Cronky

The problem is that, for a World Cup, the squad will be living with one another 24/7 for six weeks or more. That's more than enough time for any tensions to fester, and factions to develop. The trouble is, we don't know enough about the exact circumstances. If Terry had begun the relationship two years after the couple had split, then one could perhaps ask Bridge to bite the bullet. As it is, Terry's relationship seemed to begin at almost the same time as the split, and that's bound to be a very uncomfortable feeling for Bridge. I think Bridge has made the right decision for the sake of squad harmony, but I've felt from the start that Capello should have booted Terry out of the squad, as well as the captaincy. I can't help but feel that the fact that Terry is the more important player on the pitch has influenced Capello. If Bridge had been shagging Terry's ex, I do wonder whether the decision would have been the same. I'm not convinced that the players will back Terry here. Not all of them anyway. By all accounts, Bridge was quite a popular member of the squad, and Terry's behaviour won't have impressed many.

This sounds fair enough to me. If a child's mother's income and/or means has changed, then the father is entitled to a re-assessment of his contribution.

Are you not contradicting yourself here? Players stop play without the whistle being blown all the time, I thought the problem was that it stops play too often? If the players never stopped play without a whistle, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd agree it happens too often. Being an old git with a longer term perspective on this, twenty or more years ago, you didn't see players knock the ball out nearly as often as you do now. It wasn't as though players were dropping dead all the time with untreated concussion as a result. I think it was also the case that refs used to be more inclined to take responsibility for stopping play themselves, and start off with a dropped ball. What I think you are getting more of now is players needing attention after going down with facial injuries, after being hit with a flying elbow. Unfortunately, it's quite easy to disguise that kind of foul as something innocent.

Looking at the other end of the table, it seems only a matter of time before Man City establish themselves in the top four - with that bottomless pit of money, they're bound to get there at some time. In which case, one of the big four (and probably Liverpool) could be in trouble. They're all budgeting on regular CL money. Unless there's a fairer distribution of TV money, this kind of situation, at both ends of the table, is bound to keep happening. For every club, it's great when the money is rolling in, but you can't carry on as though relegation or dropping out of the top four is never going to happen to you.

It's often difficult for the ref and players to tell when a player's injury is serious enough to warrant a stop in play. At the moment, everyone is erring on the side of caution, but I don't think that part of the problem is solvable. However, I often think that the team who surrenders possession tends to lose out a bit. They usually end up with a throw-in in their own half, or with the ball back at the keeper, even if they were in a good attacking position. Surely the ref could simply blow up when he sees a player needs attention, and then restart the game by simply placing the ball at the feet of the player who was last in possession. I may be wrong, but I think that when re-starting play there's no need for the ref to organise the usual 'drop ball' where the other team has a chance of gaining possession. Having stuck my neck out, I'm now going to check the rules. PS - Just checked and I was partly right. The ball has to be dropped, but there's no obligation for both teams to be contesting the ball.

I'm all in favour of consultation with fans, but I'm pessimistic about how fan representation on the Board of a major club would work out, even if it wasn't a group that was overtly hostile to the owner, in the way that NUST are. In practice, the main responsibility of a Board (amongst others) is to guard the financial welfare of the club, and the interest of the fan is to watch the best possible group of players. In theory, that should all come together in the middle, but each group would be approaching things from a different direction. There is some blurring at the edges, but at the end of the day, one is a seller and the other is a customer. A disunited Board isn't going to do anyone any good.

You could try going for all the unusual names, just to add a bit of humour. Off the top of my head - Keith Kettleborough Arthur Bottom (I think that was the name) Xisco You get the idea.

I've always felt that Ashley's mistakes came through naivety, rather than any desire for personal gain or malicious intent. He therefore has the capacity to learn from those mistakes and should be given another chance. Certainly there don't seem to be any wealthier alternatives on the horizon. Any possibility of partnership between NUST and Ashley is a non-starter though. NUST crossed the boundary between criticism and abuse, and the information they were giving to the public seemed, at best, unreliable. They cannot work together in an atmosphere of trust.

I've not heard of any baggage in terms of off-the-field stuff. But every club he goes to seems to get disillusioned with him after a season or two, and he hasn't quite found his level. Keane produces moments of eye-catching skill which might tempt clubs to see him as the answer, but he's not particularly quick or strong for a player that seems to prefer an out and out striker role. Clubs tend to eventually opt for someone with more physical presence. I rate Ranger and I'd like to see him given more game time.

The only reason? Like things were going swimmingly under Shepherd, either financially or on the field? Why do you think the Halls were so keen to bail out?

Just a bit.

I can't see why anyone would buy a football ground if they didn't own the club as well. It's not as though the Council is going to give you planning permission to develop the site at a later date, if the local football club still needs the ground.

When Bellamy is unhappy with the manager or the club for some reason, he picks a fight, and that then becomes his reason for leaving. That's the missing bit.

One thing I've felt more and more about Guthrie from recent weeks is that he has to play down the middle, or not at all. He doesn't have the pace or strength to be effective out wide, and you lose out on his ability to pick a pass, which is his main strength.

It's an interesting story, because after that good start, Man City's results seem to have tailed off a bit. I think Bellamy is very much Hughes's man.

