Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It used to be the case a WC was a maximum of 22 players and I believe it was extended to 23 to ensure teams took 3 goalkeepers as if memory serves me correct there were occasions when only 2 goalkeepers were taken on 22 squad basis. Perhaps as part of the squad increase FIFA made it a rule of at least 3 goalkeepers.

BA are on strike aren't they?


Pity they could not have tossed Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, A Cole, Lampard, and Defoe out over the sea tbh. Odious fooks.


Not sure how I can support England when they have so many players I despise as people. Anyone else having this dilemma?

Absolutely ratty. I literally cannot look at England's Brave John Terry without wanting to hit something. All of teh Chelsea mob to be fair (apart from Joe Cole maybe) Nothing to do with them being English or Chelsea - just odious people. BUt if I forget about them and focus on the likes of David James I feel all better

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All you need to know about the three 'keepers here

> ->

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/26/wor

> ld-cup-2010-three-goalkeepers


I read North Korea have tried to pull a fast one by naming a centre forward as their 3rd goalie. FIFA has responded to this by saying that goalkeepers can only play in goals!

I read North Korea have tried to pull a fast one by naming a centre forward as their 3rd goalie. FIFA has responded to this by saying that goalkeepers can only play in goals!


Call the UN - get sanctions against N.Korea.....oh hang on ...wrong thread >:D<

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...