dsr-burnley

Very blunt instruments. Next door to me are two pretty much identical back-to-back 200 year old terraces. One has a rating of E with potential to go to B. The other has a rating of F with potential to go to E. Makes no sense.

YouTube. I've seen it twice, though skipped it the second time.

If they are giving them away, then I'm interested. Where is that deal available from?

One thing I noticed was that almost every time they got the ball, the trapped it first and then passed it. No one-touch football. Always give the defence time to react. Even when they beat the man and get to the byline, it's "don't cross it now, we might lose the ball, come back inside and wait for a better chance".

The reason "woke" is used about Emma Watson, for example, in her continued spat with JK Rowling, is because she careful to be seen as being on the right side of tolerance and justice for minorities, while simultaneously being willing to destroy the idea of women's refuges for women who are frightened of men - thereby being perceived by those who call her "woke" to be on the wrong side. It looks hypocritical. (Obviously she is an extreme example because of her obvious hypocrisy in being opposed to everything JK Rowling has seen and done except for the aspects where she can profit by it. If she has indeed given her entire income from Harry Potter to charity, then I withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy.)

And when prices drop so that people who have to buy their own car and haven't a driveway can make those savings too, then electric vehicles will really become popular. Not yet, though. (That's not a dig at you. Good luck to you. Make the most of it while it lasts.)

The arrangement of who goes where depends entirely on which 4 teams get in. As far as I can see, if the third places in group C and D both qualify (and they have), then we will get Netherlands in every scenario except if 3rd places groups E and F both qualify. This is possible. Croatia (group B) are already out, so we need both 3rd place group E to get 3 points and a goal difference no worse than -2 - this is likely - and we need 3rd place group F to get 4 points 9snce they can't get 3). This would involve one of Czechia and Georgia winning. In that case we would play 3rd in group E. https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28736877/euro-2024-last-16-third-place-explained-england/

Should this have been posted on the Group C thread?

They both fell over. They both made contact, they both fell over, do they both get a free kick? You can't apply the rule that says "there was contact, both players fell over, so it's a penalty" - you have to judge whose fault was the contact.

I read recently (can't remember where, so no link) that in the last 15 years in America, there have been 6 passenger deaths in scheduled flight plane crashes. 3 were in one of those tiny planes in Alaska.

Brewers? You mean I'm not the only Brewers fan in this country?

Thanks. I hope they're better than the semi-automatic ones on my Corsa!

Sounds lethal. I presume the windscreen wipers come on automatically when it rains? It's surely impossible to have the situation where you run into a sudden shower, you can't see as clearly as you should, so you have to look down at a touchscreen to put the wipers on. (Or can other people work touchscreens without looking at them? I can't, but then I don't use a smartphone so perhaps I don't get the practice.)

Good luck if you can do it. If I didn't have to steer and drive, I would definitely fall asleep. (Or hopefully, stop for a nap. Which I already need to do sometimes. But having to think about driving is definitely a help in alertness.)

That's getting trickier with the new "double charge for empty properties" rules, not to mention the crafty (aka dishonest) system whereby HMRC charge interest on the value of the property before you even get probate and the right to put it on the market. Prices for keeping properties empty are getting more expensive.

Why do the likes of Man City care anyway? Does it really matter if Man City 1st team are playing in Europe in the same week as their reserves are playing in the League Cup?

Useful tip for anyone who wants to buy a toy nursery rhyme character and doesn't know which shop to go to. It's widely known that Lidl has almost cornered the market (Lidl Bo Peep, Lidl Miss Muffet, Lidl Jack Horner and so on) but for Humpty Dumpty, you should always go to Aldi. Why? Because there, he comes with Aldi king's horses and Aldi king's men.

I haven't read the whole thread, only the first 3 and last 3 pages, so I may be making points that have already been made. But for one thing, there can't be a problem with ticket touts with a season ticket card. Nobody is going to pass their card to a stranger for asingle match because they wouldn't be sure about getting it back. Season tickets lent out, would be to family and friends only, and more so - family and friends who you trust to behave and not get chucked out and ticket removed. And there is the problem with restricting ticket transfers. How many of us (at our respective clubs) first went to a match by borrowing someone else's tickets? Not me, because my mother was a supporter long before I was born (long enough ago that she wondered if she was excluded from the "ladies and boys" half price tickets!). But I've been going on Turf Moor for 40 years, and I know of 5 (no exaggeration) people who are now season ticket holders who can be traced to a ticket borrowed off my family. Three who borrowed tickets directly from me, and two more who now attend with those people. If you stop this sort of freebie "trial run", so to speak, you're denying yourself a lot of potential future customers. It's all very well saying that "we have plenty of supporters, let's keep it a closed shop" but the time may come when you (or we or any other club) don't have plenty of supporters and would regret having turned them away. Incidentally, one of the issues they had at Burnley several years ago when they tried to make tickets non-transferable, was that they were surprised how many of them are shared. Shift workers who miss half a season but share with someone else who can't / won't attend every game. Parents with shared custody of fanatical child fans, or parents who aren't interested in football but take turns to accompany their fanatical children. Brighton (among others) have put an absolute stop to that sort of sharing, because if someone turns up with the wrong i.d. the ticket is banned for 6 months. What are Leicester doing about that?

