Matthew Le God

343 with Redmond and Walker-Peters as wing back when in possession, 4222 when not in possession.

More likely to be the reverse. We pay Liverpool extra in fees if he doesn't play.

A loan with a view to buy is what the article claims the intention is by Saints.

Daily Telegraph says £150k per week https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/05/ruben-loftus-cheek-heads-fulham-loan-chelsea-decide-against/

He's behind you!

No he didn't.

Appointing one more person to the existing staff in the department doesn't mean it isn't already underway.

I'd rather we keep our best keeper.

If he blocks the movement of an opponent then the the offence is obstruction, not him being offside.

In your example he'd only be offside if interfering with the keeper's line of sight if the ball was coming towards the keeper. In which case he would be near the ball.

@Gingeletiss That is not what the offside rule is. A player can't be offside if the ball is no where near them. Scott Dann with the assist and Benteke with the goal were clearly onside, what any other Palace players did was irrelevant as the ball was not near them.

It was given as a free kick which they missed, not a penalty.

I gave dates 🤗

The war of 1756 to 1763 was a global war.

No, none of that happened.

If he was 'out in the cold' they wouldn't have put him on the bench numerous times since the Man Utd game like they did.

Assassinating yourself using time travel... now that is the ultimate conspiracy!

JFK shot himself!

1) Can you explain how the footage shows what you claim it does? 2) Have you been watching the fictional nonsense Oliver Stone film? 3) What are you claiming about 9/11 and what evidence do you have to support the claim?

As this thread is about any takeover and not just one by DaGrosa... shouldn't DaGrosa be removed from the thread title? 🤔😇

It was not remotely close to being offside. Scott Dann with the assist was clearly onside and the others you mentioned were no where near the ball, so were not interfering with play.

What evidence do you have for that?

I'd guess he'd be replaced by much younger players, who will be lower down the wage structure than Bertrand was. So money would be saved from that and we'd hopefully have a bigger asset if they turn out to be any good vs a player in their 30s.