Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sandperson Wrote:

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

> You've got to be putting the ball in the right

> place to force an own goal in the first place

> Ruffers. No shame in that.



Did I suggest there was? I thought it was a curious fact, and agree with you on the reasons..

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I think the real clue is in the time and number of

> posts from Mick ;-)


Yes - I was out last night for a few guinness.


I knew who LG supported - was just being awkward. Seemed funny at the time.

Atila Reincarnate Wrote:

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

> Isn't jealousy such an ugly thing, especially when

> your team has lost the night before, eh Jah and

> Matt?


Disappointed in my team's performance most certainly but to be jealous of a juvenile pig-headed @#$%& like you? Never.

matthew123 Wrote:

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


>

> Arsenal call 60K attendance every game but I think

> that is based on tickets/seasons sold than

> turnstile clicks.


True.

There was nearly a situation with that game they called off late in the snow (Stoke) where they were actually expecting tens of thousands less due to travel problems but they would have declared 60 for a half full stadium!

SimonM Wrote:

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

> I think Capello is pragmatic enough to write Cole

> out of the World Cup finals if he really takes 3

> months to recover. So perhaps an opportunity for

> someone to make a name for himself?



I think Cole has been outstanding recently - that goal from the John Terry pass a few weeks ago will be my vote as goal of the season. He also played a key role in demolishing arsenal at Emirates.


I suspect he will be a key player for Capello and as usual (english fingers crossed) the 3 months is conservative and he will be fit before then.

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

    • Andy is an absolute star. Have used him for years and he’s become a hugely trusted and valued friend as well as handyman. Always willing to go the extra mile and doesn’t cut corners, but great on pricing. Can’t recommend enough.
    • Surely you are still covered under these circumstances even if you don't have the physical licence? I can't believe you would be prevented from driving? That would be a ridiculous system. I don't recall any delays   when mine was renewed. Why would their medical department be involved if you have no medical issues? Could someone have made some admin mistake somewhere along the line?
    • Does anyone have the same problem.  I am 79 and have sent my licence renewal form to the DVLA on the 21st October 20 which they have received. I have just received a letter from them them dated 22 December 2025 today saying my licence is with their Drivers Medal Department and will be processed as soon as possible. This follows my telephone call to them after three weeks  from the October date as I had not received my licence back as per their time frame. I also followed this up mid December after finally getting through but did not get any confirmation as to what the situation was. Is this normal practice? On the 7 January 2026 I will be unable to drive as my licence has not been sent back. I have no medical issues and meet all the requirements with no problem as per previous renewals in fact nothing has changed health wise.Their the letter states if they need any more details from me, they will contact me directly. Why has it taken 2 and a half months get get this far? Is this some sort of ploy to get older drivers to finally give up their driving by making life difficult as possible.  Has anyone else experienced this. Read Medical not Medal.
    • You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east.  -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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