Louis

I played it in pc world on demo and it was a bit better... the passing seemed more accurate - I can do beckhamesque passes

Please read the attachment and tell me if there is anything missing out on whatever side of the fence I just want to make it as unbiased and impartial as possible. Untitled_1.html

if it wasn't for the referees http://www.rightresult.net/ It's not the most reliable site but it's interesting to look at the table.

All UEFA Cup Games are on TV and there has been about two on. We only got 'viewers choice' on highlights after the game on Sky one.

he has it now..

It's like number 2 but a bit more responsive

Is it childish of me to want Asda and Development Securities to win status as preffered developer as it means EFC won't go to Kirkby?

http://sport.scotsman.com/football.cfm?id=1903072007#new

Stolen from another forum: Overall - same old same old really, however I was quite surprised to hear how vocal the opposition to Kirkby was - it was - at times - incredibly loud (as that report below suggests) and made those at the top table (most notably Robert Earl) look VERY uncomfortable indeed - I honestly don't think they were expecting that. Kirkby was obviously THE main topic for discussion, but the first salient point raised (as posted by The Dome below) was about the official recording of what goes on at these meetings. For the 3rd year in a row, when they asked for AOB, Frank asked that all the Q & A to follow be officially recorded in the minutes and reported. He - quite reasonably - contended that the Q & A WAS the meeting really, as that was where the board was answerable to its shareholders and THAT'S the stuff that should be reported. His comments received a LOT of vocal support from the floor, were noted by the chairman.......and then basically ignored, and the meeting was closed, THEN the Q & A started !!! Absolutely scandalous and ridiculous and something MUST be done about it next year - the proper legal process for getting EVERYTHING minuted needs to be followed somehow. The majority of the points were directed at Bill Kenwright rather than Keith Wyness, which some felt was a real shame, given Keith's rencent penchant for putting his foot in it. He fielded very few of the questions tonight and when he did (very early on) he again re-iterated that - as far as he was concerned there WAS NO PLAN B. If Kirkby all falls through then we "come back to Goodison and start all over again" - he also said that this would be absolutely catastrophic for the club (paraphrased from memory). However, as the meeting progressed I think the board were surprised at the depth of feeling over Kirkby and there were LOTS of arguments back and forth about the validity of the Loop site and the redevelopment of Goodison - and I think there will be lots of phone calls being made tomorrow to verify some of the claims made by the board and their representatives ! As mentioned below - a chap called Chris Potts was wheeled out to tell us how Kirkby was the only viable option, and that the Loop site and redevelopment of Goodison were both impossible. Of course - he wasn't able to tell us any actual NUMBERS but "Kirkby would be cheaper" was the general gist, even without any evidence to back it up ! He also mentioned phone calls and emails to some of the people behind the alternatives not being returned. Both he and Bill Kenwright also claimed to have spoken to the author of the HOK report (the report that says the Loop IS feasible) and he had now told them that it WASN'T feasible !! As I say - there will be lots of phone calls tomorrow to verify some of these claims ! Anyway, in short, the 2 main points to take from tonight :- 1) In the face of lots of criticism that we NEED a Plan B and a Plan C (given Wyness's claim that this HAS to happen by 2010, the likelihood that it WILL be called in and therefore that won't happen, and his admittance again tonight that we "can't guarantee it will go through") Bill Kenwright later contradicted Wyness's "No Plan B" statement and said that they WILL reconsider and carry out feasibility studies on ALL the options again, including the redevelopment of Goodison and The Loop. (However this was NOT minuted - for reasons mentioned earlier - so whether he can be held to this or not I don't know !) 2) There was not ONE single shareholder that spoke out in favour of Kirkby. The closest it got to that were comments from 2 people. The first person said that "these other sites were probably all TECHNICALLY feasible, but if we haven't got the money, then we haven't got the money" (fair comment but no comment on Kirkby and certainly not a ringing endorsement for it) and the second was from the, quite frankly, laughable Richard Lewis from the sham "Shareholders 2005/2006/2007" Group (or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays). Not only did he make his comment when the chairman had called for the end-of-year report from the official Shareholders Association (Mr Lewis' rabble are no such thing if you remember - they are the rejects from the real thing who went off sulking and made their own group). Having rudely interrupted, Mr Lewis then demonstrated just how "in touch" with the fans he is by managing to get as far as "What people need to remember is that it doesn't matter WHERE the stadium IS - it's the PEOPLE within it that make it our home......" - the rest of the sentence was drowned out by virtually the whole room booing, heckling and laughing at his ridculous comment. Finger on the pulse indeed ! That was as "pro-Kirkby" as ANY comments from the floor got on the night, and I would bet everything I own that if they had called for a for/against Kirkby ballot TONIGHT there would have been an absolute