Mick Mac

RD - I don't think one (incl moi) should get the average score for missing a week - that puts you above half of the people who could actually be bothered. How about 2/3 or 3/4 of the average score? That would be more fair? I realise I'm adversely affected by this suggestion, but I'm above poor Quids and he's played evey week, poor lad.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Celtic will do well to hold onto > Wanyama... MANCHESTER United are reportedly lining up a ?12million January move for Celtic star Victor Wanyama. Hoops boss Neil Lennon valued the midfielder at ?25m, but United manager Sir Alex Ferguson is seemingly ready to make his move and test the water with a bid of around half that

Man U 2 Arsenal 1 Fulham 2 Everton 1 Norwich 1 Stoke 0 Sunderland 2 Aston Villa 1 Swansea 1 Chelsea 3 Spuds 3 Wigan 0 West Ham 1 Man City 4 QPR 1 Reading 0 Liverpool 2 Newcastle 1 West Brom 2 Saints 1

Liverpool to bankroll Rodgers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9649282/Liverpool-will-bankroll-Brendan-Rodgers-after-his-patience-snaps.html

Good summing up from the Guardian. More questions should be asked, surely, if they decide not to pursue the matter. That, however, is not completely out of the question, believe it or not, and it is slightly disconcerting to hear from within Stamford Bridge that the club have not yet fully decided whether to proceed. Having come so far, they surely have to. And if not? The FA then has to launch a separate investigation into why. The FA's disciplinary commission criticised Chelsea because of the "evolving" nature of Cole's submissions for Terry's hearing, heavily implicating the club secretary, David Barnard, because of "materially defective" evidence. The accused are now the accusers and, much like Clattenburg, cannot afford to get this one wrong.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure of implication of this tweet but sounds > interesting > > "Chelsea race case against Clattenburg in jeopardy > as club brings in lawyers to conduct internal > investigation. Mail tmrw+online" > > From Neil Ashton Definitely interesting. And if they back down its a complete Buck up.

Picture of a donkey sent to me will qualify.

I can't agree with that Otta, but in the current environment who knows. I would certainly feel that if the racist comment WAS made, then Chelsea post Terry/Ferdinand would feel more inclined to make a bigger deal of it.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Something else football can learn from rugby is to > allow everyone to listen to the ref's mic. The trouble is (all?) the players swear. But i'm amazed its not at least recorded? is it recorded?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...although mobhandling the referee in his > changing room and threatening to ''break his @#$%& > legs'' might not go down too well. I think they have acted correctly in an official capacity. Issues on the pitch should be raised with the referee immediatley after, so they are included in the match report. Unresolved issues can be the subject of a formal procedure. As for the argy bargy in the referees room - thats clearly not good, but who knows what caused it to get out of hand?

Obviously that's the problem Otta. But I don't see what Mikel has got to gain from making an accusation of racism if it was not true. Hence I think Chelsea have acted correctly. Bearing in mind Chelsea have Bruce Buck, a top international lawyer at the helm, this decision to make a formal accusation will certainly not have been taken lightly.

If Clattenberg has used racist language on the pitch I'm not surprised it became heated when he was confronted after the match. If that is the case I can't see that Chelsea have done much wrong. It looks like they gave him the chance to explain himself and when that did not work out, they filed a formal complaint.

Seconded. Also preferred Casino Royale.

I trust you quids. No checking reqd. Cheers.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Video tech should help with majority of offside > positions AGREE (IF THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY) > > Diving judgments (even retrospective) would be > more ambiguous much of the time, in which case no > punishment AGREE - AS ITS WHAT I SAID EARLIER - REVIEWING THESE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A WASTE OF TIME > > Back to Torres second yellow yesterday, would > anything change anything? probably not.. most > ref's probably wouldn't have carded him but > (whilst again saying I have no love for > Clattenburg) I can see why he gave it. Fast game, > apparent dive from a player who one isn't > surprised to see go to ground. maybe he even > thought he should have sent him off earlier and > this was the opportunity to make amends (which > isn't fair either I know) WATCHING IT LIVE ON TV I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A DIVE, THEREFORE HONEST MISTAKE. IT WAS PROBABLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEVEL OF COANTACT, HE THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CONTACT AND HENCE A DIVE. HE WAS WRONG AND SHOULD HOLD HIS HANDS UP - BUT HE HAS BIGGER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.

That's news to me. He was kicked and went to ground, where is the issue?

Keep up the search RD. :)

In the vast majority of cases there will be an element of choice as regards whether to stay on your feet, so that won't solve it really. A player is within his rights to go to ground if he is fouled. Where a foul did take place, it should be a foul irrspective of whether he goes to ground or not. If the player does not go to ground then it may give the appearance to the referee that he wants to continue and take the advantage rule, if he chooses to go to ground its clear he wants the free kick, as with Torres.

SJ that's just an interesting analysis of Torres' current level of confidence and why he chose to go down rather than have the cofidence to go alone. The contact was there, and I'd call it more than a "brush", he should have had a free kick in a dangerous position. The difficulty with what you advocate, in retrospectively punishing players for apparently diving was highlighted by Eduardo a few years ago, what seemed a clear dive and a proper punsihment was later overturned by UEFA. It's very difficult even with video analysis to completley prove there was no contact, especially with 2D imaging. The only player I saw dive at the weekend with clearly no contact was Phil Neville, and its these cases which the FA should crack down upon.

They probably painted it outside. Anyway I'm pleased they are giving it a facelift.

Boll*cks. Forgot about the golf this morning. Rory lost by one.

Quids is a gentleman, and therefore of good breeding.

Please PD. What touched a nerve was that the Scottish media (being principally the Scottish Sun) made a huge headline of the comment. That's what Lennon was asked to respond to. And he did so very well.

Celtic losing 2-0 to Kilmarnock. Easy Jet lag maybe. As for Schuster... "It's just the ramblings of someone who has failed as a coach," Lennon raged on BBC Sport. "I don't take too much notice of Bernd Schuster. "I am more into the thoughts of Gordon Strachan, Martin O'Neill and the Alex Ferguson's of this world, who I would take advice from before anyone else. I am disappointed that the media here wanted to emphasise his thoughts on the game." Schuster was similarly critical of Chelsea's tactics in their Champions League final win in May, but Lennon insists he did not set out to appear so defensive. "I was sitting there 60 minutes into the game thinking 'God, what is Bernd Schuster thinking of our performance here, I better change it'," Lennon added sarcastically. "I did go with two strikers and I did bring on James Forrest and Kris Commons. "I didn't set out to be defensive, but sometimes Barcelona can get a grip of the opposition and not let go."

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ???? Wrote: > >a > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > depends on odds > > > > > > Depends on what you think will happen. > > > Tsk Mick, Not true for a pro bettor. If the odds > offered are better than your prediction of the > likelihood of the result then you have value. I > don't think Ed Milliband will be next PM if you > offer me above 4/1 I am taking it all day. Not sure about that. I'd say a pro bettor (non poker) chooses what he thinks will happen but will only bet on it if the odds represent good value. They surely don't bet on what they think won't happen.