Wurzel

I'm pretty sure he'll be in demand at some point by many but my point was I'm not so sure he'd be that interested. His comment that even with unlimited funds his ideal purchase would be Mbappe 5 years ago (not now) gives the impression he's more interested in "projects" than simply playing financial fantasy football. Probably I'm wrong, almost certainly it's wishul thinking but I get a different feeling from RH than any previous manager since LMac that he intends being here a long time.

For once I'm not so sure. That answer he gave to the stupid question about who would he sign if he had unlimited funds - "Kylian Mbappé five years ago" - just strikes me that we no have a someone who actually sees himself in charge of a long term project and not one of the usual journeyman/stepping-stone/in-it-for-the-money types. Much as I thought MoPo and RK were great, I never felt they were anything other than here till they're offered something better comes along type appointments. No doubt it's a bit of wishful thinking but I really get the feel that RH and SFC are the perfect match and he's here for the long haul.

Remove that awful sash and make their badge symmetrical with the Umbro logo and that would be a pretty decent shirt. Area covered by the sponsors logo definitely looks too big (but difficult to judge as no-one AFAIK has ever had a diagonal one before, and after seeing this never likely too again). And what's with the full stop? Or does .com carry on over the shoulder?

That's him halfway down that mountain in the background. He's so keen this year he's done a second lap of the cross country run while the others pose for photos.. Look closely though, he IS smiling.

Hands up, me too. Even when he left I thought he was over-rated. To me his running with the ball always looked more accidental than skill (bit like Woody's description of Buzz Lightyear "that's not flying, that's falling with style" ). Happy to admit how wrong I was.

Surely that's not going to stop you. Not after all your skills learned on HERE

Two WWC matches in a row with not a single interruption for VAR ( both had at least 2 incidents that would have been referred earlier in the tournament). Has FIFA been reading this thread and sent out an unofficial edict to stop ****ing about with it ? Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Was that Les Reed's bald bonce appearing several times last night at the England Woman's game when the camera was focusing on Beckham? If it was he had FA blazer/tie on, what's his role there now?

Think average "action" time is 59 minutes, so even 30 minutes each way should see more football than we do now

Something I've long supported. 4 linos, 1 each quarter means every situation gets 3 viewpoints, 1 from each side and the referee's from somewhere mid-pitch. Any doubt in referee's mind , seek help from 2 linos, majority decision counts. It would be quick, simple, importantly can still be applied at any level of the game, and whilst not guaranteed to be correct 100% of the time, would probably get most debatable decisions right (which is probably no less than VAR can claim). I'd be interested to hear Whitey Grandad's (or anyone else who has refereed) views. Would it help? or would it create more confusion?

I think the craziest decision of all is telling the linesmen (sorry Assistant Referees) NOT to flag for offsides but let play carry on and sort it out later. I sort of get it, if they flag and get it wrong then a goal may have been scored had they not flagged. But they are now flagging once a move breaks down several seconds later. If they are confident enough to flag then they should be flagging when they first spot the offence. If they're not sure then don't flag at all, the opposition have got the possession back anyway

Well that only leaves the manufacturer or the delivery company. Hopefully the contract has a huge late delivery penalty so we can up our bid for Che Adams

Having just watched them all again I agree with you, rarely needs a second touch, gets it, hits it. Also I'd say his body shaping for 4 or 5 of the goals scored from 12 to 18 yards out look to me like the ball should be going the other side of the keeper, it's no wonder they seem slow to react Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

2 observations . A lot of them were in away games, so hopefully suit our pressing/counter attacking style. A lot were "opportunist" goals. Some see that as lucky or lacking in skill. I see that as someone with an eye for what's happening and reads the game and anticipates well. Knows where the ball is going, knows where the goal is. 1 question. For a lot of them the keeper seemed to go down slowly to low/ground shots. Are they just crap keepers in that league or is he beating them with unexpected power and/or disguised direction?

Errrr.. bearing in mind the word was used in the first sentence and the whole post was about it then I think it's safe to say yes, I've heard of perspective. As I'm sure you're aware it's the whole reason the 18 yard line appears to slope up towards the top right and the 6 yard and goal line to the top left, towards eventual vanishing point. There's only one place that the yellow line should run at right angles to the touchline and that's dead centre of the width of the picture. And it definitely isn't centre it's roughly 2/3 across it. It would probably only make a tiny difference over the distances involved but when they are seemingly deciding offside/onside by millimetres it's important.

