trousers

So, just to clarify, if a player signs a contract at, say, 9.00am and is photographed and interviewed at 9:30am, you'd prefer the club to announce the signing at 9.01am rather than 1:15pm?

@solentsport: We understand #Saintsfc are close to completing the signing of #Gills goalkeeper Paulo Gazzaniga

I've just coughed up a tablespoon of phlegm trying to pronounce his name. This is gonna get messy on match days.

Let me know how long the Clyne interview and photoshoot took and I'll adjust the arbitrary timings in my question. Cheers

So, just to clarify, if a player signs a contract at, say, 9.00am and is photographed and interviewed at 9:30am, you'd prefer the club to announce the signing at 9.01am rather than 9:31am?

What date and time did Clyne sign his contract?

O'Driscoll announced as Forest manager. Bit of a strange one. He only joined Crawley in May!

Even if you gave exactly the same information to 2 groups of 12 people there's no guarantee that they would come to the same conclusion. (said Trousers stating the somewhat obvious)

MLG-esque pedentry alert but I believe he worked on the newspaper stand outside Monument Tube Station and as such would not have sold The Big Issue.

Erm.....I've never offered an opinion on what I think the verdict in this case should have been. I've simply commented on the logicistics of the judicial process.

Does look very familiar....

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=19824

At last, some fiscal prudence....I wonder where they got this idea from....? @officialpompey: Ticket booking policy 2012/13: http://t.co/Hvfwq6wO #pompey

What was stopping him naming names at the time? What's changed to prompt him to go public with it today? The fact that PSV have formally turned it down maybe? (Sorry, too many dumb questions in one post!)

Can you two keep on topic please?

How do we know they didn't?

Any chance of a journo actually asking who this 'mystery' 3rd party is?

One man's indifference is another man's pragmatism.

Hush my friend....you'll give the game away if you're not careful.... Under no circumstances would I urge you to send that link to the requested email address and copy in the Football League.

Indeed. So, we have one jury that thought he was guilty and another jury that thought he wasn't. So, overall, divided opinion. Just because one verdict happened chronologically before the other doesn't automatically give the first verdict any precident over the second, and of course visa versa. All we're looking at here is different opinions of different human beings, not some kind of cataclysmic breakdown of the legal system

He was tried by his peers. A system that has been in place for centuries. Disagreeing with the opinion of 12 people doesn't make it a "disgraceful" verdict. It simply makes it a different verdict to the one you would have come up with. Just my opinion of course.

Some interesting parallels in this blog about the head-in-sand mentality of Rangers fans.... http://oldpesky.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/tae-see-oursels-as-others-see-us.html?spref=tw

That article is suggesting that we've actually tabled a bid whereas the Sky article was alluding to us just making an enquiry (I think).... This might be more advanced (one way or the other) than we think?

Titter ye not

Both...