Whitey Grandad

It wasn't a trip, he kicked his leg with no attempt to play the ball. At what stage does it change from a yellow to a red?

Go and take a refereeing course and learn the Laws before you call anybody a berk. I ask again: what was different about this incident from just kicking somebody who's standing in front of you? It cannot be considered 'serious foul play'. Beckham got sent of for less against Argentina.

Whatever, in terms of cash in the bank we won't have much from the first payment and yet we shall have to pay upfront for any incoming transfers.

Your answer is there. That payment and the settlement of agents' fees would take a big lump out of the first payment. If an incoming transfer is structured the same way then we would have to pay a third of the price up front.

Why was it not a red? It was a delibertate kick and a red card is awarded if a player 'kicks or attempts to kick an opponent'. Just because the other player was running away does not mean that it was not a red card.If both players had been standing still then that kick wold have been a red. There was no way that it was an attempt at an honest tackle or interception.

Wasn't Walcott's sell-on fee negotiated away when we were desperate for dosh?

Yes, that cheered me up too. There was some debate about whether it should have been a red card but there's no disputing that it was a straight kick, no attempt to play the ball whatsoever, and so comes under 'violent conduct' and not 'serious foul play'. It's in the same vein as an elbow to the ribs.

That's Willi, not Kat.

And Walcott is cuptied...

It all depends. Everybody pays fees one way or another.

Except that in this case it appears that Celtic’s cut is being paid out of the first tranche.

Full text here: Southampton fans hoping for a spending spree this month after the £74 million sale of Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool are going to be disappointed as the club’s initial windfall from their record transfer deal will be less than £17 million. Although Southampton are guaranteed to receive £70 million for Van Dijk, with a further £4 million due in bonus payments if the Holland defender meets certain performance targets, the way the transfer has been structured means that Liverpool’s payments will be made in three equal instalments over the next three years beginning with a £23.3 million downpayment this month. Southampton’s cash flow will be further limited by the fact that Celtic’s sell-on fee for Van Dijk — 10 per cent of Southampton’s profit on a player they paid £11.5 million for three years ago — is due immediately, so almost £6 million of Liverpool’s initial payment will go to Celtic Park. In addition agent fees must also be settled immediately, leaving Southampton with a limited transfer kitty as Mauricio Pellegrino aims to overhaul a squad that is only above the relegation places on goal difference. Southampton are planning to reinvest all the Van Dijk money into the playing squad, but will have to do so over several transfer windows.

He’s quality. Get him in!

Two games in three days? Maybe this had something to do with the choice.

...which is the correct answer.

Ok, I understand, I was somewhat economical. What I was trying to imply was that the reason they would improve the VIP lounges for Champions League won’t be for watching Saints take part so all that’s left is watching others. Not really worth the trouble, let’s forget it.

Well they won't be watching any Champions League out on the pitch, will they?

Big screens so they can that the pampered privileged can watch other teams?

See above.

We were talking about that at the game last night. You youngsters wouldn't believe the mudbaths that they used to play on back in 'the old days'. Loftus Road was only suitable for beach volleyball.

Yeah, sh!t defending. Just look at our shape in that photo. Anything dropping behind our RB and it's open season on goal hunting. Not surprising really considering the constant changes of personnel, enforced and otherwise.

Yeah, we can't really complain about this one. The real complaint is why weren't we rushing out to make sure they were clearly offside?

You can only call it stonewall if you're playing by some outdated rules. These referees have regular meetings to discuss the interpretation of these laws in an effort to get some sort of consistency and there are guidelines for what is considered handball these days. That doesn't fully explain Mike Dean's decision against Arsenal but in his defence from his viewpoint Chambers does appear to flick that ball away with his hands. In the end it's all a matter of opinion.

Yes, it looks different later on TV. Long might have got a touch on the ball but it certainly looked like a foul at the time and TV is not clear. Benteke looks ofside but there is a trailing defender's foot there and his heel might just be playing Benteke onside. Close enough to be not conclusive anyway. Gabbiadini? Sometimes these players have been grabbing at each other's shirts and it ends up being a 'let it go' decision. I wouldn't call any of these decisions 'woeful' myself.