trousers

Would it be ok to resurrect this post in 9 months time? I know people often object to people digging up old posts for their comedy value so thought it polite to ask in advance. Cheers

I know this is over-exaggeration but if you squint slightly whilst viewing that video you could almost be fooled into believing you're watching Ronaldo. (Yeah, ridiculous, isn't it) Odds on a cheeky World Cup squad call up this season...? #gettingaheadofoneself

Since November 2006, I've posted 8.84 times per day on average, ergo it would take 56.56 days for me to amass 500 posts. (and, yes, I was indeed sad enough to spend the last 7 minutes working that out )

Fair enough. I guess there will always be different opinions on how significant it was. It certainly didn't influence my decision one way or another. Maybe it did influence others. We'll probably never know how significant it was in determining the referendum result.

The ZX81 was my first foray into the world of computing and pretty much shaped and determined how the rest of my life panned out. RIP Sir Clive

Shouldn't they be paying people to watch the B Team these days...?

Because it was worded as a suggestion, not a committment (even if it had been worded as a committment, they weren't in a position to do so)

I meant in the sense that the people making the suggestion weren't in a position to enact it because they weren't in government.

Armstrong has been "a couple of weeks away" for over a month now. Hopefully it turns out to be true this time around.

This article (https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/) seems to explain things quite well, albeit as per the situation in 2018. In summary, I think what its saying is: "yes, since Brexit we're spending £394m extra per week on the NHS but (a) we'd have needed to do that regardless and (b) it's offset by the some of the costs of leaving the EU anyway." So, I guess it could be argued that the suggestive/un-enactable statement (on the campaign bus) - that the money that goes into the EU coffers could be diverted to the NHS - is true to an extent but it doesn't take into account the bigger picture. (notwithstanding that people would have to be somewhat intellectually challenged if they thought an un-enactable suggestion on the side of a bus was some kind of 'promise' in the first place)

It's almost as if we're having to work out the best way to deal with this new virus as we go along when jumping 5 years forward in a DeLorean would surely be the better option...

aka "How to buy a trophy with dirty unsustainable spending" ...and nicely glosses over the 'favours' granted to them by HMRC and/or certain politicians in order to escape liquidation...

Not always a good outcome then...

What about 3 seconds, or 2 seconds?

I'll repeat my question... How close to the goal does a player have to be for it to not be considered "a large distance"? If you can't give a precise answer then we agree there's an element of interpretation/subjectivity involved. For example, I would interpret this as a clear goal scoring opportunity, others might not...

How close to the opponent's goal do you have to be for it to be a clear opportunity?

Was Broja's effort that hit the post a 'clear opportunity' when he received the ball circa three quarters of the pitch away from the opponent's goal?

NEVER. ANY. DOUBT

I've got a Saints supporter feeling about this now.... #missedopportunities

One. More. Game

Yay. First set

Is it too soon to start our annual chortle fest?

It's ok... Calendar year form doesn't count...