Fugazi Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Materazzi is a cunt, always has been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5YUUgAZI2w&feature=player_embedded Goal or no goal? You're the ref - what do you decide? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 It's definitely a no goal though, sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Materazzi is a c***, always has been. you're wrong actually, he's just the type of player every team needs. someone who puts in work when it's really needed, had we only some of those type of players last season we wouldn't be in the fizzy league. people who cares about their club Doesn't mean he's not a cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Materazzi is a c***, always has been. you're wrong actually, he's just the type of player every team needs. someone who puts in work when it's really needed, had we only some of those type of players last season we wouldn't be in the fizzy league. people who cares about their club Doesn't mean he's not a cunt. Exactly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 [Happy FACE/Title]Gill slams Ashley Salesman[/end] David Gill last night ridiculed the Red Knights’ plan to take over Manchester United.. and branded their figurehead Keith Harris a ‘publicity seeker’. The United chief executive dismissed the £1billion plan to oust the Glazers as ‘unworkable’. He then launched a scathing personal attack on the credibility of football finance expert Harris. Harris was involved in the recent takeovers of Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle and West Ham but Gill mocked his record, claiming his work had not been a success. “Keith Harris will go anywhere that there’s a bit of publicity,” he said, “but his track record in football isn’t anything to write home about. “These Red Knights are credible people and they do what they think is in the best interests of the club. “But it’s not going to take them anywhere if the owners have no wish to sell. ” The Red Knights – a group of leading City figures – plan to use their contacts to find a number of ‘super investors’ to raise the £1bn needed to buy United. But Gill said their plan,, which has the backing of anti-Glazer fan groups, was doomed to failure because of its attempt to embrace so many different people. “The Red Knights’ idea of having 20, 30 or 40 very wealthy people owning and running Manchester United .. I don’t know how it would work in practice,” said Gill. “I’ve been involved in football since 1997 and been to a lot of clubs in Europe. The better-run clubs have clear decision making. It’s quick and efficient. “If you’ve got a number of very wealthy people involved those sort of people will want to be in the decision-making process. “At the key clubs – Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, Silvio Berlusconi in Milan – the key decision-maker is not the fans, it’s the president or chairman.” As United’s debt has soared to to £715m under the Glazers, opposition to them has grown. Manchester United Supporters Trust has reported nearly 30,000 new members joining over the past 48 hours. But Gill, flanked by bodyguards, said: “They are wasting their time – the Americans have no intention of selling up.” http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-United-chief-executive-David-Gill-says-Red-Knights-are-wasting-their-time-with-Old-Trafford-takeover-plans-article342795.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenchWilliam Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 It's definitely a no goal though, sadly. Why? I think it would stand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 He must be hung like a baby elephant to slip it in from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 It's definitely a no goal though, sadly. Why? I think it would stand. The Direct Free Kick * if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the opponents' goal, a goal is awarded * if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the team's own goal, a corner kick is awarded to the opposing team Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Not a Direct Free Kick - it's a Goal Kick Law 16 - A goal may be scored directly from a goal kick, but only against the opposing team. [/PierLuigi] This would (should) be restarted with a Corner, unless the ball never left the Penalty Area in which case it would be a Goal Kick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 What if it hits the keeper before going in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. That could be anyone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 My referee process says: Did ball leave the penalty area - YES - OK ball is in play (if no, retake kick) Did the ball go Directly into the Goal - NO (If yes, would be a corner kick) Was the ball touched a second time by the kicker - No (if yes, IFK) So ball left the Penalty area, did not go directly into the goal, and was not touched twice by the kicker - GOAL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. That could be anyone That's definitely him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 My mate said he saw Colo in McDonalds aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. That could be anyone That's definitely him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. No surprise to see he has got his clan with him as well, as most people from 3rd world places & the west end of Newcastle still class a day out to Maccy D's as a treat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 What if it hits the keeper before going in? Tricky one. I guess had it touched someone else it would have counted... but seeing as with a goal kick the ball has to clear the penalty box before someone on the same team can touch it, had the keeper touched it in it wouldn't have counted either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Colo eats at McDonalds. Official. http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/931/8244f.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2872402.ece What a complete Twunt. You've to ask why out of all games they'd do it against Celtic though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I think they're well within their rights to hold up an Argentina shirt. Free speech always and forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I think they're well within their rights to hold up an Argentina shirt. Free speech always and forever. There's a difference between free speech and being a cunt. They clearly did it to be cunts, not because they think it belongs to Argentina. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Stunts like that make GM ashamed to be Scottish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Trolls be trolling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts