leffe186

It's a fucking great national anthem, isn't it. Bastards. Didn't realize it was called "Song of Germany" now though.

Sepp has always been pro-Sepp. Anything else is a matter of chance.

Both of these, tbh. I liked him, but sometimes he just talked drivel and he had the shortest fuse I can remember seeing in some time. The main problem was that it usually seemed to be lit when he was being wrong, so he ended up looking a bit of a prat. I couldn't believe how angry he got sometimes, over very little. Seemed a nice guy at heart though.

Yeah, I was born in Sydney, Mum in Melbourne but Dad in Clapton. I support both the Aussies and England, but as I mainly grew up in England it's them I support the most. Always want the Poms to beat the Aussies in the cricket, but always used to support the Aussies in Rugby for some reason. I have supported some right cunts who played for Spurs, shitehawks like Van Den Hauwe, Justin Edinburgh, Jason Dozzell. It didn't matter, because they were Spurs, so I had to suck it up. Likewise with England. I didn't choose England, much as I didn't choose Spurs, and I will still be English when utter pricks like Terry and Ashley Young will be long gone. I definitely feel less engaged with England than I have done, but in my case that's more (a) because I live in the US now and (b) a general disillusionment with football. Partly brought on by Chelsea winning the fucking Champions League, if I'm honest.

Yes but it's two complete decisions. The decision of weather the player is offside or not needs to be made as soon as the player receives the ball, what happens next shouldn't be down to the referee or linesman, the linesman needs to make the offside decision before and regardless of what follows. They are two separate incidents, the outcome of one shouldn't determine the outcome of the other. But it clearly does. If he's offside, then what happens next is automatically nullified. If he's not, then it isn't. They're obviously not separate. I see where Ian W is coming from, although I would still be happier with just getting the goal-line decisions right first. I'd be even happier if those utterly pointless cunts loitering by the goal were allowed to judge other decisions too.

We had Ballack and Alexei Lalas in the studio here. The sign-off was pretty good, Ballack really grudging - disparaging the English team and their poor football, but Lalas getting it spot on, saying that this is England, and a great job by Roy. Limited, hard-working, but making the best of what they've got. Stifler will be pissed, mind.

Rooney cannot give the ref any excuse to give him a red. That's his most important job, for me.

Yeah, all of that really. It's a disappointing article, as I quite like David Conn (a proper old-school Man City fan too), but not the first time the Guardian have taken a swipe at Spurs. It's blatantly obvious that sacking Harry was not simply a question of "fourth place in the Premier League is considered not good enough". There have been many positives during Harry's time at Spurs, but warning signs too, and predictable ones at that. I think he's done a cracking job, but I'm not shedding any tears - I'm just annoyed that the whole England manager saga took so long and contributed to fucking up our season, and that we missed out on Brendan Rodgers. Hopefully I'm proved wrong about Rodgers, and Parky takes him out as well as all the others, but I'm not holding my breath. Managerial stability is all well and good, but to achieve that the manager must always have an eye on the future; a vision. I was never convinced that Harry had that in him, and it's clear that Rodgers does. It just remains to be seen if he's the complete package. That's where I disagree with David Conn. Sacking Harry isn't a displacement activity, it's an integral part of Levy's quest to make us bona fide contenders. We need to build a new stadium, of course, but we also need to maximise our resources in the meantime, and have a clear idea of how the playing side is going to develop over the next few years. I think that Harry was about to hit a brick wall in this regard. He was excellent at putting together a team and allowing them freedom to "express themselves", which suits VDV, Bale, Ade and Modric, but there were some disappointing tactical decisions after Christmas, unconvincing use of the squad as a whole and question marks over the development of individuals. Couple that with his usual embarrassing antics in the press and the courts, Harry's advancing age, and his apparent refusal to sign a rolling contract and there are ample reasons to justify his "sacking" outwith an unfortunate failure to qualify for the CL. You know what, we had - and have - a fucking good squad. I think it's pathetic to trot out this "delusions of grandeur" argument when considering teams like ourselves and yourselves. We should be aiming for the top, I mean, just look at what we both achieved this year. It's a bit of a punt for Levy to lose Harry, but until we get that extra gate money rolling in then he has to keep the plates spinning to keep us where we are.

Does anyone know what he's actually like in real life? My wife has met him and thought he was quite funny, although everything about him just screams "wanker".

Streamers and fireworks go off if a player ever achieves the fabled TRIPLE MEGS. Pretty much assured to be Greatest Footballer of All time. Came so close in a big match once. I actually heard my manager "Ooooh" on the touchline.

Well what would stop them would be the mindboggling police costs, for one thing. Where would they start - Division 2? Blue Square North? My favourite would be the Northern Alliance Division Two. That would mean over a dozen years before they made it to the Premiership.

Being Scottish? I may have missed the point of your post here.

