and in acknowledgement of the seriousness of his error, Ron offered his resignation and it was accepted. Regarding the ITV interview, the guy wasn't asking "Are you a racist?" as some people have suggested, but rather "Can you accept that your statement may have been interpretted as racist?" which is quite different. Personally I've always liked the guy, his commentaries were always entertaining and his column in The Guardian made for good reading; but to allow him to remain in either job could appear to condone (however obliquely) what was said - something neither company can afford to do. It's a pity, but he only has himself to blame.