trousers

And, arguably, more suited to Hassenhuttl's style of play...

We're 10th in the form table (since Hassenhuttl took over). Still reckon we'll finish in the middle third of the table.

*hugs*

Good to have you back on the forum. Missed you the last 6 days x Missed being told to post an opinion

Should've gone for Silva instead

Cock

Get in!

First post in 6 days. Purely coincidence that it coincided with Cardiff scoring of course #textbook

Cock

#ITKwatch

...

I make that about 15 pence parking charge for each home game over the last 18 years. Bargain

Ah... Yes... Forgot it was an FA cup weekend again next week. Good move in that case. Ignore me

Try to wean myself off. Down to just 3 nights a week now.

Well, Mr Fawkes agrees with you at least... https://order-order.com/2019/02/07/tusk-vs-vote-leaves-mincing-machine/

Surprised we didn't do something like this during the recent 10 day gap between games

Bertrand in contention for Saturday's game according to RH in today's pre-match interview

Agent Isgrove has picked up an injury in training and not available for this weekend's game

Thanks a bunch for this memory jogger today Facebook....

I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )

Another misguided soul jumping on the defending Liam Neeson bandwagon.... https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/whoopi-goldberg-defends-liam-neeson-amid-race-row-he-isnt-a-bigot-a4059541.html

Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU... In other words, why not this timeline: AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU Instead of this timeline: AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS ?

Taking a step back....Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....? Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig? I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the deadline (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up together, rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening? Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....

Given that was my aim, I'll take the compliment with open arms

Shadows