Alanh

Agree with the principle of keeping it simple and that's what the current rule does. If that was the sole criteria then leave it as it is.

I don't think you can get rid of offside completely, but if it is going to be measured by VAR I think they could make a change which would improve things. If the attacker is deemed offside due to one part of his body being in front of the last defender, then the offside decision is only upheld if that part of the body is used in the subesquent passage of play. I.e if the shoulder is offside, but he doesn't subesquently play the ball with his shoulder, then the decision is revoked. If the right foot is offside, and he plays the ball with his right foot, then the decision is upheld.

I would have thought it would be 20% of profit on any deal, not 20% of the total fee. I think that's the general way that sell on clauses work.

He is a great illustration of how someone who is revered for something that they have done in the past can tarnish that reputation with a new set of actions after the original career has gone. I wonder how far he would have to go to be dropped by the club. I'm in the camp of loved what he did on the pitch, but can't respect him as a person, just as I wouldn't respect someone in the pub who was spouting crazy antivax / conspiracy theory views.

I had an open mind on what your reason might be. I've never been aware of anyone suggesting that he has the job because he played for Spurs though.

Please tell us the reason. Don't be obtuse, make it very clear why you think he keeps the job.

Agreed. You just have to look at the injuries that Liverpool have faced specifically at CB this season to see how sustained injuries can seriously curtail your expected performances.

Romeu out for 3 months. Ankle fracture.

This was a real irritant to me. I hate that the lino is not able to put his flag up when there is a clear offside, but for the 'offside' header that McCarthy pushed round the post to result in a corner because the flag didn't go up is farcical. At some point I predict something significant like a player injury will occur in a passage of play that should have been stopped by an earlier offiside then the crazy rule will be revised, but I hope it doesn't come to that before they see sense.

They will have to do something to appeal to the general public then. Their current hoofball tactics certainly won't get them 'favourite underdog' status. I guess Jordan North shouting "Happy place, Turf Moor" while surrounded by snakes will help a bit in the short term.

He's mainly right footed an plays mainly on the left so it's not natural for him to get to the byline and put in a cross. Also, we don't really play that way. We ask our wide midfielders to play from those positions into the centre of the pitch. Just look where most of Armstong's shots and goals have come from for evidence. I think Redmond could contriute a lot more than he is - agruably play more like Sterling in terms of type of forward - but asking him to get crosses in from the left is unlikely to happen IMO.

Sure, some people will object on political grounds (largely unfounded IMO), but I believe that there is a stronger chance that raising the issue in the public conversation will result in racist behaviour becoming less acceptable. That's got to be a good thing for society.

Surely one of the points of any gesture whether it is one of love, provocation or solidarity is to get recognition i.e. to make someone think about an issue or situation that they may not have considered before. Players taking a knee has obviously raised the profile of anti racism as it's being discussed at length in many arenas. As a gesture it won't achieve the end result of converting all racists into equal rights advocates, that will happen through a combination of societal pressure, education and time, but if it makes society in general a bit more aware of the issue and that results in a bit less racism then it has done it's job.

You get rid of the scrums and rucks which is where the majority of the head impacts occur. The problem for Union is that effectively makes it Rugby League.

The lawsuit heading for England Rugby from several 2005 World Cup winners and the issues that are detailed by the OP could mean the end of rugby in it's current form. I have a couple of younger relatives who loved rugby during their schooldays, but had to give it up on medical grounds because of repeated concussions before they were 19 years old. If that sort of thing is happening around the country then the game won't survive.

They need to win 10 championships in a row to better the 9 that Rangers won in the past. They are on nine at the moment. Having won everything in sight for the last 9 years they are struggling to adapt to being 13 point off the top spot and so are protesting.

Not sure if you are trying to come out as a racist but you're doing a pretty good job of it.

Remember that the ref and VAR can talk to each other. Perhaps the VAR asked if the ref was sure that the fould didn't continue inside the box. The ref said he wasn't sure so VAR checked. That's all perfectly within the remit of VAR and essentially what it should be used for.

I didn't call them thick or racist, but perhaps the Millwall fans who booed thought they had made their point, perhaps they were wary of being identified and banned, perhaps they responded positively to the letter they received on entering the ground, perhaps the ones who booed got shut up by their mates, perhaps they were happy with linked arms rather than kneeling. Perhaps all of these things or something else.

From the last 38 games we got 29 points from home matches and 35 from away matches so not a huge difference.

IMO 60+ points should be our target for this season. That's achievable with an average 1.5 points per game from here on and should put us in the hunt for a European spot. Not straightforward but a nice target to have at this stage of the season.

Colchester Chairman seems to have summed it up eloquently after booing at their home match on Saturday. I hope Saints would take a similar stand and offer refunds if season ticket holders felt they couldn't attend because they were so offended by players taking the knee. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55213641

Agree that St Mary's isn't the most passionate of atmospheres, but the negativity from the stands was still there during our poor run at home a year ago. Without it we have transformed so it kind of suggests that was a factor. Also, we were generally OK in away games, perhaps because the crowd negativity was directed at the home team, not us. The players do need to be mentally strong enough to cope with it though.

Just an idea. Primarily to give more cover in the full back positions where Valery has performed better as a wing back and KWP is being asked to play on the 'wrong' side.

If Bednarek is available perhaps a back 3 with Valery and KWP as wing backs. McCarthy Valery - Bednarek - Stephens - Vestergaard - KWP JWP - Romeu Armstrong -Walcott Adams