Teasy

Load of utter bollocks.

Depressing fuckers

Definitely agree with this. I wasn't surprised when Coloccini was sent off and I didn't call the ref a cunt for it. The first thing in my mind was incidents earlier in the game were a Liverpool player could have just as easily been sent off.

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card. See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs. Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes absolutely no sense. It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul. How would a referee have any idea of what a player means to do though? In the same way they have an idea if someone has hand balled intentionally, body language and their opinion of the situation. Are we definitely talking about the same thing here? Are you talking about the intent to commit a foul or the intent to injure? I can accept that there's nothing directly in the rules regarding either if you say so as I don't have a rule book. But it does seem like players often don't get sent off in a situation where they absolutely have to if the intent to commit a foul isn't considered of any relevance by referees. For instance going up for a header, because players usually stick their arms out players can often get an elbow in the face and sometimes its quite serious (being knocked unconscious). Yet players certainly aren't always sent off for that, despite it being a dangerous thing to do and causing injury. Surely the reason for that is because the referee decided it was an accident in that particular case?

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card. See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs. Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes no sense. It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul.

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? a studs up dangerous challenge does But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant. An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone? I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card. there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card Ok, but could you answer my question. You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card? Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card. Strange then that everyone and their mothers (including referees) often mention intent. If the rules consider an accident to be no less punishable than an intended foul then that's quite amazing to me. Though it seems that if that's the case most people in Football don't realise and plenty of referees don't apply it. As plenty of players accidentally endanger and in fact seriously injure opponents without being punished, with the only possible reason for the lack of punishment being that it was an accident.

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? a studs up dangerous challenge does But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant. An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone? I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card. there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card Ok, but could you answer my question. You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card?

You're effectively saying that if a player accidentally hurts another player he deserves a red card.

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? a studs up dangerous challenge does But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant. An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone? I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? Football has gone from a contact sport, to a none contact sport, to a don't even intend to contact sport and now a don't put yourself in a position to make any contact even if you don't intend to sport.

Because Wonga badly need good PR? The other week they did. Why in a year's time, when nobody gives a shite about the sponsor any more? Not sure why they even need it in the first place actually. They're making a forture aren't they? I don't see what profit has to do with the wish for positive PR or better advertising.

What they are saying is true though: As a Muslim myself I certainly won't be buying the top with Wonga on it! But surely to a Muslim having Northern Rock/Virgin Money on their shirt would also be seen as wrong. All three names are of companies that base their entire business on interest.

Nearer 3m. how have those cowboys along the river got 20m ? They haven't, Sunderlands deal is up to £20m over the course of the sponsorship (2 years).

Erm, I must have been away when Ashley "squeezed every penny he could out of the club as quickly as he could…. and then liquidated it" Seriously you can do better than that, surely I've actually been conclusively wrong about something in the past, keep looking I'm sure you'll find loads of comments to help your cause Maybe I said Obertan was decent at some point, trying searching for "Teasy Obertan", you sad cunt.

Are you suggesting that renaming the stadium and putting up place holder ads is pointless other than simply to advertise Sports Direct. Because no it isn't, and not because it show cases the idea of stadium advertising to prospective sponsors either. But because it takes the brunt of the bad feeling away from the future sponsor.

He knows we hate it, so why put it on the stadium, on the season tickets, on the roof, in the tunnel around the 'Howay the Lads' sign... May well be something else, but people must have learned there lesson from all the other times we've said "Ashley wouldn't be that stupid." Because we haven't gotten a good enough offer for the stadium rights yet.. what else would you suggest he puts there as a place holder for the future naming rights? "You're ad here"? You must be the only man on the planet that believes the "showcase" bollocks. I've got some lovely magic beans i'd like to sell you. I suppose you were also one of the people who thought Ashley would put us into administration to "get back at the fans". There is no conspiracy you loon. Or can you give me a genuine reason to believe otherwise?

He knows we hate it, so why put it on the stadium, on the season tickets, on the roof, in the tunnel around the 'Howay the Lads' sign... May well be something else, but people must have learned there lesson from all the other times we've said "Ashley wouldn't be that stupid." Because we haven't gotten a good enough offer for the stadium rights yet.. what else would you suggest he puts there as a place holder for the future naming rights? "You're ad here"? You're (lol) right, that'd be worse. Sorry I was to busy being right to make sure everything was spelled correctly

"... as a placeholder until we find a suitable option". You have a place holder until you find a deal, but you don't cancel a deal for a place holder.

Think for two seconds before posting will you. Ashley wants to bring in the most money possible, that isn't going to happen with Sports Direct. Plus if he wanted Sports Direct sponsorship we'd already have had a deal for stadium and kit a long time ago. When were you last in the Sport's Direct Arena? There's been some changes... Is there now a contract on the wall detailing our Sports Direct stadium and kit sponsorship deal, because otherwise its not a change that alters my point.

He knows we hate it, so why put it on the stadium, on the season tickets, on the roof, in the tunnel around the 'Howay the Lads' sign... May well be something else, but people must have learned there lesson from all the other times we've said "Ashley wouldn't be that stupid." Because we haven't gotten a good enough offer for the stadium rights yet.. what else would you suggest he puts there as a place holder for the future naming rights? "You're ad here"? We already have a sponsor for the shirts, the only way that's changing is if we find a better deal, it'll be interesting to see what it is, but please get the whole Sports Direct conspiracy out of your heads.

Think for two seconds before posting will you. Ashley wants to bring in the most money possible, that isn't going to happen with Sports Direct. Plus if he wanted Sports Direct sponsorship we'd already have had a deal for stadium and kit a long time ago.

He jokingly suggested that he was awkward and would get upset over "an uncomfortable chair" but has never once so much as hinted at him being "a nightmare to manage." "A nightmare to manage"? I didn't even say that. If you read back through the conversation you'll see that Bottleddog said it right before the post you replied to on the previous page.

The clause went from £7m to £15m in August. I really doubt it goes back to £7m in January..

Yet nobody did... Have you visited an alternate universe were all our players were put up for sale like?