midds

Bothroyd's fucking shit. Don't think Carroll will go this window, probably next. Isn't football wank sometimes?

Aye, lets see..probably warming the bench at Birmingham. It'll be interesting to see where he ends up after his contract ends. If he's pricing himself out a of a move now his wage demands are only going to go north once he knows the new club won't have to fork out a transfer fee in the summer. The fucker will end up at Wigan if he's not careful.

WITH HIS COCK WHILE LISTENING TO IT ON THE RADIO, THE FUCKING SHIT SHITHOUSE.

Keep it tight for the first 20 mins and we've got a canny chance of taking something from the game. Concede early and we're fucked tbh.

Him being fit is another body in front of Smith in the CM queue. Whether he plays on Sunday or not, that's got to be a good thing.

If he wants to be somewhere else then it's fair enough. Let's see where he ends up. Not exactly the end of the world but would have been a good addition to the squad at the price he's going for.

He'll start if he's anywhere close to 100%. I think he'd be prepared to make the injury worse if it meant having 90 mins at the mackems. (Not saying this is the right thing to do btw)

Sent to them from heaven, Geordie bastards, we're their world...

The music played before, during or after a derby means absolutely nothing. It's not even an issue.

They'll all feature at some point because he needs his best players on the park if they're even close to being fit. Adrenaline will get them through the 90.

He'll start.

Fucking Nazi admin.

They'll beat Everton next week. Cahill missing is huge.

A lot can happen between now and the weekend. Wouldn't surprise me if we got Larsson and the mackems signed one or two who all play in the derby. It's a huge game for both sides and their fans. It's the one that really matters.

ITV man. Should have been banned from covering the sport years ago.

What an abortion of a thread (and the deleted shite) this is man.

You are canny aggressive when you've had a drink or two like.

its written by oliver so probably not 'have appointed'....it's happened = facts? What the f*** is he up to? And is this an official role, ie we're employing him? I doubt he's doing it for free? Something's not right. I am a cynical c*** though. Presume Dave means as in will he be directly employed by the club or just do some contract work finding players etc. Either way...

its written by oliver so probably not 'have appointed'....it's happened = facts? What the fuck is he up to? And is this an official role, ie we're employing him? I doubt he's doing it for free? Something's not right. I am a cynical cunt though.

its written by oliver so probably not 'have appointed'....it's happened = facts? What the fuck is he up to?

Is this real?

We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." Where in those photos has he lunged at the opponent? He makes contact with the player in the tackle. How can you say he hasn't? In the tackle, not the lunge. Like I said, in the same way that would have happened had he slid/block challenged the player. Surely the 'lunge' is the tackle?

We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." Where in those photos has he lunged at the opponent? He makes contact with the player in the tackle. How can you say he hasn't?

We're getting there. Nobody's disputing that it is "deemed reckless". The thing is the people who it is "deemed reckless" by are a bunch of fucking pansies. In that case no-one is disputing it's a red then? Well it's quite hard to dispute when the referee quite clearly pulled that little red thing from his pocket. Should it be a red card? Should it fuck. If you agree it's reckless then you agree it's a red. Reckless=red. It's not that hard tbh. Should it be a red? That's a different thread. Under the current rules it is - simple as.

We're getting there. Nobody's disputing that it is "deemed reckless". The thing is the people who it is "deemed reckless" by are a bunch of fucking pansies. In that case no-one is disputing it's a red then?