John Smith

Premier league game, A business opportunity, risk versus reward, no brainier. Sunday league, Ref doesn't even consider it, linesman is from defending team, no money involved, no penalty. Answer is money. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fwiw, wanyama is showing himself as 'unprofessional'. As a manager, vying to win the prem, do well in the champions league and perform consistently, you pick a professional as a main stay. Morgan showed that professionalism and got a great move. Playing alongside carrick and schweinsteiger, can only improve his game, even if they are poor as a team presently. Wanyama, could be brought in as a backup and to keep the likes of Wiltshire on their toes or as an injury replacement. But, these top clubs do not pay millions for sulky, unpredictable cry babies. Too many games, too much pressure to cater for unprofessionals. Wanyama and mane are showing to the big clubs, that they are bit part players. Fools Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One tip, if you choose to leave, then go. Don't walk to the railings and watch the game standing in front of others who have chosen to stay. Jump in an empty seat, or walk down the stairs, don't be a pain Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have never seen a goal keeper stand there in open play, for so long, and the ref do nothing. I counted 33 seconds for one kick and that wasn't the worst. And I mean out of his hands not goal kick. At one point I thought their keeper was going to be allowed to stand there until the end of the game without having to kick it. The referee indicated that he would add on time at the end, which for a drop kick is not correct. Either way 5 minutes! 3 mins for six subs, then there was the sending off. Then the Carroll injury, the yoshida kick in the head jack or chan style, several other times the trainer was on , for both teams and then the goal kick time wasting and the drop kick time wasting, I was expecting double figures on the injury time. Now all that on top of a clearly chat with ferguson refereeing display and I was lucky enough to see with my own eyes the corrupt was which takes place in a multi billion pound business when those that get paid the least make the biggest decisions. Last night football was corrupt. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have an absolute fit if the players stopped playing after 80 mins, so why oh why did so many 'supporters' walk out on the team after the second goal. It was an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment! If you walked out after 80 mins, please don't come back! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stoke were direct and strong, some we're carrying a bit too many doughnuts. We played around them and through them, could've been more. Nuff said, job done Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought it would be the stoke fans that would only read the first few lines. But, I suppose laptop huggers exist on all forums! And if any stole fans are reading this, you'll notice I sent it from my iPhone as any idiot knows, you can't type on a laptop whilst on a horse as you still need both hands, one to stop the laptop falling off and the other to bash it out! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Delap, hugging bottom, crouch, fuller. How many more ageing saints have they bought? And they have the audacity to call us high and mighty and above ourselves when they pick up the scraps we throw out! Stoke are a simple team who play simple football. Direct doesn't always mean long ball and hard doesn't always mean dirty. Stoke are direct, they are hard and they have desire. Our rejects rejuvenated their careers up their and done bloody well and I am proud of each one of them. Stoke do what Stoke do, they try hard, battle hard and play hard, there's no shame in that, it's why I love watching stoke play arsenal or Chelsea or the like. But, if their fans are so anti other teams forums calling out this obvious toughness, they are obviously arm chair supporters who must have laptops. Get a life stoke fans, your team are direct and tough to break down, end of Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooohhhh his name is Grazianoooo 6 ft 4 and he comes from Italy Now he's playing at st Mary's Scores for fun in the premier league Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

I mean, this is quite droll that it takes this many posts and that many ridiculous comments for you guys to actually pull the wool from your eyes and read the question. So, without you guys trying to say this or say that, let me help you: WTC Building 7 was NEVER hit by a plane, FACT. WTC Building 7 was next to the twin towers and I would love to see the footage or hear from the 'thousands' of witnesses that eye witnessed this event. You have nothing, nudda, zero proof that a plane hit WTC Building 7. The fact that you two keep trying to make me out to be the one with a crazy theory, please explain or show this third plane hitting building 7 or whatever it is your claiming from 4 to 6? So, plain and simple thus far, your conspiracy theory that a plane hit WTC Building 7 and was witnessed by thousands of people has been backed up by NO evidence whatsoever. Personally, I would've thought that you would've taken a different line rather than a mysterious third plane, but hey ho, again I wait for your response with eager anticipation. One photo or image of any plane hitting WTC Building 7 will do, you know, the one next to the twin towers? Please, google maps will just prove you have nothing and the only ones needing phsychological help would be you two and your nut job conspiracies that not even the US Government a backing, please, WTC Building 7 hit by 3rd plane, what drugs you guys on!

Hey Gemmel, no problem, if you want to run with this with buctootim, no worries. So, for me, I can't understand how WTC Building 7 collapsed? Personally, I work in a very similar building to that which collapsed and I would be worried if a fire on one of the floors was enough to bring down the entire building, so please, use evidence and facts to show how this is possible and I'll check with the fire officers/wardens and ensure my building is safe. Secondly, with regard to WTC Building 7, why did it collapse, when it did, in the way that it did? Very strange? And, the main reason I would find this strange, is because of all the conspiracy theories put forward, they would have to match the method of collapse, you know, in that flat pack kind of way it did? Very curious? So, from your options of 1 - 6, I'm not sure you're off to a good start, as first, you'd need to prove a plane hit WTC Building 7? But, I wait for your response with eagerness.

So Buctootim, I have given you ample time to collate your evidence and I am ready to receive. The length of time should hopefully produce a wealth of evidence supporting your conspiracy theory that a Boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I cannot wait. Secondly, and this is why I tagged Gemmels post as well, we get to the plane theory around the WTC buildings. So, following on from your evidence around The Pentagon, please show me factual evidence which proves your conspiracy theory that a plane hit WTC Building 7. I mean, unless you have another conspiracy theory as to how a steel framed building can 'collapse' due to an office (not 1080 degree airliner fuel, as we know that this never went into the middle of WTC Building 7, which is where the fire was) and we know it was damaged by falling debris, but that would probably lead to a partial collapse... but hey, I'll leave it to the expert, over to you buctootim, evidence on your conspiracy theory please.

You still seem to be struggling, and like most conspiracy theorists, cannot backup your ridiculous claims with 'evidence'. Come on, it's taken you 2 days to identify it as a 757 that never hit the pentagon. Please, with all those thousands of witnesses, multitudes of cctv and 60 tonnes of debris, please provide one shred of factual evidence that backs your outlandish theory that a boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing you won't be back soon, unless it's to through insults at people that don't believe you're ridiculous theories! try again 1 out of 10 for effort so far.

OK, so won't take you long to find that evidence. Just think of all the time and effort the US are taking over the US Malaysian Missing airlines, well, you'd expect at least that amount of proof that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 767. Post in here your analysis of the debris that confirms it was a 767. An engine maybe? Wings? Tail, as we know, from the US government, they wouldn't have been able to have entered the building, so should be on the lawn. Anyway, don't use my evidence, produce your own. Please stop posting googlemaps, I get it, your friends confirm my theory. You have already stated they cannot identify a Boeing 767 flying right above their heads in excess of 500mph. Please provide evidence or admit your consipracy theory is wrong. I mean, shouldn't be this hard, should it?