The Kraken

I'm only joshing MLG, I enjoy your wholly unnecessary pedantry really. Not as much as I enjoy it when you're wrong, though. But enjoyable nonetheless.

Quite common, but quite commonly wrong. Rather like your good self

And thirdly?

Firstly, the Irish have a Taoiseach as opposed to a PM. Secondly, Lawrenson was born in Lancashire and is therefore eligible to be the PM. Thirdly, the Prime Minister is the PM of the UK (Great Britain and NI), not just Great Britain. Pedantry. Any idiot can do it.

You can't have two PMs at the same time.

If we'd have won all of our games we would be top.

He wasn't a disaster; his points per game record was ok. But he was an accident waiting to happen. It was just a shame that, after we binned him off, we went and brought in an even more obvious accident waiting to happen. Steve Wigley; now there was a disaster.

I genuinely can't see how technology could work for offsides, other than going down the video replay route which I'm very much not in favour of. In terms if GLT it's a very minor thing but it's clearly good that it's been introduced and gives the officials one less thing to worry about.

That is genuinely ridiculous.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/10/arsenal-quoted-15m-for-stoke-goalkeeper-asmir-begovic-3590447/

The backbone of the success of the Premier League was built upon these lads and other luminaries such as Gerry Francis, Peter Shreeves, David Pleat and Howard Wilkinson. That was when football was football.

Yes, you also have the other end of the scale with BFS, Tony Pulis and Martin O'Neill.

And you'd have to say that none of them have gone in there and shaped a side in their mould. There's something not quite working. We're very much in MP's mould, but you look at sides like Arsenal under Wenger, Liverpool under Rodgers, Chelsea under Mourinho first time round, Swansea under Laudrup, even Everton under Martinez. Those teams play in the certain style of their manager and look to do things in their own way. Never had that feeling with Spurs, and I don't think they've ever made the most of their sizeable spending.

In the summer there were figures of £15M+ being bandied around for him. Would we shell that out? He's "only" 26 which isn't much in keeper's terms. Very good keeper; not sure I see it though.

Taken out by friendly fire from the bear :-(

I voted for you Smirker. It seemed ludicrous to vote for myself, even I don't find myself talking sense 99% of the time.

So I'm Sour Mash? Ok then. That's a new one. Turkish will be delighted that he's Stu Romsey Saint.

I feel I was very clear on this the first time round, but to clarify it (again) for you: MLG stated this: "I think for QPR a 28,000 to 30,000 seater stadium that allows for future expansion if needed would be more realistic. Jumping straight from 18k to 40k is a huge leap." I responded with this: "Yes it is. But weren't you claiming that Saints 32K stadium wasn't big enough based upon our previous years in the PL? 4 years of gates seemed enough in your eyes to justify expansion up to 40K. Bearing in mind that chucking on additional seats typically costs a lot more than building the seats in the first place (rumoured to be at least 3x times the original cost in our case) the only logic for that can be checking if 28K - 30K is big enough in the first place. And being as Saints went from 15K to 32K then very quickly were told by some fans that the capacity wasn't big enough, I'm not sure I see why QPR shouldn't use that as a benchmark of sorts as to why they might be able to go from an 18K start point to 40K but without the need for the 28K middle ground stadium in between in between. Brighton are another example of how a fanbase can be grown from very humble starts to very sizeable crowds in very short times (8K - 32K for Brighton). Plus, for QPR, the difference in cost to them between building 28K and 40K probably isn't a huge proportion in the general scheme of things." The whole "West Ham only sell out because of kids for a quid every week" was your fabrication and something separate. Glad to clarify it all once again, but I'm still mystified where you've created this notion that I advocate wholesale discounts from. It's a very strange line of thinking.

Ben Reeves just scored for MK against Wolves.

Just an opinion I have; if you're an injury doubt and not fit enough to start, you shouldn't be on the bench. Especially so for a centre back, and there is another CB on the bench with you. CBs are on the bench largely for defensive cover, not to shake things up or change formation. If he's not fit to start he should sit out IMO (although admittedly that is rather a black and white approach).

Shouldn't be on the bench if he isn't fit IMO. Especially as Yoshida is available.

Er, what? I've not even mentioned Saints needing a bigger stadium in this thread. I just pointed out that your "kids for a quid is the only reason why West Ham get sell-outs" line of thinking is plain and simply wrong. Its also quite telling that, despite having a scheme of our own that is better and applied more often, we have hardly had any sell outs of our own, so the effect is clearly minimal. But if you feel you need to make things up to labour a point against then you go for it.

BBC match report: Posession: Newcastle 32% Saints 68%. "It's been all Newcastle so far...." Lies, damned lies and statistics. Good clearance off the line by Calvin Chambers, apparently.

Where on earth are you getting your figures from? You seem to be under the idea that West Ham need thousands of cheap under 11 tickets to get their attendances up week after week. They clearly don't, this is wrong. Two thirds of their games have none of this discounting which you were so keen to expose, and pretty much all of those games sell out without the need of discounting. By the way, are you aware how common the kids for a quid thing is? Saints do something that's even better, and do it more often. For all Cat B and Cat C games, kids tickets in the family enclosure are free when bought with an adult ticket. That's £1 less than West Ham. So, just maybe, you're overplaying the effect of the kids for a quid thing??

How is this an argument? What a silly suggestion. I can see you're still struggling with this so I'll clarify it again. You said that west Ham only sell out as they do kids for a quid. As I showed you, they actually do 6 games a season with kids for a quid (and its a kid with one full paying adult, which Saints and many other clubs have done in the past or continue to do, and is a good idea). And those games are the ones that are the least attractive, so it makes common sense for them to do that. Premium games don't need the price reduction. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand, if I'm honest. If QPR want to get close to filling a bigger stadium on a consistent basis then that's exactly what they should be doing.