egg

Hmm. Contracts I've seen usually deem involvement as being in the match say squad, which plainly he was He may have something based on the chosen team and bench thou. Still, bloody odd to bring him from outside the 20 to start.

Wtf is that about?! Not good enough for the bench, but given the nod to start over the fella who was on the bench. Bonkers.

Not for me, he's arguably our most important player. I'd play him every time he's available to play.

Yep, half a case for Edozie as well. Decent side overall though. Our best back 4 and midfield. Scrappy 2-1 win, and breathing right down Leeds and Leicester's necks.

Personally I think he's off, just, but I wouldn't call it clear. We'd be fuming if that was against us and the goal was given.

That's not violent conduct for me. Not worthy a 3 match ban. That said, he doesn't deserve any more game time so quite happy that RM has to look to others.

High

That's the religion of the victim. You also mentioned the possibile religion of the perpetrator. If it's relevant, we'll be told.

So having asked SoG why he felt the need to introduce religion, why have you? I'll wait to see what the facts are before making any assumptions about the assailant.

Blackbird

Cheers 👍

Where were the figures Hypo? I'd be interested to see them.

It's been covered up there Duck. You speculated that the victims were probably Jewish, and that was the motivation. Don't try to now suggest that you meant that some Christian nutters would have done that. Daft wriggling.

Yes. Did you honestly hear about the incident and think those poor victims must have been Jewish, killed by some islamist nutter? I sure as hell didn't.

Nonsense approach. The IRA were active on mainland Britain and certain assumptions were reasonable at the time. That's a tad different to a random attack in Australia. Duck and Batman were out of line.