landslide AGAINST it. Honorary mentions on the night must go to :- - Colin Fitz who asked some excellent questions and argued passionately and in an informed manner against some of the responses - most notably those from Chris Potts - The BRILLIANT Trevor Skempton who spoke passionately about the alternative proposals - Anne Asquith who spoke very eloquently on behalf of the SA, making a special note of how the ballot/Kirkby debate has caused huge rifts in the fanbase - Frank for....well just being Frank really ! (Kenwright must hate seeing his hand go up !) And all those other dissenting voices who spoke up and asked hard-hitting and pertinent questions - it was great to meet up and chat with some of you afterwards, and you made me proud to be an Evertonian, even if our efforts turn out to be ultimately futile. At least we can look in the mirror and tried our best to live up to the motto. Not everyone else can. Robert Earl's body language was very telling throughout...I watched him closely to try to gauge where he stands on things. He seemed like he REALLY didn't want to be there at first, but - to give the guy his due - whenever he was called upon to speak, he actually spoke very well and seemed very committed to the cause - something that kind of surprised me but then - being cynical (as ever !) he wouldn't have been wheeled out if they couldn't rely on him to at least say that much. There was another farcical moment when - in the early part of the meeting, Kenwright asked for a Proposer and a Seconder for Robert Earl's election onto the board (and there was some discussion afterwards as to whether he actually GOT those !) and it was then to go to a show of hands from shareholders as to whether they would OK this or not. One shareholder stood up and asked if he could ask a question at this point and the following dialogue (paraphrased from memory) took place : Shareholder : Can I ask a question at this point ? Kenwright : Erm...no..I don't think so - we'll take questions later. Shareholder : But it's relevant to this part Kenwright : Erm....(checks with lawyers) we'll take questions later. Shareholder : But I want to know a bit more about Mr Earl before I decide whether to vote to include him on the board. Kenwright : We'll be taking questions later. Everyone : It will be too late THEN - we have to vote on it NOW. Kenwright : Erm....(checks with lawyers) - ask your question. The shareholder then proceeded to ask about Mr Earl and what he brought to the party. Kenwright waffled for a bit, then Earl spoke, saying that he had been persuaded to buy out Paul Gregg's shares and he had also acted as a guarantor for extending loans/overdrafts since. The other notable point was that at the very earliest possible opportunity (i.e. as soon as the questions went to the floor) Earl attracted Kenwright's attention and they had a quick conference behind Jon Woods' back - oh to be a fly on the wall for THAT little exchange ! My own personal view is that Earl has been brought in (as Gregg was) PURELY with the dangling carrot of the new stadium and his ownership of the naming rights - he later spoke at length about naming rights and the benefits it can bring, and that definitely seems the most likely scenario to me. (when I heard)...that Robert Earl was going to be there, I thought THAT was going to be their "equalise before they score" tactic this time around but no - it was definitely Chris Potts (and again Kenwright played the "It's handy, because I didn't actually intend for him to be here tonight, he was just passing and I grabbed him in" card) He was (understandably) absolutely battered with questions from the floor - most particularly from Colin Fitz and Dave Kelly (of KEIOC) - and he just kept going on and on about this "plinth" that would have to be built for the Loop proposal and how infeasible that made the whole thing. However, when he was then questioned about the cost and technicalities of cleansing the ex-landfill Kirkby site he said "my expertise is not in architecture or construction" which was greeted with lots of cries of "what are you going on about this plinth for then ?!?!?". I think he was most definitely there to be the scapegoat, and he contradicted himself several times and was tied in absolute knots. He also - as I said - made several claims that will be severely scrutinised today regarding the alternative proposals. The best bit was when he completely dismissed the HOK report saying that the Loops site was totally unfeasible - the following exchange took place :- Colin Fitz : Have you actually read the report ? Chris Potts : I've read bits of it. Colin Fitz : Have you Bill ? Kenwright : No. Colin Fitz : Have you Keith ? Wyness : No. Colin Fitz : Well here you go - I've got a copy here (waves copy) - they were giving them out in the Winslow so you must be the only 3 people here who HAVEN'T read it ! Marvellous stuff ! I can categorically state that the following was NOT said during the meeting.... "Often as a chairman you get conspiracy theories thrown at you and you have to say, 'guys, I'm not an idiot, I'm also one of you. Don't you think if there was a possibility of XYZ, that I would be jumping at it?' "The team that we brought in to look at these situations - you'd think we'd brought Desperate Dan and Corky the Cat in. "We've got the best in the business looking at all the options, including the Kirkby move." As ever - the press are in their pocket, reporting whatever Everton WANT them to, rather than what was actually SAID at the meeting. Having said that, I'm glad his comments about revisiting and re-appraising all the alternatives were reported (especially as Wyness had earlier categorically denied that we would be doing so)

