CB Fry

No, and nor should anyone else. By "screwed us" you mean "beat us on penalties after two legs" and "finished the league season fully nine points clear of us" then I think I'm over that "screwing" of us.

Come home Nigel Adkins. Nice little triumphant L1 title next season and go from there.

Desperately wanted Derby to do it but they've blown automatic promotion over the last few weeks. They'll make the play offs which they choked last season but we'll see. Happy with Bournemouth and maybe Norwich to come up. QPR and Leicester are down whether I'd like it or not (Leicester not, for the same selfish reasons as Derby up). Villa or Sunderland down would be funny but probably will be Burnley.

I think this is a rule that hasn't changed. The FA Cup can only provide one Europa League qualifier, not two. [Old rules] If the FA Cup winner gets in the CL then the cup runner up gets the domestic cup Europa slot. [Old rules] If the FA Cup winner finishes (say) 5th, what they actually get is the domestic cup winners Europa slot, not the domestic league spot, which then goes to sixth. Liverpool winning the cup would be fine for us in this circumstance, they'd take the domestic cup spot, not the runner up. [New rules] the runner up gets squat. How I understood it anyway. Could easily be wrong.

Debatable. Let's be clear, they aren't rivals of ours. For gods sake don't start pretending they are.

Those parachute payments sort you right out, don't they. Bottom half is an ex-Prem graveyard. Well done Norwich for at least bucking the trend.

Far more likely.

Your vision for Britain is to ape Switzerland? Gee. Maybe you should just move to Jersey and have done with it. You can revel in low tax irrelevance for the rest of your days. Low levels of "negroes" too.

You are a bread-dead dribbling pig sh it thick cretin with a button mushroom di ck and ball sack the size of a Californian raisin. And your mum is a bukkake loving septic whore who looks like Cyril Smith. #jesuischarlie

Okay, so that's a yes. Clear. Do you agree with the following phrase: "Idiot Liberals don't understand that criminals don't follow laws and they get guns anyway". Yes (you agree that criminals get guns anyway, and liberals don't understand this) or No (you think the phrase is absolute crap)? Let's see if we can do this one in a day, shall we?

Not enough face palms in the world.

Help a poor old Brit out, then, by answering this question with a straight yes or no. We're all getting mixed messages from you. (Driven by you saying "I don't think so" one day and "I agree with the statement" the next day.) So Would restrictions on guns limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves? Yes, or no?

The phrase "what the fu ck does that mean" suggested to mean you had never encountered the phrase "law abiding citizens" before. Otherwise why are you asking me what "the fu ck" it means? I just helped you understanding by showing it to be a phrase that Republican Presidents have used - Bush and Ronnie know "what the fu ck" it "means". So, are you now saying you DO understand "what the f uck" the phrase "law abiding citizen" means? Jolly good. I'll come back with your continual struggle to work out whether you agree or disagree with one simple statement in a separate post.

I think people understand how contracts work perfectly well, thanks. What people are getting at with regard to Long is why we were so keen buy someone another club had just signed on a long term deal, so much so we had to pay double what they paid six months before. We had to pay that much because his contract was huge, but we didn't have to sign Shane Long at all. If fees didn't matter then no one would ever describe any players as a "bargain" either now would they. But, guess what, they do. All that said, we've signed worse for more or similar amounts. And he's pretty lovable our Shane what with all the running and that.

"The only people I do have a problem with are negroes" #peoplesarmy

Go you. Vote UKIP to keep the Liberals out of Eastleigh. After all, we all remember Jeremy Thorpe and Asquith and David Steele and that.

We are never ever ever going to score.

Secondly, Sarnia, don't quite understand your objection to the phrase "law abiding citizen" as it doesn't take long to find fine chaps like GWB and RR using them: BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. BUSH: I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. REAGAN: You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. Would you say "what the fu ck does that mean" to two ex-Presidents use of the phrase "law abiding citizens"? Personally I think both of those Presidents would agree with the idea that "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" but you "don't think so". Strange.

You don't think restrictions on guns would limit your ability to protect yourself? You do understand what "restrictions on guns" means, right? It means you are restricted from having guns.

Is it? If they get anywhere near 40 MPs then both parties would be more than happy to. Personally I think they walk away from the last five years having done a decent job in the circumstances. They are going to get hammered in the polls but that's mainly because a) they can't pull off their usual trick of making Tory-lite promises in seats like Cheltenham and Labour-lite promises in seats like Brent. b) they can't do the "we're the alternative to the old politics" stuff having been in government for half a decade c) they've lost the idealistic student vote. Despite that, what they've done in government, I think, has been pretty good.

If they do they'll be looking straight down the barrel of a bidding war with QVC and Discovery Home and Leisure.

Possible but likely to be too much of a mish mash between Lab/SNP/Plaid/Lib Dem part coalition, part unofficial support deals. If Labour and Lib Dems get enough between them, then yes. But they won't.

UKIP made gains in the Euro elections in no small part due to gains from working class Labour voters. But primarily they are a right wing party for right leaning anti-EU types. They might nibble into Tory majorities in Tory safe seats but more likely to do Labour a favour in Tory/Labour marginals by splitting the right vote. Personally I think UKIP will get about 4 MPs. Faced with a minority government, Id think the Tories more likely to hook up with Clegg again than give in to UKIP for thimble full of MPs, two of which were Tory MPs about a year ago anyway.

Being that those broadcasters have announced their games, nothing is going to happen for a broadcaster to announce a Saints broadcast game and a move of kick off time. If you didnt know, the BBC don't broadcast PL live games. And I know people round the world can watch any game, as can most of us online, but those broadcasters don't impact match days/times. The TV games have been announced and that's it.

Not really. They haven't been anywhere near the play offs, or at serious risk of relegation all season. Their last twenty games are utterly meaningless win, lose or draw.