Viper22

So Reus should be our main transfer target in January is the general consensus. But if for whatever reason he's not available at all, would people want to pay £50M for Bale? Prices around that kid of level are tempting.

I disagree we'd have failed as a club if we signed him. Top players often cost top money. However, if you're saying value for money wise Reus is much better then you won't get any argument from ANYONE. Reus is 10x better value for money. But we're discussing Bale and his merits, not Reus . Bale is an outstanding footballer IMO, whether he's worth any more than £60M is debatable. And I wouldn't want us paying that for him. But like i've said numerous times before, would much rather us buy Reus .

I wasn't talking about the quality of women, it was more an exaggerated analogy of the towns .

As an admitted Reus fanboy... Bale is definitely in the top 7 in the world ATM. Reus is definitely in the top 15. Love both players but Reus isn't better.

The only player who gets as angry as I (and I suspect a lot of others) feel when watching Chelsea sometimes. He has the passion and the will. All bow down to Diegod!

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/germany-vs-gibraltar-as-if-by-magic-farsley-striker-adam-priestley-finds-himself-taking-on-the-world-cup-winners-9859678.html This guy Adam Priestley played against Prescot Cables last Saturday in front of 129 people. This evening he's playing against the world champions Germany in front of over 43,000 people. Amazing .

So assuming it has a chance of happening (not convinced) no-one seems concerned about the quality of the player. It's about the price. What price would be acceptable then does everyone think? £70M? £60M? £50.000001M?

Would love Bale to come as I truly believe that he's the 3rd best player in the world ATM. But for the small(ish) difference in quality and the huge difference in price between him and Reus (assuming we have a choice) then it's a no-brainer. Not entirely sure we could afford £90M and £300k p/w anyway. I doubt very highly that we have that kind of money about if we're going to comply with FFP.

I very much doubt we could afford Bale. And even if we could then it'd mean we couldn't sign anyone else for the next 3 years! Reus is very possible, especially if we use Andre as a sweetner. Varane would be fantastic for that price. But it just won't be that price. Real aren't complete morons and know they could ask for around £30M, don't they?

I think by the end of the season he will. He's made 9 appearances in the league for Gladbach this season so it's good that they value him highly. We'll wait and see what he's like by the end of the season then.

And to clarify again, I don't mean we should treat them as criminals. That was just an (admittedly poor I'm retrospect) analogy that people with viewpoints than differ so drastically are often separated from those that have other views. It was more a suggestion that sometimes separation is the best thing. So not having the world cup there in the first place would solve the problem (not putting homosexuals in that position) or for a country with a gay player to boycott the World Cup. That kind of thing is what I meant, not that they're criminals for their beliefs.

I do like a good debate but like I said I'm well out of my depth here. And you've just proved it to me!! I either don't understand enough (both about the issue or my opinion on it) to argue my point convincingly or I'm wrong and have been convinced so . So I'll just come to the conclusion that what you're saying is right, I can't find any issues I disagree with in there tbh so I'll admit you're right. We just have to hope that Qatar soften their ways either for it before the World Cup. Except for one thing actually. I think you'd be surprised just how many criminals truly believe that what they're doing isn't wrong (for whatever reason). Not saying they think they're in the right, just that they're not in the wrong. Convincing themselves that they're not. Now obviously that a psychological issue that I'm definitely not qualified to talk about but I'd suggest it's a larger number than people think. That's all.

I guess you know best! I just thought that Australia deserved to host it and judging by the fact that they were bidding I thought they would be in a better situation than you mentioned.

Enjoyed that tennis match more than I have any other in a while. Was absolutely hilarious. Made it even sweeter after the moronic crowd booed Mou to have their little hero spanked all over the court mercilessly by the Swiss Superman.

Your parents never taught you to share did they? . USA hosted it 20 years ago, they had their chance very recently and most people wouldn't say that it was one of the greatest ever. They will get their chance again, but after other countries have had their chance. And if you're after diversity then England wins that battle mate!