http://www.ghostbustersgame.com/uk/index.html qOhnn18bLIQ

Both were injured in tonights mini derby.. Van Der Meyde had a large gash on his shin and Vaughan had concussion. Everton Reserves: Ruddy, Densmore, Boyle, Irving, Rodwell, Harpur, Kissock, Vidarsson, Jutkiewicz (Morrison 73), Vaughan (Agard 58), Van der Meyde (O'Kane 67). Subs not used: Stubhaus, McCarten Lost 3-0, so the less said the better..

Good news for Celtic.. Benfica in Uefa Cup..

I found some more information on the Kirkby transport problems - http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/22248...nsportoct07.pdf 3.64 In the case of a football stadium, there are likely to be significant differences between any existing location and Kirkby. Any knowledge of the current spectator travel behaviour, although interesting, is unlikely to accurately reflect future spectator travel to Kirkby. Indeed the transport strategy for the stadium should be bespoke, highly focused at sustainable modes of travel, flexible and enforceable, and not governed unduly by historical travel behaviour. 3.65 Nonetheless, surveys of the existing travel behaviour of supporters would be useful. This information would show the scale of any proposed changes in modal use and as such act as a comparative for the bespoke transport strategy for Kirkby. It would also provide an indication of the number of vehicles already on the trunk road network, and therefore allow an estimate to be made as to the level of any “new” and “diverted” vehicular trips. 3.66 The above information should be supplemented by data from other similar football clubs (e.g. English Premiership), with comparable locations and transport links. The travel characteristics of Reading FC supporters (Madjeski Stadium) and perhaps Bolton FC (Reebok Stadium) may be appropriate and should be examined further. For example, most trips made to the Madjeski Stadium are car based (71%) but bus trips are also high (21%). Madjeski Stadium is currently applying for planning permission to increase their capacity from 24,500 seats to 36,900 seats. The transport strategy for 3.83 The local train services must be considered with respect to frequency, journey times, carriage capacity, and proposed and committed enhancements. It is likely that the frequency and number of carriages will need to be increased albeit that such capacity enhancements are limited by the availability of carriages and the single track. This will need to be discussed with Mersey Rail and Northern Lines. A review will need to be undertaken on the linkages to the site for people travelling on from the train station by bus, taxis, walking and cycling 3.84 The local bus services will need to be considered in light of frequency, journey times, capacity, and proposed and committed developments. Where necessary, additional services will have to be provided and passenger facilities enhanced. In particular it will be necessary to commission buses to transport spectators from surrounding areas IPS Transport Report to a stadium. GIS should be utilised to assist in identifying the key origin locations. 3.91 For a stadium the impact of spectators, particularly at the end of an event, will require reporting within the TA. Retaining visitors in a stadium after a match is an excellent way of spreading the demand post match, and thus reducing the peak impact on all transport networks. Exclusive post match interviews and reduced cost drink and food specials are good examples of stadium retention measures and these and others may be included in the Stadium Travel Plan. Crowd management measures may also reduce the impact on the local transport networks and the initial proposals should be set out in the Local Area Management Plan.

