80

No it's not...... "Admission charges on the night at the East Stand Turnstiles will be £3.00 Adults and £1.50 Concessions. Season Ticket holders do not get in free for this game"

I wouldn't agree about sitting... or even singing, depending on what you mean. The British display an extraordinary reticence to start following the orders of blokes holding loud-hailers and release streamers in unison. Now that's not to say we can't or haven't made a hell of a racket, we just don't do it in the foreign way. That's true. Except for Walsall fans, as this amusing clip shows: Check out the big guy at the front. Excellent

Never mind set-pieces involving feet, why is it we've spent years not only wasting throw-ins but putting ourselves at a major disadvantage by literally chucking possession away to the opposition only yards away from our penalty area? Bloody maddening. We seem determined to make a 15 yard throw or nothing.

I wouldn't agree about sitting... or even singing, depending on what you mean. The British display an extraordinary reticence to start following the orders of blokes holding loud-hailers and release streamers in unison. Now that's not to say we can't or haven't made a hell of a racket, we just don't do it in the foreign way.

a bit overreacting I think. Altough I do recognize some points. The atmosphere in England is still great. If you compare it with other countrys. Altough I think the atmosphere in Germany is great too(sorry for that) I take it that guy is talking about introducing continental ultra-style culture to British football, which is a whole other topic. Getting the old atmosphere back and orchestrating flag displays are two very different things. There speaks a Brit. Edit: ^ Ah, there we go

On the basis that during the last transfer window an attacker was the priority and that i am pleased we got Martins over Huth and Knight then i cant see why you dont agree with me too. Dont let your feelings towards NE5 cloud your judgement What ! Gem has feelings for me :winking: Its a love / hate thing, likely to develop into an obsession. Leazes occasionally pms me on Toontastic. I wouldn't normally disclose that sort of thing but I can't resist making Gemmill green with envy From what I've heard about his hair, he'll end up looking quite seasonal.

Nice to get to read one of these, again. Do we expect Roeder to get this right? Myself, no. He probably doesn't even recognise the issue, but even if he did he may well also perceive that he's backed into a corner thanks to this ridiculous captaincy situation and lack the guts to fight his way out. What I expect, therefore, is a fudge, with us trying to accommodate Butt, Emre and Parker in the same side. Its unfortunate that Parker's return should come at a time where he's afforded cover by circumstance - arriving as a sub on the back of a tight loss at Chelsea to witness a winning goal scored without his input against 19th-placed Watford, followed by yet another game against Chelsea, with a change in venue but no change in the result - one which "no reasonable person" could begin to apportion blame for, given their wealth of talent. Had things been ticking over as they were before this somewhat unusual trio of fixtures, there would've been more room to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll blood you in slowly, Scott...". If Roeder is smart enough to see what should be done, and he's given a free hand in the transfer market (which cannot be counted upon, of course - he is the hero of the fans, of course...), we could actually do reasonably well out of this. It would appear that Parker is genuinely (over)rated amongst influential members of the footballing community. They see the crunching tackles and fail to notice the subtle yet critical fact he'd lost a man in midfield 20 seconds earlier which led to him having to make a saving intervention. As such, a profit could be made in the difference between the fee for his departure and the fee for his replacement.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7434/muchbetterbr7.gif Much better.

I believe we've suffered more than any other set of supporters from its imposition. A bloody terrible thing. Why don't they understand how to use it?

My usual position on these sort of things is that I don't mind it being legal so long as things are made consistent and evened out across the board. Given should've been allowed to grab him by the throat and throw him out of the way, therefore. I get the feeling that such an act would've been considered illegal, today (yesterday, now...), and so seeing as he could only reasonably defend his goal by committing a foul of some nature, he should've been afforded protection. Otherwise you're setting a precedent that players can totally restrict the freedom of a goalie. Unlike outfielders who, it can be said, just have to run around an obstacle, the vast majority of a goalkeeper's time at corners is spent on the goal line. Coming off it in this particular situation puts his goal at even greater risk, of course, and as I say above, he can't move the obstacle so what is his option? He needs this protection for the good of the game, I believe, therefore. A bit like the offside rule, anything else would see set-pieces become a tactical game with the aim of impeding, or preventing the impediment of, the only bloke who can use his hands.

Definitely Butt and Emre, for me. What do I expect? 4-5-1. Watford are fierce, ya kna.

Seeing as its you saying that, have you any reason for your confidence other than faith? none at all, and i have officially lost my ITK status as I have been nothing but 100% wrong for about the last 18 months! bluebiggrin.gif You're no Christian Hayne, that's for sure

Seeing as its you saying that, have you any reason for your confidence other than faith?

As someone on Toontastic said, it looks like something you'd see attached to a beer pump in a bar. Having just skimmed over the piece before now, I actually thought that was what it was until you just said that.

they always had the UBS backing as far as i remember. I don't recall hearing that, and I'm pretty sure I would've remembered. You don't forget UBS Any idea where you think you heard it? cant remember the exact source, but recall that when polygon were initially mentioned, it was said that UBS were financing the deal. quick search on the forum showed UBS+ Polygon mentioned together in June. also found this in the Independent http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060620/ai_n16488373 That one must've gone right over my head.

they always had the UBS backing as far as i remember. I don't recall hearing that, and I'm pretty sure I would've remembered. You don't forget UBS Any idea where you think you heard it?

Anyone reckon old Ottmar put a word in for us?

This would appear to be huge news... I always said we should respect Switzerland's position of neutrality during the war. Not for them the bloody travails of conflict, they simply wished to live in peace.

Yeah, I'll have a listen to that, too, please.

Pretty much what he said. Its hard to imagine him being much worse an appointment than Souness.

bramble did well alongside woody, though, or do i misremember? Even AOB did well alongside him.

It was the Zog that beat him though, wasn't it? :roll: blueconfused.gif Zog's pass was the one that beat James, if I remember correctly. Sibbers had an open goal. :roll:

Huh? He never played under Robson. correct, im pretty sure his first game was against blackburn under carver when bobby had left and souness wasnt taking over until the monday? could be wrong like Aye that sounds familiar Spot on. Came on for about... ooh, 12 seconds?

that was done a few seasons ago and then scrapped I really don't remember it. Was it many time ago? It failed because the refs didn't have the balls to enforce it. The rugby version of this rule was slightly different, in that you don't have to move it forward the whole ten yards, you can take it anywhere behind the mark, so long as it's in line with it. Corrected, Continentalist. Corrected, you bloody reactionary. They've been using metres for ages, by the way. bluebigrazz.gif The M was entirely intended

that was done a few seasons ago and then scrapped I really don't remember it. Was it many time ago? It failed because the refs didn't have the balls to enforce it. The rugby version of this rule was slightly different, in that you don't have to move it forward the whole ten yards, you can take it anywhere behind the mark, so long as it's in line with it. Corrected, Contimentalist.