I feel well out of my depth here, but i'll plow on. I do get what you're saying now, the born into beliefs and brought up with them is a good point. But then people in civilised countries can do that and once they commit crimes (you could argue that homophobia/racism are moral crimes) we deal with it by separating them from the rest of society (through imprisonment) for general societies safety (as well as their own in some cases). So surely if Qatar can't agree to let openly homosexual people into their country to watch/compete in a worldwide tournament then I do think that they shouldn't be invited to host said tournament until they go through the experiences and so evolutions you mentioned. I'm not saying they have to have even similar beliefs (they can disagree completely with gay people for all I or even probably the gay people care) as long as they don't show those opinions in a violent or abusive way. It's not like gay people are going to have a gangbang in the middle of the pitch or make plays at Qatari gentlemen, it won't effect them or their culture in any way. So once they have changed enough to at least display their opinions in peaceful non-violent ways (if at all) then of course we can go there, once again with the caveat that gay people don't take the piss and show affection in public. If there is a compromise like we have both mentioned then it will be fine I am sure and will if anything soften people's opinions of Qatar (and possibly muslims in general) which is a very good thing. Well yeah the Western media is anything but consistent and I think you'll find that most people who disagree with them having the world cup disagree with them having weapons supplied by us too. But our opinions matter less than a cow's shit so...

If any of the players you mentioned were available for a cut price like £19M then yes, of course we should/would go for them. Wouldn't you? . The day you stop looking to improve your team is the day you begin the fall from dominance. We've seen it with Man Utd recently, Arsenal (invincibles), us in 09/10 and Man City every time they win the league.

Areas of London are terrible. Areas are great. Most of Manchester is poor, very little of it is very good. Obviously it's not the extreme poverty you mentioned (we English do like to over-react) but a large portion of Mancunians are far poorer than most other places in the country.

As one who has been to both it would be the difference between living with this: and this: An exaggeration of course, but you get the jist.

Expanding yes, but isn't yet bigger. And i've got that from one of my best mates who now lives in America coaching footballers (GKs to be specific). Population is irrelevant here, otherwise China/India would be next in line, and while China are up and coming neither would be appropriate to host the world cup. Also, it is good to see fans from other countries at the world cup, but you can't tell me you wouldn't expect the same if the world cup was hosted in, say, Belgium/Holland. English, German, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese fans (among others) would all not have to travel far to get there, it's not something specific to USA. USA would be a great choice but they hosted it relatively recently and on top of that they are not a big footballing nation (they have only won 8 world cup games in their entire history) and while they are quickly developing into one (which I like, as I am a big fan of USA and their general passion for any sport they pick up) but they need to do this for an extended period before getting the world cup AGAIN so soon. Countries like England, Russia, Belgium/Holland, Australia and Uruguay/Colombia are all nations which valu football as much if not a lot more and so deserve their opportunity to host the greatest football competition in the world (debatable, but whatever )

The lack of drinking is fine, we deal with it at European games so we can deal with it for a world cup. The lack of half naked women is ok too, as long as it doesn't go too far (women having to wear trousers/long sleeves shirts) as it'll be bloody hot whenever they host it. Thing is, i'm not gay and never will be (it's not something that interests me) and tbh I myself wouldn't like 2 men making out in front of me (although then again I don't like public displays of affection anyway). But I don't feel that anyone should be persecuted for their choices in their personal life especially if it doesn't harm or affect anyone else. I mean it's not like seeing 2 men kiss will make anyone gay who wasn't in the first place anyway, I don't know what they're afraid of? If there is some kind of meeting halfway then that would be ok for me - gay people can attend and have no fear of violence or persecution and have protection from the local authorities as long as they agree to with-hold any public displays of affection until they are in private. It's not about morals, it's about freedom to think how you like without fear of violence or persecution. I know you didn't mean me specifically, I just wanted to back up my point. P.S Moved this to the politics as i'm sure you've realised so as to not clog up the international thread.

If it was down to me (unlikely to ever be but whatever xD), I would set it out something like this: 2018 - Belgium/Holland 2022 - Australia 2030 - England 2034 - Uruguay/Colombia 2038 - Russia 2042 - China 2046 - Nigeria/Cameroon 2050 - Spain Nice spread around the world. Obviously Europe would get it more often but that's because more countries in Europe are ready or close to ready whereas most other countries would need to build. Just my opinion, think all of the countries mentioned deserve the WC sooner rather than later. As for the Euros, I would start often making that an often dual/triple hosted affair. Norway/Finland, Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales, Russia, Romania/Serbia/Bulgaria, Czech Republic/Hungary/Slovenia. The big nations have hosted it enough for now. Except for Germany. Stuff like that IMO.

I understand that people can have different cultures and opinions, but it's more prejudice that is the problem. For instance would WAGs have to cover up? What if Ronaldo came out gay? Would he be allowed to play? What if a gay man wanted to go and support his team? Would he be in danger? It's just that I have a problem with, that's all. People's lives and well-being under threat. But I was just clarifying what I meant, I don't want to drag political debate in here either.