It was on toffeeweb a few days ago.

I think is is a sitting duck.. turns out Gray is on 20 grand a week!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/7127307.stm

The above trio are registered for our UEFA Cup games... if we are guaranteed progress to the next round after the Zenit game, do you think it would be a good time to give one or two a full début in Holland knowing we have nothing riding on it? No. 34 England John Irving (19) Defender 36 England John Paul Kissock (18) Midfielder 37 England Jack Rodwell (16) Defender The last time a 16 year old made his début in Europe for us was Colin Harvey wasn't it? Whilst speaking of youth players, Moses Barnett is going to a sign his first pro deal this week.

Here is the official press pack for the game: [link]

From the pockets of his billowing white robe, Gambia's president pulls out a plastic container, closes his eyes in prayer and rubs a green herbal paste onto the rib cage of the patient - a concoction he claims is a cure for AIDS. He then orders the thin man to swallow a bitter yellow drink, followed by two bananas. "Whatever you do, there are bound to be skeptics, but I can tell you my method is foolproof," President Yahya Jammeh told an Associated Press reporter, surrounded by bodyguards in his presidential compound. "Mine is not an argument, mine is a proof. It's a declaration. I can cure AIDS and I will." In a continent suffering from the world's worst AIDS epidemic, Jammeh's claims of a miracle cure are alarming public health workers already struggling against faith-healers dispensing herbal remedies from inside thatched huts. The biggest concern is that the Gambian leader requires patients to cease their anti-retroviral drugs, a move that risks weakening their immune systems and making them even more prone to infection, said Dr. Antonio Filipe Jr., head of the World Health Organization in neighboring Senegal. Since January, when he announced his cure to a gathering of foreign diplomats, Jammeh has thrown the bureaucratic machinery of this small West African country behind the claim. The last six news releases on Gambia's official Web site are dedicated to the president's treatment, available to Gambians free of charge. Regular radio and TV addresses publicize it and the Health Ministry has issued a declaration of support. Although the HIV rate is relatively low in Gambia compared to other African nations - 1.3 percent of the country's 1.6 million people are infected - the president's claim has left international health organizations in a bind. WHO's Filipe was diplomatic about Jammeh's claims, saying his organization respects the president's point of view. But, he added: "As the World Health Organization, we would like to state quite clearly the following - No. 1: so far there is no cure for AIDS."

Today's Daily Mail is reporting that Yakubu won't be going to the African Nations Cup (it doesn't offer a reason) and it also says that Anichebe will be taken to the tournament. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1779

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comm...bmissionID=4523

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/news/keiocnews_1.pdf

The former olympic gold winner is apparently on the staff roster at the moment and he's teaching some members of the squad how to sprint "properly" and how to let their muscles recover. At first I thought "what's the point" but then I considered it.. the likes of Vaughan and Johnson are recovering from serious injuries and they usually rely on the speed of their game. Who better to turn to than a sprinter who, all his career, had been coached in explosive bursts of speed, a sprinter who had overcome injuries to remain at the top of his sport!? "One of the problems you find with footballers, especially when they have picked up injuries, is that they don`t rehab properly. Every time they get injured, they tend to lose a bit of speed. It`s all about muscle recovery." One downside.. he's a man utd fan!

I have heard a rumour that Andy Gray could be returning to Goodison as assistant manager. I doubt it is true but it is an interesting idea, he seems to know a lot about tactics, has played for the club in the past and is scottish Apparently he turned down the managerial position a few years ago, if he was offered the assistant manager position, do you think he'd even consider it or does he find his sky sports pundit chair too comfy?

Do you remember those dancers from brazil we had at half time when we played boro? I don't understand how that bid is expected to be accepted? The amount of wages offered to Ronaldinho does not make a difference to Barca, they'd only receive £10million - less than they paid for him originally.. Maybe Mikky should have a word, he did play with him for PSG!