Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At least the return game is now a straightforward matter. Arsenal "simply" have to go out to win :)). Had they won the home leg 2-1 (which would probably have been a "fairer" outcome) then there'd have been all manner of complicated permutations to consider next week. Liverpool must be pretty pleased but the tie is clearly still very much a live one! :))
Torres? Torres who? Was he playing last night? Oh yes, thats was the blond bloke chucking himslef about a lot to try and con the ref. Cheating b**tard. Liverpool are a one man, one dimensional team and that was clear for all to see last night, ref had a mare, stonewall pen. Pool out singing our fans? I was there and that is nowhere near accurate. A few arguments/fights broke out in and around Holloway Road. My son has a row with four scousers who pushed into his back on purpose to force their way through the crowd and laughed at him when he complained, they didn't laugh when he squared up to them backed up by a mate of mine. Scousers celebrating like they'd won the world cup. Just shows you they know how unbelievably lucky they were. Can't wait to go to their place!!!!
So, not too pleased about the result then? Lets be clear, it should have been a penalty, fair enough, but dens the brakes, every team except Man U have missed out on good shouts. I think it's unfair to call Torres a cheat, he's a real hard worker who picks himself up and dusts himself down.

Actually Atila, I'll think you'll find that Mr Torres was a rather fetching shade of ginger last night. I imagine that the highlights had gone a bit wrong. Maybe your eyes were deceiving you? ;-)


Cheat is not a word I would put in the same sentance as Nando. But hey like you - I'm biased.:)

Annasfield Wrote:

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

> I reckon we'll be discussing Senor Torres quite a

> bit in the coming years, although I reckon we

> won't be knocking him for diving. What an amazing

> start to his first Premiership season. He's been

> hacked to bits, but just gets up and keeps on

> running.


I was keeping my I on the Senor last night and I have to say, I thought he was diving as much as any other Premiership forward. Not so squeaky clean after all.

How odd, I thought I watched a largely good tempered game last night with no more gamesmanship than you'd normally expect to see (ie too much, but that's the sad spectacle that is top level footie these days; give me a comedy Hamlets game and cheap beer any day of the week).

Torres was largely marked out the game, which of course opened up space a few times for the kuyt and gerrard to exploit.

It was an interesting game without being particularly exciting for a neutral. In fact I think I may have done a sudoku in the last 15 minutes.


As for diving, had Hleb not gone down like heifer in a slaughterhouse he might have actually been awarded the penalty. Ref had a very very good view of the incident!


Most encouraging thing for me was Walcott, he may yet become the player we hoped he might!


It must be tiring being quite so angry the whole time ;-)

*ahem* that was more aimed at Atila, I was rather surprised by the levels of indignation and invective for ultimately a comparatively tame and incident free game.

I guess when the stakes are high...


And yes, as I said last night it was a definite penalty, but the replay shows just how easily he went down and the ref must have had his reasons as there was no clearer viewpoint than his.

Hleb was hauled to the ground, what was he supposed to do? Go down in a specific way to gain approval of the ref? Ref had a good view of the incident you say, so why didn't he give it then? Give me f**king strength. I can see now why Liverpool are miles off the top 3 in the league!

"Ref had a good view of the incident you say, so why didn't he give it then?"


Strangely you've answered your own question.

It's a subjective thing, but i watched the replay several times and I guarantee you that had I been in a normal environment and Kuyt had done the same thing to me I wouldn't lying prone, I'd be looking at him not a little nonplussed....on two feet.


Quite Keef quite. cool/book T9 syndrome?

Agree about Walcott, he was running Liverpool ragged, and caused my heart the most problems. Also agree that it was a clear penalty, but as Piers says, had he not made quite so much of it, the ref may well have given it. As for Torres Atila, if he's a cheat in your book then fine, but pot and kettle mate, every team, yours included has players who will take a tumble. Lets look on the bright side, we're set up for a good match next week with both teams still very much in it!
Oh and as for Liverpool and the top 3 (I can't believe I'm rising to this playground nonsense), we're actually not too far off you now if you look at the table. Oh, and you were 4th last year, so what are you on about? It is a bloody game man, we all like it, and we all support our teams, but come on!

Keef Wrote:

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

> Oh and as for Liverpool and the top 3 (I can't

> believe I'm rising to this playground nonsense),

> we're actually not too far off you now if you look

> at the table. Oh, and you were 4th last year, so

> what are you on about? It is a bloody game man, we

> all like it, and we all support our teams, but

> come on!


Not too far off us? In terms of style and content you are lights years behind us and we have spent a fraction of the money Liverpool have.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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