orangecity23

Southampton finished 3 points behind Leeds. We beat Southampton twice. If the argument isn't about points deductions, and that we were so strengthened by our overspending, then wouldn't it follow that without it we may well have lost to Southampton at least once without it. So Leeds would still have finished third. Edit: We lost both fixtures against Leeds anyway, so overspending or not, Leeds would not have got any more points off us than they already had.

It impressed the club because it was the only one at Seagrave who knew how to keep hold of a lead.

You can't sit back that deep for that long on a 1-0 lead. If you are going to sit back, it should be with enough pace down the middle and close enough to the half way line with the intention you can mug them off on the counter attack and finish the game off.

He wasted one of his answers in his public q and a answering Kemi Badenoch, who he will be answering questions from every week any way. Oh, and he completely avoided every single question about digital privacy and the social media ban and the massive cyber security risks for everyone it entails, despite the fact that along with the triple lock questions they were some of the most up voted. So I guess expect plenty of surface level "isn't he northern! Wow!" Presentation from now on, while Peter Thiel and friends worm his way in in the background to implement full on cyberpunk dystopia.

Reddit? Hope Burnham has scanned his driving licence or passport and done a biometric age check to access that. Nothing to worry about mate, it's deleted straight away, just ignore that bit in Yoti's age verification privacy policy about them transferring the data to Yoti India for "manual checks" and keeping it for 28 days. Completely safe, no chance whatsoever of being hacked and stolen, honest...

Instructions unclear, Rudkin ends up signing James (Jams) Bland instead

It's because everyone here is soooooo toxic. Doing horrible things like calling people KPFC, which is apparently a terrible vicious insult because it implies they aren't real fans of the club just because they "support differently", and they are poor, delicate match going fans who are being verbally abused for attending games and being labelled as part of the problem, truly the worst suffering anyone could endure. These gentle souls would never stoop to such a level, which is why they had to have a thread where they errr ... blamed a subset of match going fans and labelled them as part of the problem, then stated that people who don't support the team the same way they do aren't real fans of the club. Seems that a lack of awareness of what is going on at the club and on the pitch pairs nicely with a lack of self awareness too

Ah, I see you were both in the know ahead of the announcement of the new PM. Anyway, I for one, welcome our new Prime Ministerhausen to the Househausen of Parliament. Wouldn't want to be cursed, after all.

It's wild how the club will move heaven and earth to make sure they have at least 3 senior keepers on the books at all times and would never dare leave themselves without a heavily experienced third choice keeper on the off chance the other 2 sprain their wrists playing a game of hungry hungry hippos on the team bus, but they have no qualms whatsoever about going an entire season without having a first choice striker.

In those 69 years, only 2 have been spent in the third tier of English football. One of those is under the current ownership...

I go to games, and it is pretty obvious that the fans making the positive noise backing the team with chants etc are exactly the same fans who are chanting Rudkin out, sack the board etc. The rest of the ground essentially makes no noise whatsoever, aside from the occasional mild round of applause or tutting when there are mistakes. It's barely supportive or positive, more of a passive observer watching events unfold in silence. There are no fans who "boo anything to do with city", they intermix positive team chants with anti board ones. Sustained booing of the team itself only tends to occur after games are already lost, mostly after some of the worst player performances in terms of effort the club has seen in recent history. And as proven in this thread, across Facebook and with incidents at the ground, there are many, many instances of "fans who desist from booing the club" verbally, or physically attacking fans who have booed or held anti board banners. You will find plenty of fans on Facebook demonising Union FS, or the movement to reform the Foxes Trust.

Point is you have implied that the insults are only going in one direction - towards Top, Rudkin etc. And that the other type of fan has a "different way" than those hurling insults - but as evidenced by the other post quoted, that different way seems to be just as toxic, and contains plenty of venom towards fans of the club who are expressing their discontent with the current running of it. So not really "different" at all.

So by "way is different" I guess that actually means even more toxic and insulting of other fans than those that boo. Seems to be quite a bit of subsidence on that moral high ground you think you're on, starting to look more like standing at bottom of a hole with your head in the sand.

This social media ban is very vague about what platforms are involved "An exhaustive list of which platforms the ban will apply to has not been released. However the government said it would apply to those "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material"." (BBC) Will this mean it's going to apply to all forums like this? Could be ruinous for small forums, they don't have the resources to pay companies like Yoti to do age verification for a small handful of users.

Ref just did a foul