Kaizero

Fucking hell there's fucked up people in this world, Internet cunt warriors or not.

Donovan saved me. £50-ish profit.

Already done it.

Why aren't you?

Hi Bianca. http://www.athleteswives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Landon-Donovans-wife-Bianca-Kajlich03.jpg

"The whole of Africa" can go fuck themselves.

This kind of un-sporting behaviour isn't just practised by the African teams :sorry: Well, duh. Though to be fair, this is even worse than Mourinho time-wasting tactics.

Africa can fuck themselves. This is abysmal and so un-sporting it's almost a farce, if this is how they want to progress and be remembered they can fuck the fuck off.

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php So you don't see the difference? If folk are gonna come on here and pretend to be Newcastle fans, they should bloody well embrace English football and the national team. Ireland have now to do with this forum or the team we're all here for. There's a major difference between club football and International football. Just fyi.

£25 on Donovan to outscore Altidore at 6.10 £25 on USA -1 at 4.60 £50 on USA at 2.40

South Africa wanted to show the world they were capable of hosting a major International event. They've failed in my eyes, the amount of empty seats at a WC is just disgraceful and even more apparent than the empty seats at the Reebok/Riverside. This WC should have gone to Egypt.

£50 on Rosenborg to beat Lech Poznan at 2.10.

Reminds me of an even worse version of:

To be fair to the ref, that player should have been out for his first offence.

Spain are playing sexy football. http://i27.tinypic.com/2wevxbt.jpg

Well nice.

With a draw in both matches, am I right in thinking both Chile and Spain would advance and the shit Swiss would go out?

People like you make me sick. Non-English people not supporting England?

Rosenborg have no financial issues and will not be forced to sell players to keep running without a loss. They can demand what they want, which probably would be around £5-6 Million given how he's preformed at the WC and the known interest. He'll be off this summer, no doubt, but for only £3 million? No fucking way. Example: Year before Sapara left they were offered £3.2 Million by Besiktas, he had two years left on his contract and they declined, knowing he wouldn't sign a new contract and that they'd more than likely sell the following year (which they did) at a cut price. Annan is in greater demand than Sapara as well so I highly doubt Ashley would cough up £5-6 Million for one player. They also sold Alexander Tettey for a fee rising to £4 Million, and he was not in any great demand. They might be the only club in Norway that don't have to sell unless they get an offer they're satisfied with.

Denmark's problem is really just age. They need to get through a new generation of young players for their senior International team before the next tournament or they're fucked for some time.

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it. The England game ended basically the same time as the US goal, all I can see is a biased headline/news article. The World Cup caused an internet spike. 8 Million in North America 2 Million in Europe 1.6 Rest of world There wouldn't have been 8 million in North America on at that time, nor any other time in the WC if something like that ending didn't happen. Were there spikes when they played England? No. Were there spikes when they played Slovenia? No. Were there spikes when you played Algerie? No. Were there spikes when you played them? No. Easy. The ending of their match caused the spike, and Europe/ROW participated to it for whatever reason they had, be it England or something else. USA! USA! USA! Still think its a shit article. I'm not disputing that the article is shit, just that there wouldn't have been as many Yanks on at that time if it wasn't for the goal, and thus no major spike. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. How does he know this though? The goal and end of England game was basically within the same minute. Because the Yanks/Canada/Mexico probably wouldn't have watched England? And the amount vs. Europe at the time? Usually, looking at the net usage index right now, Europe is ahead of the North America. How is this a big deal anyways, man? No idea, I'm totally fed up of discussing it after my first reply Just hate shite articles on blogs. Akamai isn't a shite blog. Their discovery and subsequent press release have been used on a shite blog.

please dont bring facts into this dave. The time on the screenshot is not related to the end of the match, rather, the first half. Nor is the number anywhere as great as at the end.

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it. The England game ended basically the same time as the US goal, all I can see is a biased headline/news article. The World Cup caused an internet spike. 8 Million in North America 2 Million in Europe 1.6 Rest of world There wouldn't have been 8 million in North America on at that time, nor any other time in the WC if something like that ending didn't happen. Were there spikes when they played England? No. Were there spikes when they played Slovenia? No. Were there spikes when you played Algerie? No. Were there spikes when you played them? No. Easy. The ending of their match caused the spike, and Europe/ROW participated to it for whatever reason they had, be it England or something else. USA! USA! USA! Still think its a shit article. I'm not disputing that the article is shit, just that there wouldn't have been as many Yanks on at that time if it wasn't for the goal, and thus no major spike. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. How does he know this though? The goal and end of England game was basically within the same minute. Because the Yanks/Canada/Mexico probably wouldn't have watched England? And the amount vs. Europe at the time? Usually, looking at the net usage index right now, Europe is ahead of the North America. How is this a big deal anyways, man?

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it. The England game ended basically the same time as the US goal, all I can see is a biased headline/news article. The World Cup caused an internet spike. 8 Million in North America 2 Million in Europe 1.6 Rest of world There wouldn't have been 8 million in North America on at that time, nor any other time in the WC if something like that ending didn't happen. Were there spikes when they played England? No. Were there spikes when they played Slovenia? No. Were there spikes when you played Algerie? No. Were there spikes when you played them? No. Easy. The ending of their match caused the spike, and Europe/ROW participated to it for whatever reason they had, be it England or something else. USA! USA! USA! Still think its a shit article. I'm not disputing that the article is shit, just that there wouldn't have been as many Yanks on at that time if it wasn't for the goal, and thus no major spike. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time.