The9

Mine doesn't show my number when I buy, you just leave it blank to have it recognise your number (which shouldn't be on the list), and as you suggest, the dropdown is only for others.

They'd still have played Cup games... well, one cup game in the case of O'Hara, Quincy etc. which would mean they counted towards the 3 club rule. Again, I suspect it's a matter of registration held, not actual appearances. You could be banned without even playing. Somehow I don't think the win bonus thing would happen... on an unrelated note, Skates should be glad Utaka's not getting his win bonus much (that must be the difference in his weekly wage and his imagined wage).

It's stupid because the league is an ongoing competition with an end which defines when the transfer window re-opens, resetting player eligibility for the following season, whilst the cup is a set of elimination matches with the principle that once you lose as part of a club you're out. You obviously can't ban a player from playing in the league for the rest of the season or you may as well get rid of transfers mid-season altogether because they'd be useless. But you can sensibly ban a player from cups he's already played in because of the nature of the elimination format - once you've lost you're out of it, whether you play for someone else or not. This leaves a few scenarios : 1) In the cases where a player leaves a team who is still IN a Cup for one which is not, then they can't play further in the tournament anyway becasue their new club has no more Cup fixtures to play. 2) With something like the Puncheon case, he was still in the competition and signed for a club also still in the competition. a)That's the only time you can logically argue he shouldn't be cup-tied, because his team haven't been eliminated so he should still be eligible to play... b) but with Puncheon this season in the JPT this is moot because it's obvious that he shouldn't be able to play both for sides in a two-legged tie. 3) Which leaves one scenario undetailed - had Puncheon signed for, say, Carlisle from MK rather than Saints, should he be allowed to play versus Leeds ? a) It's dubious that he should be allowed to continue in a tournament where he MIGHT play his old team who he's already represented (for MK in the Final had they beaten Saints) b) and a case could be made that he could only play for Carlisle either when MK were eliminated from the competition or until MK were eliminated (depending on your argument) but it's preposterous that his eligibility for the competition should depend on his old team's performance when he no longer has any effect on their results. I like the cup-tie rule, it's straightforward and there's little scope for confusion. Unless you're Manny Omoyinmi.

They ARE allowed to sell players, those players just can't play for the new club until next season because their registration can't be transferred until the window opens. They wouldn't be able to be loaned back either... ...and should the Skates go into liquidation they'd all be available on frees and able to play for a new club immediately (except the ones who have already had two permanent clubs, and even those might be granted exemption in the circumstances of their club ceasing to exist). So who the hell is going to buy those players - and why have the Skates even asked for special dispensation ? It can only be to claim "they're trying everything they can" for PR purposes when their court case comes up. Not sure what grounds other clubs have to sue unless the Prem just grants the Skates money - but if they, do their member clubs will be queueing up outside the courts for compensation. Long and short of it at the moment is it looks like that 5th owner bloke claiming he needs 30 days due diligence might get them another month on March 1st - or it might not.

Egomania running wild brutha.

Well no, but he was one of the best in our (bad) side at the time, while the likes of Delap and Fuller clearly weren't, which bought him a lot of affection. Why am I perpetuating this crappy thread anyway?

You don't need them, pitch up at Staplewood just before kick off, it's free. Good fun as well, I got to see the 2008/9 relegation team (almost) all playing together in the reserves in 2007/8, for instance, in front of the kind of crowds some of them should get used to.

Especially as it was a duplicate thread from Jan 2009 which lasted less than a day... :shock: ...the other thread on the link is far more informative (i.e. it has my full list of ex-Saints at Stoke in Jan 09, not the abridged list here...).

To be fair he can kick with power when he catches the ball right, he just miskicks and scuffs shots too often. And he was excellent on Saturday apart from this.

Almost all of the people I had on block have disappeared since Lowe went, funny that.

You should know who Holmes is, the rest are "an acquired taste". Nice to see Poolis can't even get a game for the ressies now though, or is he injured again?

Um, he was stood up to 120 yards away from the people who were actually attacking, and was right in front of the away fans (unlike the rest of his team). The attackers in the second half almost certainly could only hear the Saints fans the loudest on the 3 sides nearest them.

Well I've seen 11 of them play, and I haven't been to a reserve game since September and never watched the youth side, maybe you should go to more reserve games if you want to know rather than just showing your ignorance ?

Stoke, Sheff U, Lincoln, Chivas USA, Atletico Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Chivas Guadalajara, Paraguay. This is of course irrelevant, because we'll go back to having the "same kit as the others" after 1 season anyway.

But the best way to give kids experience is to play experience alongside them. Picking the youth team for a reserve fixture only shows them they've got a way to go without giving them a clue as to what's required.

I would also point out that getting rid of the cup-tied rule would mean that Puncheon could have played in both legs of the JPT S Final for both teams, which is clearly stupid.

Not if he signs after he's already played for the original club, it's "season long" meaning for the rest of the season, not the whole of the season.

You are correct, the window is so termed as its regarded as an exception. When it was a "deadline" there was no window because transfers were permitted for the majority of the time and the end of the season was a natural break and thus logical to allow transfers again. The concept of a "window" is a small exception within a large block of something. The rest of the season is the "wall". Pre-"window" transfers were allowed for all but March-May (9 months) Post-"window" transfers are allowed May-August and January (5 months in 2 slots). Personally I think January is more of a transfer catflap, and FWIW I think the cup-tied rule should stay, it's about preventing people representing multiple teams in the same competition, nothing else. League transfers are allowed because that's the "daily job" and its insanity to prevent a player playing AT ALL until the following season, until he joins a new club. There's no knockout aspect to the league, which is the difference.

I won't be playing, but I'll be there in some capacity - and given the massive amount of time before Scu's programme has to be ready this season compared to last I'm expecting a glossy 64-pager for £3.

This of course assumes that people will actually look at their tickets before they get near the stadium, or go to the stadium first and then come back and pick a pub nearby. In my experience most people find out which end their seats are about 2 minutes before going into the ground, so to think there won't be any Carlisle fans around just because the pub is not at their end is a bit naive.

The usual venue of Bodington Hall in Leeds; July 23-25th this year, safely after the World Cup has finished

Wow that's specific. There are plenty of ineligible player rules, they all lead to the team being thrown out of the competition if it's a one-off match. Thequestiin here is whether the Skates actually broke the rules. Frankly I don't care if they did, it'll be funny enough when they go bust and I have nothing against Birmingham.

I haven't clicked the link but I am assuming this is Alan Bennett. He was abysmal at the start (not aided by Makin alongside him) and improved to arguably only a bit crap. Anyone who thinks he was "good" is a raving lunatic.

Just for the record, they have to file the report with the High Court on Wednesday, HMRC have 2 days to read it but the 19th date doesn't mean anything as the court date was AT EARLIEST 19th, and they've actually been given a (provisional) date on March 1st. However the practicalities of what the Skates can do and claim in the intervening few days after tomorrow and before March, and what HMRC can do after Wednesday but prior to the court date are pretty much unknown... I suspect they will move for liquidation based on tomorrow's findings and the Skates will bleat that circumstances have changed blah blah with no evidence and that'll be their "Storrie" forever more. Oh and fwiw let Brum have the bye.

5 years ago he was too good for the CCC and not good enough for the Prem. Very skilful but a little bit too ponderous on the ball. So League One might be a level he'd excel at (though I'm not sure how he's fared since 2005). He's also exactly the kind of attacking midfielder we need, someone who can play a decent throughball - and he can also hit a shot or break through the back line. Seems to have sorted his one-time dodgy attitude out as well.