stevegrant

Keegan didn't make those signings either, though. It's all well and good him whinging at the players who have looked crap who were forced upon him, but strangely he's not complained about the likes of Coloccini coming in... Redknapp fairly publicly turned the Newcastle job down because Ashley told him transfer dealings would be left to the as-yet-unappointed director of football (or "Executive Director (Football)" as Wise is bizarrely titled). I'm pretty sure he would have told Keegan exactly the same thing. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if KK just said "yeah yeah, that's fine, just give me the job" without actually thinking what it meant to his role.

There's also some intriguing editing which has put Sibierski's header that hit the post ahead of McGoldrick's effort that hit the post, the latter of which clearly happened first!

That sending off was hilarious. What a pillock.

I keep getting e-mails telling me I've won $57m on the Nigerian lottery and that I just need to deposit $10,000 in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to my account - I wonder if that's what Ashley's contact was?

Totally agree. Ashley has already put £100m into clearing Newcastle's debt (which only covered about half of the total, apparently) and committed himself to injecting another £20m per year on top of what the club generated in revenue. To be honest, I'll be surprised if he finds a buyer for a profit as the club's such a poisoned chalice.

Speaking of these bits of malware... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7645420.stm

They are only impossible to comply with if HMRC (and other creditors who reject the CVA proposal) makes up more than 25% of the creditors. Given that Norwich Union and Barclays account for £20-25m between them, I can't imagine that applies in this case. Luton only lost 20 points because of the failure to agree a CVA. 10 of the 30 points were a punishment for various dodgy agent-related payment misdemeanours. Totally agree.

He's hardly likely to back the idea of *not* building a third runway, though, is he?

There is one at the bottom of the page, but I will get one put in at the top as well when I get a chance.

Only going by what I saw from Block 5 - looked like he basically put as much of his body in the way as possible and it ricocheted off his shoulder.

My match report is now on the main site. A good win, but let's not get carried away yet. Remember what happened last time we did that? And just as a coincidence, our next game is on Sky...

She has a very strange name

Interesting you should mention Marc Jackson... a Bournemouth-supporting mate of mine sent me this link, which shows he's at least persistent and still very much "active"... http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11526&start=1 The "plans" by andysith are probably the highlight

He was certainly brought up there, although given that he's been playing for Barnsley for 3 years, I'd expect he probably moved a bit closer to "work"

I'm not convinced. I was under the impression he felt as though we treated him pretty poorly and didn't give him any sort of chance to prove himself.

I *think* that because you'd be putting £2 on the two separate bets, the odds would actually be 250/2, and therefore 125/1. I may be completely wrong though... :smt048

Own goals are simply disregarded as far as scorecasts and first goalscorer bets are concerned. If the game ends 1-0, the winner on a first goalscorer bet would be "No goalscorer". If there are more goals after the own goal, the person who scored the next goal would be classed as the first goalscorer. Individually, I suspect a 2-0 away win on Saturday would have been somewhere around the 10/1 mark, with Surman at 25/1 for the first goal. Multiply the two odds together and you get 125.

It didn't look like McGoldrick was playing up front at any stage of the game, to be honest.

That suggests to me that more than one person put a tenner on at 125/1...

Coventry is generally a rubbish away day, sadly. The stewards there are a bunch of ****s. The pub that crosses as an Indian restaurant is alright, the food was pretty good last season, but apart from that there's not really a lot of choice as most of the pubs are home-only.

If that is the case, and I've no reason to believe or disbelieve it, it's a totally reasonable approach, IMO. Why get everyone's hopes up by going back into a bid situation if it's only going to turn out that they've not actually got the money?

Football Manager 2008

As some of you may have stumbled upon, the SaintsWeb main site is now live. You can find it at http://www.saintsweb.co.uk You can find news updates, match reports and columns on there at the moment, and it will be expanded substantially over the coming weeks and months. Features that will be implemented soon include: 1. Comprehensive Stats section :: Fixtures and Results (including previous seasons) :: Player Profiles (past and present) :: League Tables 2. Southampton Pub Guide 3. Away Ground Guide 4. Supporters' Gallery Visitors to the site are welcome to leave comments below articles on the site, although they will be moderated to begin with. We will review that policy once the site's been running for a while. If you have any queries, complaints or general comments about the site, please either contact a site admin via private message on this forum or send an e-mail to webmaster@saintsweb.co.uk

Yes, to which I believe they received a private written reply, and also invitations to meetings with representatives of SISU.