Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apparently the English girls decided at half time to give up the game as they were losing and if they came back and it went to extra time they would not be home in time to put their hubby's dinner on the table, hence the second half was a bit one sided.


[Apologies in advance to Anna, Sharon, Ladygooner ,,,,,anyone else]

Annasfield Wrote:

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

> This thread is generally a load of old shite these

> days


during the day it seems to be all tit for tat - my team's players don't cheat as much as yours etc, I don't read it much.

I always thought Matt Le Tissier was a fairly honest player but now I'm not so sure after his own revelations that he once did a spread bet on a game he played for Southampton in 1995. It may sound innocuous spread betting the time of first throw-in but it's dishonest. I dare say others have done similar bets on corner kicks, and even scorelines, but nevertheless Le Tissier has to be brought before the FA and charged with serious misconduct once Police have concluded their investigation.


What makes it even more unbelievable is that this was during the period when Bruce Grobbelaar was also at Southamption and already facing criminal charges of match fixing whilst he'd been at Liverpool. Yet Le Tissier still went ahead with his bet - although to give the guy the benefit of the doubt based on his chemistry on Sky with Paul Merson it's highly likely that Le Tissier is just plain thick rather than a genuine bent footballer.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8250042.stm

It's pathetic isn't it - it's Football's own Bloodgate.


These ex-players need to be punished. You get these pundits banging on about foreign players, like Eduardo diving, whilst ignoring the fact that home grown players can be even more crooked. Time for a clamp down - as a minimum Sky should suspend Le Tissier from their Saturday afternoon show.

with the likes of Le Tiss, the general consensus will be "He's a lad that boy!!", and nothing more will be done, I betcha!


Think you're spot on there, it's why lots of people probably enjoy seeing Ray Winstone on the betting ad, because "he's a geeeeeeeza".

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> You are not one to get on the wrong side of Matt.

> I thought you were an easy going chap.


Grrrrr... eh who got on my wrong side!?


Only ppl who've got on my wrong side are Alex Ferguson and Wayne Rooney.. and whoever else trots out for the Mancs :))

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> You are not one to get on the wrong side of Matt.

> I thought you were an easy going chap.


I meant that I think you want to be heavy on him for something rather innocuous. Betting and sport should not mix but is a throw in really a serious matter?

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

    • What Firkins were they? The only localish ones I remember were the Phoenix and Firkin and the Fox and Firkin. The Plough has changed its name several times, and then back to the Plough, but to the best of my recollection the Uplands Tavern was named that until it became The Actress, and The Bishop was called something else whose name escapes me (though the smell from the gents lingers in my memory) but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Firkin?
    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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