Why is it deemed ‘fair’ to spend more money because (for example) it’s come from a TV deal or selling more shirts but it’s not deemed ‘fair’ for a club’s owner to spend more of their own money? It’s almost as if (as alluded to in the previous posts) the rules were designed for the club’s they’d benefit the most rather than for the game as a whole…

The Isley Brothers - This Old Heart Of Mine

Wilson Pickett - In The Midnight Hour

I didn’t even know that was a thing 😁 I will continue to blame Rovers though…

Hot Chocolate - So You Win Again

I think Luton asked and Burnley said no.

Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls

If it wasn’t vs the dingles I’d say they should have to forfeit the match.

Fans should boycott - but they won’t

Definitely!

This seems as good a place as any to put this. I’ve just received the following in an email from the club - how difficult would it have been to make sure ‘unmatched’ ‘fingertips’ and ‘energy’ each started and finished on the same line? It might only be a small gripe but I think it is another example of the poor standards which run through certain parts of the club.

Transvision Vamp - Baby I Don’t Care

Great stuff. You should have offered to provide a centre forward as well 😁

NWA - Express Yourself

Queen - Somebody To Love

Train - Drops Of Jupiter

His best position may well be 4 but stats suggest his best position is 5 (average of 68)

It’s called hypocrisy Chaddy.

Whoever it is, they haven’t been in the job very long…

The Police - De Do Do Do , De Da Da Da

Pet Shop Boys - It’s A Sin

Madness - Our House

From the website (regarding the various membership schemes): ‘Due to fulfilment times, fans should note that we don't anticipate membership packs to be ready until October’ That’s three months away - I hope people are happy to wait…

Alastair Cook is averaging 40 this season… 😁

Would you be tempted to try Stokes at 3? - particularly given the unlikelihood of him bowling much? I know this ‘conflicts’ with my previous post but *at least* Stokes is a definite pick.