Spectre

I'd ordered around half nine but just checked my emails there and there's a refund from kitbag showing so order cancelled

Why, what does it say? I ordered and got confirmation, just says it will be despatched to my address

Lucarelli?

Even as I typed it I knew that joke would come

I remember seeing an interview with Fat Ronaldo where he said he'd have given serious consideration to it if he'd known Advocaat was going to be our next manager. He was probably talking shite though. I'm sure it came out years later that it was some dodgy deal with Nike funding the move and that he would only be available for some games.

I was trying to remember who it was, I remember reading about an Italian player we had on trial when he was 17/18 but we turned him down, sure it was someone that went on to have a pretty good career and reach a high level, escapes me who it was though, ring any bells with anyone?

Then Monday the 20th will be just as wrong for them

I could offer us more than Rossiter

Make it black and white too and it would look just like old pre-war fitbaw footage

Aye, of course if he was being honest he'd say "I'm a big ugly cheatin' bastard and that's how I just how I jump against Rangers because referees let me away with it"

Bowman claims that's "just the way he jumps". Well I'm sorry Ryan but if the way you jump is such that no player is allowed to challenge you for the ball without you violently elbowing them then unfortunately you're not allowed to jump anymore. Absolutely no need for it, I suppose in Alves defense against his charge he can just claim "That's the way I stand up, I kick my feet out for leverage"

There's definitely an argument for this. The referees and the compliance officer in his inaction have set a very low marker for what's acceptable in the game and worse than a petulant kick out like Alves did has either went unpunished or been deemed a yellow

There's definitely an argument for this. The referees and the compliance officer in his inaction have set a very low marker for what's acceptable in the game and worse than a petulant kick out like Alves did has either went unpunished or been deemed a yellow

Aye, Tav's yellow is even worse when you consider the context was him being fouled then grabbed by the throat and thrown to the ground, yellow card each, embarrassing. If I recall the same player later put his hand on Jack's throat but escaped any punishment. Apparently these things even out over the course of a season, at this rate we must be due to get away with battering fuck out of a few players

This. First off I'm sick of watching our players play shite or fail to take the chances we get and that is my number one concern about yesterday. At the same time though I'm sick of watching teams kick fuck out of and elbow fuck out of our players and get away with it, often right in front of the ref, yet a couple of soft fouls from one of ours and it's a yellow. How may yellows has Morelos picked up simply for doing the same thing back to the defenders that have been fouling him all game beforehand?

How many of them did he not get punished for though? Part of the point he is making is that the referees let players away with ridiculous fouls.

It was typical of the referee performances we're used to. We do get the occasional decision in our favour, but for the most part it seems the slightest bit of contact is a free kick against us whilst they seemingly were given free reign to clatter and elbow their way through the game. Ref had absolutely no idea what was happening on the pitch either when Cardoso was down. He earlier failed to give a free kick that happened right in front of him before the linesman (who usually just stand about waiting to see what the ref says before reacting) gave it. Also towards the end Bigirmana (spelling) and Dorrans going to to toe and head to head, potential to escalate, where's the ref, 30 yards away looking at the fucking sky.

There are genuine problems with comprehension of the English language for him.

I was guilty of it myself last night but I'm at a loss as to why anyone continues to engage with the guy. An obvious troll.

I don't need to, I've not claimed not to be daft, and were I to make the claim and suggest it was clear that I wasn't daft, that's when I would be expected to offer evidence. The problem here though as I say is you don't understand the question being asked so we're on to plums from the start. Again though surely you can see the difference between "Kenny Miller is not the leak" and "Clearly Kenny Miller is not the leak"? One is a denial the other is a denial with a suggestion the denial is backed up with evidence, the agent has came out with the latter but offered no evidence. I'd have no issue at all with him having came out with option 1 and left it at that.

No, not at all. I guarantee everyone else in the thread is intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference

I haven't asked him to prove a negative, you just haven't understood what I've actually said. If you accuse me of something and I say "It wasn't me" then that's fair enough, it's for you to prove it is true, but if I make a statement that "Clearly it wasn't me" I am suggesting that there is evidence that does actually prove my innocence, as there must be in order for it to be "clear" that I'm innocent. For example, "Clearly I'm not daft, I have a degree from Harvard" I don't have a degree from Harvard by the way just in case you wanted to start on that too but I'm sure if you concentrate really hard you will understand the different between simply denying his client was the leak and how he chose to phrase it.

Be nice of the agent to show us the evidence that it clearly isn't Miller that's the leak.

We were the same though, full of optimism when a couple of Brentford fans joined and tried to open our eyes no-one took any notice

"if you know who the leak is say it" then implies he knows who the leak is but doesn't say. Roaster