mrmojorisin75

As I posted in the match thread he fucked the first half, but second half did everything right imo. Gayle scores and he's done a great job imo. Credit where it's due. Credit where it's due? For doing exactly what? for the tactical change at the start of the second half that got us back in the game, saw us winning the ball higher up the pitch, got ASM on the ball more who created a gilt edged chance for gayle who fucked it should have been 1-1 then who knows it's kind of sad that +30 games into the season i felt compelled to write what i did because it's honestly the first time i can remember bruce making a clear tactical change that improved things for us

Putting a Championship striker on isn’t always going to come up trumps like the Villa game, like. The move that made the difference was pushing Schar up and pressing them higher. It's what I said we should do at half time. Also I think him putting Gayle central and JL wider shows he's not blind to everything

As I posted in the match thread he f***ed the first half, but second half did everything right imo. Gayle scores and he's done a great job imo. Credit where it's due. Sorry like but he's f***ing s****, history doesn't lie. I hate him, but he made the right changes in that game. Gayle scores and we might win it.

As I posted in the match thread he fucked the first half, but second half did everything right imo. Gayle scores and he's done a great job imo. Credit where it's due.

As poor as I think Bruce is, and as badly as he fucked the first half, have to say he made exactly the right changes 2nd half. Gayle scores that it's decent management. Credit where it's due. Funny though. I'm chatting with mates and Bruce made the same moves I said. During half time they asked Shearer and Richards what could be done and they basically said "nowt". The standard of punditry in this country is diabolical.

Aye Bruce deserves a chance if we're taken over does he? Get to fuck.

assuming he's not being lied to and documents were flying about last week there's nothing to worry about at all imo He said this weekend, so that means yesterday and possibly today. even better

think i've made my feelings on bruce very clear the last few months but i'm wanting us to win this fucker like, would love to ASM/Almiron/Dubs be the group of players to win us something as a like pretty much all of our current squad tbh

assuming he's not being lied to and documents were flying about last week there's nothing to worry about at all imo

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country. Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case PL Handbook: F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction: F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed; F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction; Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3) Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297 Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9 Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1 Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166 right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described" wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

started that, went 2 pages and could take no more

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country. Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

crap

if you could take grealish and put him in an existing PL side that would compliment and improve him and that he would improve who would it be, spurs perhaps? I dont think he would guarantee games at one of the top four. Surprisingly I'd say Wolves but he wouldn't do the dirty on Villa. Or Man Utd, their midfield is shit. you think he's a CM? ACM/10 for me pulling the strings with runner off him...that's why i said spurs, could take the role eriksen vacated No I was saying midfield in general. I see him as a player who can cover a few roles in the midfield though. Hes been everywhere today dropping off, attacking, wide. I just think spurs still have good options and he wouldn't necessarily be a consistent starter. Man Utd he would suit playing off Rashford. i think that's what they've bought fernandes for really but yeah maybe, dunno just thought it was an interesting question cause everyone seems to rate him but i'm not personally sure what kind of team he'd thrive most in, i.e. counter-attack, possession etc.

if you could take grealish and put him in an existing PL side that would compliment and improve him and that he would improve who would it be, spurs perhaps? I dont think he would guarantee games at one of the top four. Surprisingly I'd say Wolves but he wouldn't do the dirty on Villa. Or Man Utd, their midfield is shit. you think he's a CM? ACM/10 for me pulling the strings with runner off him...that's why i said spurs, could take the role eriksen vacated

i thought he was an absolute fucking clownshow until this season

if you could take grealish and put him in an existing PL side that would compliment and improve him and that he would improve who would it be, spurs perhaps?

they've done great with that appointment after the lad went to villa like, swansea-esque, would like to see a wildcard like them make it up myself

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

not sure this is correct myself, certainly frustration being displayed at the level of influence and involvement they appear to be trying to have given they are one of many broadcasters the PL deal with from my pov their complaints over piracy are fair enough, as per WTO report, and should saudi take steps to change they should allow the takeover i think the main feeling on the part of our fans is no matter what SA do wrt piracy qatar aren't going to accept it and will keep throwing money at trying to get the takeover stopped for political reasons, not that SA are 100% in the right

same here - also nothing to say there has to be a hard fail anyway is there? could just be an ongoing series of clarifications/evidence and questions that the WTO report threw into disarray a bit and required further action from SA side which is likely why we're seeing what we've seen this last week it'll still happen imo

by the way that TV deal tweet thing makes little sense anyways, SA can't just take the TV rights off bein and neither can the PL...what exactly would they be able to commit to at this point anyway, to say they'll bid?

be amazed if other clubs aren't sniffing tbh, him and traore are unique talents in their respective positions in the league atm imo and clubs will have an easier time getting him from us than the wolves lad i reckon (assuming no takeover)

That's basically how I've seen football for years. There's nothing particularly noteworthy or remarkable about Liverpool winning the league, the only remarkable thing is that they managed 30 years without winning it. load of shite that thread, football is the same as it's always been imo just some of the teams have changed not the overall patterns and structure