OzzieMandias

Nailed on to be postponed now.

The guy was deliberately trying to wind him up, and Ranger allowed him to succeed.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea. Have a guess. Why? I haven't got a clue what this kind of advertising might be worth to the right company. Obviously the club thinks it's enough to be worth the bother. As long as we're still making a loss, whatever comes in, is good. It is going to be Sports Direct based on what is included in the application. Therefore sponsorship won't get sold to anyone. Nah, that'll just be a placeholder. They're obviously hoping to sell the space. I look at these applications every day, and this is for a fixed design. Show us (or quote us or whatever) the bit that says that. I can see why planning permission is needed to erect a billboard. I'd need some convincing that every design it was used to display required a further, separate permission. It is in the application form. They are applying for red and blue letters on a white background for each one. The pictorial one would have to be agreed with the council as a planning condition. You know Argos changed all their signs recently for a modern design? These all had to have new planning permissions and were verysimilar to the planning application we see here. OK. I'll take your word for it. Seems weird, though. How could they ever sell the naming rights, if use of the buying company's logo was subject to subsequent planning permission? In determining advertisement consent applications the local authority can only take into account 'amenity' and 'public safety'. The content of the sign can not be considered. So, unless for reasons of amenity or public safety a condition restricting the detailed design of the sign has been attached to the consent (which I have personally never seen done), and as long as the size/illumination of the sign does not change, the content can be changed without consent. Ah, thank you, that sounds more plausible.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea. Have a guess. Why? I haven't got a clue what this kind of advertising might be worth to the right company. Obviously the club thinks it's enough to be worth the bother. As long as we're still making a loss, whatever comes in, is good. It is going to be Sports Direct based on what is included in the application. Therefore sponsorship won't get sold to anyone. Nah, that'll just be a placeholder. They're obviously hoping to sell the space. I look at these applications every day, and this is for a fixed design. Show us (or quote us or whatever) the bit that says that. I can see why planning permission is needed to erect a billboard. I'd need some convincing that every design it was used to display required a further, separate permission. It is in the application form. They are applying for red and blue letters on a white background for each one. The pictorial one would have to be agreed with the council as a planning condition. You know Argos changed all their signs recently for a modern design? These all had to have new planning permissions and were verysimilar to the planning application we see here. OK. I'll take your word for it. Seems weird, though. How could they ever sell the naming rights, if use of the buying company's logo was subject to subsequent planning permission?

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea. Have a guess. Why? I haven't got a clue what this kind of advertising might be worth to the right company. Obviously the club thinks it's enough to be worth the bother. As long as we're still making a loss, whatever comes in, is good. It is going to be Sports Direct based on what is included in the application. Therefore sponsorship won't get sold to anyone. Nah, that'll just be a placeholder. They're obviously hoping to sell the space. I look at these applications every day, and this is for a fixed design. Show us (or quote us or whatever) the bit that says that. I can see why planning permission is needed to erect a billboard. I'd need some convincing that every design it was used to display required a further, separate permission.

As it happens, one side of the building I live in has a huge billboard advertising something that really pisses me off. Doesn't particularly bother me that the billboard is there, though. Only notice it when I'm at the bus stop.

I've got no problem with a player sticking up for himself when he's getting a bit of stick, he didn't go over the top, he just let the player know that he wasn't going to just take it. Ranger seems arrogant which isn't always a bad thing as long as it's controlled. Aye, fair enough.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea. Have a guess. Why? I haven't got a clue what this kind of advertising might be worth to the right company. Obviously the club thinks it's enough to be worth the bother. As long as we're still making a loss, whatever comes in, is good. It is going to be Sports Direct based on what is included in the application. Therefore sponsorship won't get sold to anyone. Nah, that'll just be a placeholder. They're obviously hoping to sell the space.

Vuckic needs to start with a few more first team players around him, it would be a lot easier for him and I think he'd fit in really well. I enjoyed the performance of Ranger and thought he handled the roughing up quite well, he didn't bottle it at all. Almost let it get the better of him in the second half, when he got into handbags with whoever it was. But he didn't bottle anything, no. There's something about him, though, that always gives me the impression he thinks he's better than he is, and that temperament, one way or another, is what's holding him back.

Basically.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea. Have a guess. Why? I haven't got a clue what this kind of advertising might be worth to the right company. Obviously the club thinks it's enough to be worth the bother. As long as we're still making a loss, whatever comes in, is good.

It's comforting to see that the second string have a bit of promise about them. Disappointed in Vuckic, but Krul, Kazenga, Tavernier, Ferguson all made me want to see more of them. Ranger's a bit too petulant for his own good, perhaps. Accrington were all right, too. That Ryan is maybe worth keeping an eye on.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club. How much money do you see this bringing in? No idea.

Good. Last thing we ought to be doing is trying to close down revenue streams for the club.

You'd support Ashley if he plastered pictures of his cock all over the stadium to be fair. Anyone but Shepherd for you. Yawn.

No huge surprise, surely? I've been half expecting it since the bust-up with Carroll, when it also came out that Taylor was pretty unpopular in the dressing-room. And the gossip recently seemed to indicate that was holding out for too much in his contract negotiations.

How exactly? Am I wrong in remebering that Marseille pulled out of the agreement? Depends on who and what you believe. I believe there was a deal to be done weeks ago before it generated into a saga and we fudged it because we were tight c***s. That's my belief and I've got no way of proving or disproving it btw. Wasn't that deal dependant on us buying him if we stayed up or he played 25 league games. Would you have agreed to that if it was your decision? Yes - in a heartbeat. Why? That presents numerous problems, just look at Dindane's loan to Pompey for one example. It's a heck of a gamble. If it didn't work out we'd still sell him on for a small profit or loss. He's a quality player and clubs are always looking for good players and most are prepared to pay for them. Not exactly rocket science tbh. That's just risible nonsense, man. No one wants to fork out anything for him right now, despite his obvious talent and Marseille being desperate to get rid. Yet you'd expect us to make a profit on this obvious loon and trouble-maker after a season that "didn't work out"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/aug/24/liverpool-suspended-animation-new-investment

Writers rarely do their own headlines. Sometimes they might suggest one, and the sub-editor might decide to use it, but it's the sub-editor who's responsible for the headline and intro line.

Aren't the Catalans allowed to have a name for it, then?

It's called Elvissa in Catalan. In Spanish it's called Ibiza.

Finally seen some highlights. That was so good it brought a tear to my eye. We are back. Shame about the attendance, like.

Wankers.

Alan Hull sang, "Love is such a small word for something that is so vast". It has to carry too many meanings in English, I think. Love for a football club isn't the same thing as love for a sibling, or a spouse, or for Gregg's cheese and onion pasties.