The9

No it doesn't, it gets displayed on exactly 90 minutes. HTH.

I always set my timer on my phone to count down the added time from the point (on 90 minutes) when the 4th official holds the board up. We were nowhere near the 4 minutes as my alarm didn't go off until hundreds of people were already on the pitch, and Saints had also made a substitution in the added time period. Having said that, our fans invaded, and bearing in mind we stayed up with a result at Upton Park once when the ref blew prematurely due to a pitch invasion I don't think we can have any complaints. Also, comatose was putting it a bit strongly, he did look knocked out though. Clearly the ref was in no position to make any kind of report on the pitch invasion. The only thing that needed looking at IMO was the useless policing that didn't bother to monitor the front of the Kingsland a whole 10 yards from where they had the dogs in front of the Northam - and where were they when people were carving up the pitch and snapping the goals ?

Interesting theory, personally I can see us being in a lower division next season with 10 points fewer than everyone else, which is clearly lower than being 23rd in the CCC - and that's the positive slant on it. We're going to be bottom of League One for at least a month even if we win our first 4 games, and when did we ever do things like that ? Still, could be worse, we might not exist at all in a week or so...

I am fully expecting the event to be bordering on emotional at times, and the team to capitulate like a bunch of wusses once more. Though watching a "thirteen-pointer" is kinda cool.

Tell that to Newport County, banned from playing football in South Wales for refusing to join the (now) Welsh Premier League until they went to the High Court and beat the FA of Wales on the grounds of "restraint of trade". Trouble is even if we win an appeal the FL can just penalise us for taking them to court anyway, cos even that's against their rules.

Blimey, genuises, we've played both of them in the Championship already and they're two of the more successful clubs over the past 30 years currently in League One !

As someone currently trying to sell, I can categorically state that with all the faffing involved in getting a place ready for a potential buyer every single time some no-mark comes to poke around in my cupboards, anyone making stupid offers on my place is in line for a bit of a slap. And frankly, unless you've got a load of savings or want to live in a garage, you're probably not going to be able to afford a place at the moment.

I have already said too much. Our new other halves are both delighted with the situation, as you can imagine. Anyway, I'm doing this to take my mind OFF that sort of thing, so can we get back to either begging for shorts or finding out who has the fattest/oldest/ugliest/most injury-prone players/manager ?

Nevertheless, all you can understand from the information given is that 2 people that were in opposition to him are no longer involved there. For all we know from that statement there might be completely legitimate reasons for that. As for "my board", I don't have one. I don't even have the one I used to pin my Subbuteo pitch to any more.

I would say so.

But all that says is that the two people not supporting Lowe have been removed from the organisation, and implies that the remaining Directors support Lowe. It makes the opposite point to the one I assume you were trying to make about Lowe being isolated. Of course this assumes Lowe's not the only remaining director, I wouldn't know.

It's quite a persuasive argument if you have no idea what's going on at WH Ireland though.

Nice try, but half the value of the house says I ain't gonna.

Getting back to the original question, I suspect he's trying not to give away his location to the masses of torch-wielders attempting to burn him.

I doubt it. The head of the Football League is a Thatcherite conservative with a history of supporting harsh market economics at the expense of the greater good, the concept of community and welfare, and the Premier League clubs are receiving enough money that they're not bothered. Plus the long and short of it is that any change will be opposed by the very top clubs who are happy enough on the self-perpetuating sloping playing field they sit atop, with the threat of them leaving the ultimate sanction (hence the Premier League's existence in the first place, and now the PL2 rumours). There are always other clubs to replace the dissenters. The cork came out of the bottle in the early 90s, when the FA ignored its responsibility to supporting football as a whole in favour of creating a money-making juggernaut where the rich get richer - there's no way that a wage cap could be implemented, as it would have to be consistent throughout the divisions and the Prem would never agree to it. The entire contract structure of professional football would have to change, or the Premier League would be accepting that players would choose to play in countries where there were no wage caps instead of the Prem, thus removing their claims to having the best players, and diluting their "Global Brand". The only place it's working in practise is MLS, which fits with existing conventional US sports models, and sits in a bubble above all other US Soccer - and even they have "star" players breaking the salary cap - but they're not in competition with European leagues and regularly lose the better players to other Leagues where they can earn more. In England, a wage cap simply will not happen. There will always be more clubs far distanced from immediate financial collapse than there will be clubs in immediate peril, and self-preservation is always the key - much as the competitive, controlled environment of a wage-capped League is preferable to a predictable one all-but based on money alone.

Clearly your response should point out that Coca Cola sponsor the entire Football League, not just the Championship. Or maybe not... and I wouldn't get too deeply into Barclays sponsoring the Premier League either...

Well, I still live with my ex-girlfriend... :confused:

It's not their fault they're rubbish, is it?

Why should it matter, if we didn't have messed up finances and a team full of kids it wouldn't be an issue?

No-one that I've seen has yet mentioned that since HMRC lost it's legal status as a preferred creditor a couple of years back that they have voted against ALL football club CVAs as a matter of policy, which is one of the reasons there have been so many additional deductions. I'm not sure there are any examples of teams coming out of CVA without additional penalties since Leeds' deduction shenanigans, though it may just be the timing which is coincidental.

Actually as the convention is to include all the points being played for by BOTH teams, and Burnley and Forest are still playing for something, the games could be described as both being 13 pointers. Which is novel... ...of course this stuff is too complicated for the casual fan, so we'll probably get more claims for refunds than people rolling up to sell out - but no worries, cos they'll all sod off in the 70th minute or when we go 2 behind anyway.

Football has changed a bit since the 1970s. Maybe Arshavin's defensive deficiencies were part of the cause of Arsenal conceding 4 goals as well ? I'd probably take him over McGoldrick though.

I suppose theoretically we only actually need us to win, Forest to lose on Saturday and Norwich to lose on Monday, and then us beat Forest. That leaves Norwich and Forest unable to catch us, and it doesn't matter what Barnsley do. Barnsley losing on Saturday too just gives us a chance even if Norwich get a result on Monday. Feeling a smidge more positive about it today. Basically in the last two games we need to win one match more than Norwich and two more than either Barnsley or Forest.

Can't we just ask them to change their team's kit and relocate ?

Me too...