One for the pet hates just then - our commentator said "The Czechs have bounced back from their Russian concussion." God, it bugs me when they plan out their pithy drivel.

Rangers at East Stirling would be fucking magic.

...and of course, Liverpool were still given more. Even though they were shite.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39902000/jpg/_39902413_lualua270jpg..jpg Still it's only fair. That would be asking for trouble though. I'd just echo what everyone else says, it's fundamentally wrong. We've gone through this so many times now it seems absurd that the rule has not been changed. The Adebayor issue is not so much the fact that we've benefitted, but the stockpiling. If the system didn't work as it does now, then City would have been stuck with his comedy contract and been unable to get anyone else in (e.g. Aguero or Dzeko) unless they let Ade rot in the stands. If a player was happy to take 150K to rot in the stands then good luck to them, but I'd expect the result to be less profligacy in contracts. I can't remember my posts from previous threads, but the gist should be no intra-division loans and more severe restrictions on lower league loans. It's not just the ludicrous numbers of players loaned out, but also the ludicrous number of players being loaned in by certain clubs. I'd have an age restriction on loans, and a tighter max number of loan-ins for teams - say, two. That should help prevent stockpiling.

I worked on Argyle St for the most part, and stayed in various places around the city and surroundings (Kilwinning, Ibrox, Crosshill, Paisley, Dumbarton, Springburn, then outside in Falkirk, Alloa, Stirling, Bonnybridge). My original point was that I think the way Old Firm fans act on the day of the game is worse than Newcastle/Sunderland, and also that the everyday issues I saw were worse. Not necessarily physical violence, but the OP was referring to the way people talk in Newcastle. Maybe the Old Firm verbals seem worse because of the suggestion that there may be an actual organization backing them up (Loyalist/Republican). I have certainly heard people make that connection explicit. I actually think that the issues are worse in outlying areas than in the center - on about five or six non-matchday occasions I saw people jumped apparently because of the shirt they wore. To be fair, I hung out in a couple of very ropey areas (and some very ropey pubs). One team I played for refused to call me English, and told me that I would be an Australian (was born there, but brought up in London).

Don't some sections of Ibrox sing songs about being up to their knees in fenian blood etc? Just as bad as each other if you ask me. Don't let me give the impression Rangers fans are anything other than bigots. (Never heard that one about "fenian blood" mind) But Celtic fans haven't exactly been backwards in coming forward in the same kind of crap, only this season they were up to their usual, so bad even Celtic themselves were saying they wanted to ban those responsible. As with any clubs bad support it's the minority. Yes, there is a rivalry, but the way everyone is speaking the streets of Glasgow are flowing with catholic/protestant blood. I beleive the media have alot to do with this and the way they constantly blow it up out of nothing. The way old firm fans act on derby day is no worse than the way I've hear people talk in Newcastle when Sunderland visit. I don't know about this like. I lived in Scotland and worked in Glasgow, and the way many Old Firm fans act every day can be fucking insane. I'm pretty sure it's comparable in, say, Serbia, but I can't think of any other clubs in the UK where the rivalry is so venomous.

Amazing how much you miss when you're in the US (and you're hiding from football, taking refuge in baseball etc). Thanks again to those who posted what Alan Davies actually said. FWIW I agree with him, but the problem is that grief will affect different people in different ways. Some people cope by getting on with things, some by taking that day to reflect. If Liverpool are in close contact with the families and they have requested that Liverpool do not play on that day, then I have some sympathy with Liverpool. In those circumstances, what are they supposed to do? I'm guessing that the families of those who died at Ibrox, or in Munich, have not made such a request. I would presume that Man U, for one, are in close contact with those affected. Liverpool's cause is not helped by the twats surrounding them - the humbug. Blogs like this (http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Alan-Davies-latest-word-on-Hillsborough-is-self-serving-insulting-condescending-and-contemptible-article891477.html), where the author pours scorn on Alan Davies' protests about the abuse he has received. He got death threats and people offering to piss on his mum's grave ffs. I thought his original comments were perfectly understandable and reasonable, and if Liverpool would just come out and say that the families had requested this, they had asked the FA/Premier League and they had agreed to it, then we could have that discussion.

Well we've got QPR in a couple of games time, so fuck it, ref,more reds please. How many have QPR had this year?

And not even five minutes after a Rooney tackle that would have got him sent off in any other league in Europe. They should show that five minutes to officials as a training exercise. Still,I've been a Spurs fan for 35 year and I don't know what it's like toget a decision like that at Old Trafford. At least you guys have had that. And it's Mark Hughes on the receiving end.

Rooney the new Scholes.

Nah, seedings are needed for the early rounds I think. If they took away the group stages they could have 2x - 4x the amount of teams in it. Give the smaller teams more of a chance to play someone is what I say. Seedings are only needed to keep bigger teams in the competition. Screw that.

Less than 30% possession today, btw. Edit: Actually that was Sky, BBC says 44.