There's no requirement to let the defence get ready before taking a quick freekick. That's the whole point of it. has our resident ref been in on this yet ? as i understand it, if they are going to take a quick free kick the atacking team still have get an ok from the ref before the defence has organised. some refs will let it go if it is in a non threatening area (ie not a shot). OK - my Ref Perspective 1 - the foul being committed takes advantage away from the other team, so the defending team has no rights. 2 - LOTG says the defending team must be 10 yards back - it's their responsibility to retreat 10 yards and the referee should only intervene if they are refusing to. 3 - Attacking team does not have to ask for 10 yards - that's a given, but if they ask for the referee to enforce it, then they must wait for the whistle (ceremonial restart) to take the kick. 4 - If the attacking team does not ask the referee to enforce the 10 yards, and elect to take a quick-kick then they have that right (and accept the concequences of defenders being closer) So.....no problem taking a quick free kick and catching out the defenders who were not ready. (Hope that the referee wasn't really interfering with defenders - but likely defenders looking to blame someone/anyone for their mistake). I'm sure that, by the letter of the law, the goal had to stand. What's more, both Campbell and Fabianski weren't too clever in how they dealt with the situation. However, I think the ref was in breach of Law 18 - which is to use your common sense.

Throwing around three match bans for bad tackles is a bit ridiculous, imo. Bans should only come in for excessively violent or dangerous conduct. I don't think anyone is really talking about "bad tackles" in the box. When I hear "last-man foul" I see them blatantly trying to stop an almost for-sure goal (regardless of how cynical the challenge is). If you get the tackle right the stakes are just as high as getting it wrong. Don't go in for it if you're not ready to deal with the outcome. It's a pretty simple rule (and rightly in place). If you soften this rule you will see many more over the top/cynical challenges hacking down guys in and around the box. If you're the last man and you get the tackle wrong you are rightly sent for an early bath. I can't see that 'only' giving away a penalty and a yellow is going to encourage defenders to be more careless or aggressive in that situation. It's still a big punishment - just a different and a more appropriate one than a free kick and a sending off.

Fabianski clearly knows he isn't playing for Man Utd. If he didn't give the ball to ref he would probably be penalised with a red card. Maybe the goal wasn't a controversial one, but the ref was still shit. It was clearly a penalty for fouled on Rosicky right before the second goal. And Fabregas deserved much more protection from the ref today. I don't think Fabianski had much choice, with the ref being so close to him. Maybe he could have delayed it a bit more, but if he'd kicked it away, he'd have been in real trouble. The one who was clearly not 100% tuned in was Campbell, and you do wonder about his mental fitness for the top level. He just stood there lost in despair rather than doing what was needed ie standing by the ball to prevent a quick take.

I thought Campbell was more to blame for that second goal. It looked like he was going to shepherd the ball back and then at the last minute he changed his mind. It was too late for the keeper to adjust. Then Campbell just stood there looking sorry for himself while the kick was taken. Diaby's a very frustrating player. He's so talented, but he seems in a dream world half the time.

In the last few games where I've seen him, including last night, Rooney has been absolutely devastating in the final 20 minutes. Either he has exceptional stamina, or he's careful to conserve his energy in the first half, but when everyone else seems to be slowing down, he speeds up. He seems to be on the ball all the time in the closing stages.

Ah... some of us can remember when it wasn't necessarily a yellow. The movement for change started in about 1980, when Arsenal's Willie Young tripped a West Ham player in the Cup Final, when in a clear goalscoring position. As with all rules, they didn't necessarily get it completely right first time, even though it may have been an improvement on what went on before. There hasn't been a serious review of this for 30 years, and it's about time.

I'm not an expert on insolvency (thank God) but as I understand it the claim from HMRC cannot result in an administrator being appointed because only a creditor who has a floating charge can petition for an administrator to be appointed. And HMRC does not have such a charge on money owed, it is simply a preferred creditor (top of the list I think) that can call for a winding up so that assets are liquidated to settle its debt. So yes your image of the players being auctioned off to generate cash for HMRC isn't far off. Another serious point here is the fact that the club is without doubt trading whilst insolvent, which can be a criminal act. I take your point, but I'm still a bit confused. There was a lawyer on Sky Sports this morning saying that if Portsmouth couldn't find a buyer at this point, they could apply for administration and take the 9-point hit and probable relegation. My earlier point was that I couldn't see why a buyer would come in now and inherit all the debts, when they could wait until administration and only be responsible for a fraction. Basically, the choice for Portsmouth seemed to be between liquidation and administration, and a complete escape was not feasible. Unless, as you seem to be saying, that you can't apply for administration when the Inland Revenue has applied for a winding up order.

I thought he looked dangerous, during the periods when Milan were on top. Evra was struggling against him. It didn't seem that he was expected to do much chasing back though.

Beckham was only comfortable when he was receiving the ball fairly deep, and in plenty of space. He didn't get forward much or chance his control in the more crowded areas. There was quite a contrast when Seedorf came on. He was much more mobile and versatile, creating things all over the pitch and finally getting right into the area for the goal. Beckham had been the sub in the two previous Milan games, and you wonder whether Leonardo played him because he thought that Man U would bring out a real performance from him. It looked to me that Seedorf should have started and Beckham should have been the sub.

Ronaldinho is still one dangerous player when he sets his mind to it. They just can't subdue him. I expect Man U to outpace Milan in the second half though.