Checko

Teams should probably just agree to settle this match with a massive fight.

Officially, reckless means: "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned" As opposed to sending off offence of using excessive force: "Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off" - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Oh yeah, forgot some of ours have previous with Havertz. Wonder if that's why it kicked off so much.

I think the only way Burn's not at LB is if Schar's still ill and he's needed at CB. Howe hates tinkering with the defensive unit.

Yeah, we've had our most points after 10 games since 2011 and are joint top scorers. I read Man U have had their worst start to a top flight season after 10 game in 37 years, their club seems in borderline mutiny right now. They were only 2 points behind us this morning! Puts it in perspective. Would be nice if they could start dropping a few more points while they're crap before Rashford and Fernandes start hitting form.

What's the spread on how late an undeserved McTominay winner will be?

Tbf I only said it was a 'bit like', it wasn't meant to be an exact comparison of the offences and international legal systems - I've just confused things more than anything The point of the analogy was just to emphasise that the FA is apparently looking into potential new offences in the UK, not the same ones that have already been looked at, so it's not double jeopardy, and the fact that he's already being punished for similar offences in Italy doesn't mean he automatically shouldn't get further punishment for new offences in the Uk. Just as, if you commit driving offences in Italy and then move to England and commit driving offences in England, they're separate offences and can be looked at and punished separately, which is why the FA could be looking into things. The analogy's not meant to be any deeper than that! Re: your point on the police - Yeah I think there needs to be some good reason for the FA to open an investigation. They shouldn't just be snooping on people willy nilly. That said wasn't part of his evidence that betting on his own team to win became almost a superstition/compulsion? If that's true then it seems a realistic possibility he might have bet on Newcastle while he was here. Probably enough to warrant at least making some enquiries.

Yeah I seem to remember Perez having his only consistent run of goalscoring for us just before we sold him when Almiron kept getting to byline down the left and cutting it back for him (and Rondon).

I disagree, it's still law, civil or criminal. The point of the analogy is just that if you commit offences and get punished for those offences, you can't commit more offences later with immunity. The FA seem to be looking into this to see if there are any new offences that haven't been covered. The example you give of being on remand/time already served - that's missing my point IMO: You seem to be making an argument about appropriate sentencing for an offence, & I don't disagree with it, but my point was that if there's then a new offence it still needs to be looked into. So in your example, your fella on remand doesn't get a free shot to commit more crimes later just because he's already getting punished for the first ones. Here there's been an investigation into specific betting offences. There has been punishment given for those specific betting offences. If there are then more betting offences committed afterwards that weren't dealt with by that investigation and punishment, you can't just ignore them because he's already been punished for previous similar offences. That's what I'm saying. So I don't think the FA can do him for the things he's already been punished for [i.e double jeopardy]. But if he has potentially committed new offences outside the scope of his current ban then they have to be looked into. Also I'm not saying his ban should necessarily be increased. As I said: "If there are more offences though it could be that punishments already imposed are taken into account when deciding what new punishment is appropriate." If there are more offences & the FA charge him, they absolutely might take the current punishment into account. Eg. they could punish him with a fine & suspended ban. But that's a sentencing issue based on the facts of the case, you need to go through the proper process to get to that point. Imagine if the FA does investigate and it turns out he bet on Milan to beat us in the Champions League...

He hasn't committed one general offense of betting on football - every single individual bet is a separate offence. The Italian FA can deal with any offences [bets] in Italy and apply a punishment. The FA can look into any extra potential offences in England. And they should do to be honest. It's a general principle of law that you can't just pick and choose who they apply to. That just allows corruption. Bit like if someone got punished for speeding offences in Italy, they move to the UK and get caught speeding here, they can't go 'well you can't punish me for speeding now, I've already been punished for when I was speeding back in Italy.' If there are more offences though it could be that punishments already imposed are taken into account when deciding what new punishment is appropriate.

Or compress the hell out of it.

Good plan! And even if people cotton on and we can't play him I bet he'd be a brilliant tea lady.

Milan were definitely keen to sell him, but then they are owned by American moneyballers now, so while selling a local fan favourite could be sus, it could also just be they thought it was a good price and moneyballers gonna moneyball. https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/ac-milan-europe-masters-moneyball-destined-to-fail/blt984a0d51702e6c9d#csf15a588fc393a646

Yeah, though it's not like it was a bargain basement fee mind. £55 million is a crap ton of money and was a record sale for an Italian. At the end of the day every player has his price.

We can spend what we want on infrastructure, training facilities, youth team, tea ladies etc. It's that we're spending hundreds of millions more on transfers and wages than we've got coming in that's the problem. And owners are only allowed to bankroll a little bit for that stuff.

Yeah he can, infrastructure spending doesn't count for FFP.

He still has lovely hair, so... there's that.

Assuming fitness I can't imagine Howe will move away for his most standard back four. I'd be very surprised if it's not: Pope Trippier Lascelles Schar Burn Longstaff Bruno Big Jow Miggy Wilson Gordon Of course Willock played well Wednesday and he is ex-arsenal so may have an extra point to prove - I think Howe does consider stuff like that - but he's only just back so I imagine he'll be on the bench. Tough game this one - they were a clear level above us last season and I think still are. But at home, I reckon fairly similar odds for all 3 outcomes. Maybe draw most likely. Hopefully Big Jow has one of his games where he harnesses the power of Grayskull. We can beat anyone when he's on one.

Nah, I am actually a new poster, this isn't an alt-account - I was on here many years ago for a bit back in the Pardew era but I can't remember what that account was even called and certainly don't want a reminder of these times to go looking for it so figured I'd start afresh.

Tough talk, but I think you're underestimating how fast I will run away.

Thanks. Ole was a great player, but as a manager he's not fit to knit Guardiola's turtleneck.

Finally! Been waiting for ages for this username to become available before signing up