Keefaz

The advantage, if you want to call it that, is that England have a few ready-made excuses for fucking up today.

Q. Would a bad loss be the straw that broke McLaren's camel's back?

Thought I'd start a match thread, because I never have. Now I have, it's made me feel all warm inside. No doubt a mod will soon obliterate it to feed his massive ego.

Rumours that Martin Jol have walked out are wide of the mark.

I was just making a joke.

I've been here today posting on other threads. You surely don't begrudge me having some lunch? Lunch is for wimps! I win!

It's just another excuse to have a few cheap shots over a non-news story and an idea a huge majority of LFC fans find distasteful. Take a trip to any LFC forum and you'll see comments describing it as eerie/mawkish and asking what is wrong with the current memorial. Or you can continue to spout inaccurate generalisations as it fits the stereotype you want to portray. It's funny that 2 of the most reasonable and well-tempered Liverpool fans we've had on here can't alter the general opinion that Scousers are pitiful, moaning work-shy wankers.

So, he really is a perfect replacement for Dyer.

We've built up enough reverse Karma to cover it. Good point. Enough to cover this and maybe one more chuckle at someone else's expense... Wenger? :parky:

The schadenfreude herein is terrible. Karma will get you all!

I am happy about that. No idea why people are pissing and moaning.

Was probably just a few fans spread out across the ground. I'm surprised people are saying they didn't hear it, though.

And your point is? This has nothing to do with Newcastle's reputation, the thread is about Liverpool and how hypocritical their fans are, not Newcastle United fans.

Um. Aye. Even: Yeez hord it heeya forst!

Keano for Spors! You heard it here forst!

What does Martins offer to that then? Um. Acrobatics? Huge legs?

Splice them together to create the perfect modern-day forward: Anelkins (or Manelka).

I bet 50% of refs wouldn't know what to award.

West Ham.

Didn't know that. Can't imagine I'm likely to see this in practice.

always wondered why they don't just do away with indirect free-kicks. If someone does something to warrant a free-kick, why not let the other side have a direct shot on goal? Because indirect free kick offences are generally considred so minor that if they happened in the area would not warrant a penalty. Would you want a penalty awarded for a goalie taking more than six seconds? And you can't score any free kick in your own net, indirect or direct. Really?! I mean, I can't say I've ever seen it even close to happening, but... bizarre.

Why is that a concern while he's the owner? Who's suggested "figures like 5 years"? quoted as saying he has a 5 year plan for the club.. in which we'll be in the champs league. That said, i have no reason not to trust him Link? Took me ages because it's old as f*ck but heres an extract from an article: "Ashley is also expected to talk about his plans and ambitions for the club once he has reached the 90% ownership target. Initial suggestions were that he wanted the Magpies to be able to win the Premiership League Title within three years and be competing for the European Champions League within five years. That is a very aggressive plan to say the least" heres the link if you want it. http://nufcblog.com/mike-ashley-gets-closer-to-taking-newcastle-united-private/ It's on nufcblog, it might as well be written in stone as far as I'm concerned. 100% nailed on. knew somebody would have a dig.. he asked for a link and thats the only place i could find it... there were some direct quotes from the big man's representatives, but since its been ages the story's problaby long gone. Not questioning his intentions.. just responding Sorry, chap. Didn't mean to put down your efforts.

It's not a goal at either end hence the 'indirect' part. Pretty ambiguous though, so if you get an indirect freekick, lob it into the box and an opposing defender hits in his own net- that's still scoring an own goal from an indirect freekick. Well, aye. That's indirectly gone into the goal.

Why is that a concern while he's the owner? Who's suggested "figures like 5 years"? quoted as saying he has a 5 year plan for the club.. in which we'll be in the champs league. That said, i have no reason not to trust him Link? Took me ages because it's old as f*ck but heres an extract from an article: "Ashley is also expected to talk about his plans and ambitions for the club once he has reached the 90% ownership target. Initial suggestions were that he wanted the Magpies to be able to win the Premiership League Title within three years and be competing for the European Champions League within five years. That is a very aggressive plan to say the least" heres the link if you want it. http://nufcblog.com/mike-ashley-gets-closer-to-taking-newcastle-united-private/ It's on nufcblog, it might as well be written in stone as far as I'm concerned. 100% nailed on.

It's not a goal at either end hence the 'indirect' part.