wilsdenrover

That’s if she’s turning 23 (not 24) As I said yesterday, why would someone who’s turning 23 want an adult one (as against the cheaper 18-23) one?? Our club is full of imbeciles.

Before my time but surely Hurst’s is the best one

England through.

The FAQ on this subject makes no sense… How could someone under the age of 17 reach the age of 18 during the season?? Why would someone who turns 23 during the season want to buy an adult ticket (instead of a 18-23 one) ?? Am I missing something obvious here???

Our lot aren’t bright enough to spot a loop hole even if they wanted to.

I imagine now someone’s noticed the loop hole they’ll all be at it.

Biggest doesn’t mean big. Well that what’s my wife says 😲

Clubs find another way to game the FFP system… https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5111jg2r3yo

If Australia bat first they need to win by around 40 runs to go above India If India bat first Australia need to get the runs in around 15 overs. The actual figures depend on the exact first innings score. Please don’t take this as gospel, I may well have fucked up my calculations 😁😁

West Indies beating, but not thrashing, SA sees us win the group

116 to win Last 5 USA wickets falling for 0 runs in 6 balls.

Sounds terrible. The most eye watering injury I ever witnessed was when I was playing in an under 13s (I think) tournament and somebody’s ball bag got split open by an opponents studs.

All he did, and understandably so, is scream and scream.

Gary Mabbutt broke his leg right in front of me - he didn’t move an inch.

I’m always amused by watching a player ‘work out’ how to get back to ‘full fitness’ It usually goes something along the lines of… Go down like a sack of spuds Realise ref isn’t buying it. Stay down a bit longer Get up and ‘test’ the injury. Limp badly for a couple of strides. Limp less severely for a couple more Start sprinting like Usain Bolt.

That looked offside to me to so I wonder if the flick through was from a Romanian head - I don’t think they showed a replay of that sort of the move. With regard to VAR offsides, these should be treated the same as any other VAR decision - ie was it a clear and obvious error by the official. There is absolutely no way the Lukaku one (and that isn’t the only example) can be seen as a clear and official error - it’s not (as you say) even obvious it’s an error at all.

Panic over @J*B 😁

Hopefully his geography is better than Savage’s 😁

Is Ronaldo winning yet?

Wouldn’t the Jack Walker stand opening explain at least some of that increase?

I think, and I’m sure someone will tell me I’m wrong, the Law Society numbers only include regulated individuals (ie not admin etc). Like you say, still very small, I was curious as to where the conflicting number came from.

I can confirm that’s correct - I deny this means I’m cleverer than you 😀

I absolutely see your point re your first paragraph - I guess the main reason I’d revert to the old rules is to take the subjectivity out of the decision. The reason I’d remove the subjectivity is because I have no confidence in the officials using the common sense you refer to in your second paragraph (or certainly not on a consistent basis).

Thank you 👍 I wonder whether it doesn’t matter (clearly it should) whether he could have got to the ball, maybe just ‘denying him the opportunity to try’ is sufficient for the offence. I’d change the rule back to if you’re in an offside position you’re committing an offence - none of this interfering with play/phase of play nonsense (maybe I’m now officially old fashioned 😁😁)