If VAR hadn't been there, it would have been a valid goal because the players were level. One of VAR's specific purposes is to disallow goals like that, and Coventry's in this year's semi-final, goals which would have been perfectly valid under the old (post 1990) rules and which are still valid at Championship level. The solution is easy. Stop drawing lines across the pitch. Accept that "level" is still a concept, and VAR reviews of offside last 5 seconds of looking at a still photo. If the VAR man can't see in 5 seconds that the linesman is wrong, then the linesman is right by definition. And they can stop faffing about with toes and heads and parts of the arm, too. In an Olympic Games final they don't assess whose fingernail or eyebrow crossed the line first, they just go off the torso. Linesmen where there is no VAR don't assess arms and toes and heads, they go off the torso. Let VAR apply the same rules.

The point of a testimonial is that it isn't run by the club. The club can give permission for it to be held and can provide basic facilities (eg. a football stadium!) but the running of the testimonial has to be done by a friend or friends of the player. That way it can be treated as donations, not salary, and is tax free. Assuming those conditions are met, of course, the player can take the testimonial cash tax free and then give an identical amount to charity and claim gift aid. Thus making the value to the charity so much more than the actual donations (and also saving him tax).

If it happens, the rules should be simple enough: 1. Not a 39th game, just a normal 38 games. 2. All 20 teams to play a foreign game. 3. 14+ teams would have had to vote for it; so the teams that lose a home game will be among those 14. That way the teams that lose a home game are the ones that wanted to. Teams that vote against, won't be forced to lose a home game. 4. Income to be shared equally around the league. Of course, none of those conditions would be put in place, because those conditions are designed to promote fairness, and fairness isn't what the PL is about.

Semi-related tale I was told in America. Ford had a problem with their transmission and a bright lad who worked for them did some tinkering, in his own time and in his own garage, and found a solution. He offered it to Ford for $10,000. They declined, said that his work belonged to Ford because he was a Ford employee, and put it into the cars but paid him nothing but his wage. He sued, and won,and Ford had to pay him many millions a year for donkeys' years. Serve them right. Two crucial points that differ from yours. One, it was in his own time; two, it was USA laws.

Last time I looked, I would have needed to live to 90 before an annuity would pay the full value of my pension pot. It's only past 90 that the decision would start to be profitable. It was 4.5% index linked rate. Add to that that if you choose drawdown then what's left in the pot goes to your nominated beneficiary but if you take an annuity the capital is probably gone even if you die the day after, it becomes an even easier decision.

If Clattenburg believes that refs are influenced, deliberately or otherwise, to favour their "own" team when refereeing rivals, then it can only be because he did so himself. Perhaps he ought to be investigated? Is there not an obvious problem with the idea that refs who support teams at the bottom can't referee matches involving teams at the bottom? Half the matches in the league involve teams at the bottom. You would be restricting the available ref pool far too much. (Especially if you take into account that any ref who supports Spurs, say, couldn't referee a match involving any team in the top 10.) Perhaps the answer is to appoint only those refs who have no interest in football and who have never attended a match?

The co-commentator summed it up pretty well. The first was a penalty because the defender made contact with the forward. (Though making contact with the forward isn't an offence under the laws.) The second was a penalty because he moved his arms towards the ball after it was kicked. (Human reflexes aren't able to do this. Not fast enough.) The third was a penalty because the defender didn't get the ball. (Again, failing to get the ball is not an offence under the laws.) And strangely enough, a little while later Young went down after a mild puch in the back, and Neville (if it was him) said that Young shouldn't have had a free kick because he exaggerated the contact? What happened to "there was contact so it was a foul"? I don't know if his mindset was that the ref must always be wrong or that Young deserves nothing, but as punditry, it was abysmal.