With VAR and the new clarification/interpretation of handball it seems to me it's time to start considering different degrees of penalty. At the moment Scenario 1 Player running through on goal unopposed rounds keeper and is deliberately pulled down from behind by keeper just as he is about to roll ball into empty net. Scenario2. Player attempts a cross from the side edge of the penalty box, into a crowded area. It's 50:50 whether a forward or a defender will get to that cross first, and even if a forward gets to the ball first no guarantee he will score from it. VAR spots a minor unintentional but definite deflection of the cross by a defender's extended arm whilst trying to stop the cross out on the edge of the area. At the moment both result in the same reward/punishment for the attacking/defending sides. Not sure how to improve it though. "Normal" penalty for Scenario 1, normal direct free kick inside the area for Scenario 2? Maybe a MSL style penalty run on goal from 35 yards as an option?

Big team bias? There was clearly French encroachment on the retaken spot kick. No VAR looking at that then ? Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

I remember an interview with a well respected foreign import ( I think it was Ces Fabregas but not 100% on that) where he stated he couldn't understand why English crowds were so appreciative of a defender making a tackle. in his eyes having to make a tackle was a last resort and a sign of failure. If a defender anticipated and positioned himself correctly there was no need, you simply shepherded a forward to go where he didn't want to go, or forced him to make a non-constructive pass. Of course, if he lets a winger get past him then he's failed on all counts.

Clear example of perspective ****ing things up. If the yellow line was parallel with the 6 yard box line he's offside. If the yellow line was parallel with the 18 yard line he's miles onside. As it is the yellow line they've used shows them dead level. If in doubt benefit should always go with the attacker

I technology is there to help get things right then use iot, but not in the way it's being used now. I'd have the same technology as they are currently using but implement it in the following ways. VAR can only ask ref to review if they see a) missed violent conduct or b) mistaken identity in red/yellow card. Ref not allowed to consult VAR (if he's not sure he can't give it) EXCEPT Each captain can ask ref to refer any goal, penalty, red card to VAR. Limit one appeal per half per side whether upheld or not. It's very rare that a team could claim more than 2 bad decisions in a match have cost them the game That way referrals are going to be limited in number. Added advantage of players no longer harassing a referee, they'll need to harass their own . captain as only he can ask the ref for the referral. If you concede a late equalizer in the second half and still have your referral the crowd just know it's going to be used. Emotion wise it'll be like giving away a late penalty, you assume the opposition will score it but there's always that hope. Could even enhance the drama whereas the current system seems to be destroying it.

Who says it will ? It's not what you spend it's how you spend it. Fulham spent almost double what we did on players last season. Spurs spent nothing at all. #justsaying

I was just about to post a similar comment. The Lander accounts are for the whole group on the left, and Lander themselves on the right. I'm no accountant either but I think CM is confusing the fact the SFC Ltd figures are included in those group figures. I can see that £184338M share capital was introduced into Lander. I can't find any mention in Lander's accounts of that coming from a loan. It may well have been a loan to Gao personally or one of the Chinese/HK companies but that doesn't show in these accounts. Agree it does show Lander as holding 100% of SFC and all the other subsidiaries not 80% (or does KL now own 20% of Lander?) As you say a £20m loan was converted to share equity, think that was KL's final loan but could be wrong. Alternatively is CM meaning the £20.5m "other loan" which on page 4 of SFC accounts under "Liquidity risk" is clearly described as the usual cashflow loan (which I and others have previously referred to), subsequently repaid and then a new facility taken out for the coming season covered by a new charge. This is the one and only charge against the company registered, as has been done every year, but which CM is insisting covers the £200m loan. This £20.5m other loan also of course shows in the group accounts but not Lander's. Hands up, maybe CM has got everything correct but I think it's a case of finding what he wants to find. Still waiting for evidence of his claim for Gao's lack of assets . I see that question has been ignored.

As above, what proof is there of existence of this £200m loan, whoever it may have been lent to? Also, what proof do you have of a Chinese national's assets (public or hidden, fixed or liquid) and their value ? What records have you been able to access to make that statement?

For the whole quote For the bit in bold

Yes we have. (Well £18m plus £2m add ons) Can't understand why anyone is still doubting this.