Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Week 17 scores...


AM - 2 Correct Results + 3 Correct Scores = 11 pts

RC - 2 Correct Results + 3 Correct Scores = 11 pts


OT - 4 Correct Results + 2 Correct Scores = 10 pts


JL - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts

PD - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts

SC - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts


EP - Played a Maxxi = 5pts


?? - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

DR - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

MM - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

Mx - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

RD - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts


LG - 0 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 0 pts



Note: If two teams are tied on the same number of points in the league, the team with the highest participation % will finish higher, eg JL & AM.


I will make a decision about the FA Cup competition and it's format this afternoon...

AM - 2 Correct Results + 3 Correct Scores = 11 pts

RC - 2 Correct Results + 3 Correct Scores = 11 pts


OT - 4 Correct Results + 2 Correct Scores = 10 pts


JL - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts

PD - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts

SC - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts


EP - Played a Maxxi = 5pts


?? - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

DR - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

MM - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

Mx - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

RD - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts


LG - 0 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 0 pts



What this week shows perfectly, reading the right hand column, is that it is the correct results that mean everything. It's good fun though, am not complaining. (just didn't happen to get any correct scores this week :( )

The FA Cup Predictor Cup:


Ok, there wasn't a massive amount of feedback on what format it should take, but the majority consensus was that it should be kept separate from the League. So we will.

As some have indicated that they might not even participate, I think we need to be flexible. I'm therefore proposing an initial league which will eventually become a straight knock-out competition. It will depend on how many participate as to when this happens, hence the need for flexibility. The aim is to have the top 8 teams go into the knock-out stage at the QF stage of the FA Cup. I will draw teams out to play each other...Fluffy and Hardface, next door's cats, will act as independent assessors (Woodrot permitting). If turnout is below 8, the competition will be binned.

To encourage turnout I've picked out the 10 most 'interesting' ties, keeping with the spirit of the competition of potential cup shocks...yes I know, Arsenal to beat Swansea is a bit far fetched, but stranger things happen at sea.


So, here goes...


Brighton V Newcastle

Bolton V Sunderland

Crawley V Reading

Crystal Palace V Stoke

Luton V Wolves

Macclesfield V Cardiff

Peterborough V Norwich


Swansea V Arsenal

Mansfield V Liverpool


Cheltenham V Everton

red devil Wrote:


>

> Note: If two teams are tied on the same number of

> points in the league, the team with the highest

> participation % will finish higher, eg JL & AM.

>

Surely as the initial rule stated a minimum of 75% participation was required for it to count, then if two 'teams' are tied, the one with the lower number of entries has the better average and thus should finish higher?

???? Wrote:

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

> Good work RD I think that's a great idea and will

> have a shot. I think you were wise to keep the

> Third Round bankers like West Ham at home out of

> the mix :)


It'll be a cracking atmosphere with a big away support, but I think you'll nick it...

Not many home bankers there RD - or ARE there?


Brighton 1 V Newcastle 1

Bolton 1 V Sunderland 2

Crawley 0 V Reading 2

Crystal Palace 0 V Stoke 1

Luton 1 V Wolves 2

Macclesfield 0 V Cardiff 3

Peterborough 0 V Norwich 2


Swansea 2 V Arsenal 2

Mansfield 1 V Liverpool 4


Cheltenham 0 V Everton 3



@AM - the one with the lower participation %age has benefitted from more 'maxxi's which, as form has shown, are on the generous side at 5pts ea. so I think RD's right.

red devil Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Good work RD I think that's a great idea and

> will

> > have a shot. I think you were wise to keep the

> > Third Round bankers like West Ham at home out

> of

> > the mix :)

>

> It'll be a cracking atmosphere with a big away

> support, but I think you'll nick it...



Oh great - now you've really gone and nixed it - unless that was your intention in which case as you were B).

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> red devil Wrote:

>

> >

> > Note: If two teams are tied on the same number

> of

> > points in the league, the team with the highest

> > participation % will finish higher, eg JL & AM.

> >

> Surely as the initial rule stated a minimum of 75%

> participation was required for it to count, then

> if two 'teams' are tied, the one with the lower

> number of entries has the better average and thus

> should finish higher?


Average scores can be misleading, I therefore think credit should be given to those who have participated more.

I was surprised that LadyGooner went for only 4 predictions last week, because unless she got a a correct score she was never going to beat a maxxi. So if she finished level with someone who had played more maxxi's, I think she deserves to finish higher on that basis alone...


ETA typo

maxxi Wrote:

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


> Oh great - now you've really gone and nixed it -

> unless that was your intention in which case as

> you were B).


I'm being serious, honest!

History says Fergie will rest a lot of players and play younger/inexperienced, whereas because of injuries and relative mid-table security, Big Sam can afford to go for it with a strong team...I'm happy to be proved wrong though ;-)

History says BFS don't hold much of a torch to this competition...the cynical bit in me thinks that he'd be ok if we go out to Utd, as that's excusable, and concentrate on mid-table safety. Will be a decent old school atmosphere as always tho and probably a decent game. 1-3 :(

First off many thanks again for sorting this out week in week out

and then what a cracking week I had lovely....


Brighton 1 V Newcastle 1

Bolton 1 V Sunderland 0

Crawley 0 V Reading 0

Crystal Palace 0 V Stoke 1

Luton 3 V Wolves 2

Macclesfield 0 V Cardiff 1

Peterborough 1 V Norwich 0


Swansea 1 V Arsenal 0


Mansfield 0 V Liverpool 2


Cheltenham 0 V Everton 2

red devil Wrote:

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

> Congratulations to LadyGooner, our second winner

> of the Coup de Mis?re...

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 0,file=74315


Thank you so much - I am delighted to receive it!

My lungs of phlegm are draining, my pleurisy is easing; I might try this prediction thing again without the cloudy head I've 'enjoyed' the whole bloody christmas break.


Brighton 1 V Newcastle 1

Bolton 0 V Sunderland 2

Crawley 1 V Reading 4

Crystal Palace 1 V Stoke 1

Luton 2 V Wolves 1

Macclesfield 0 V Cardiff 1

Peterborough 0 V Norwich 3


Swansea 2 V Arsenal 1


Mansfield 2 V Liverpool 5


Cheltenham 0 V Everton 2

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

    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
    • I used Aria recently to replace the basin waste for my bathroom sink. He was super friendly, communicative and helpful - including changing the washer on the new replacement I bought to ensure longevity. Would highly recommend. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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