stevegrant

Swansea have already demonstrated their ability to lose to non-league teams, having lost to Havant & Waterlooville last season - if I were Histon, I'd be quite happy with that draw.

Sorry, I was really busy at the end of last week, at Charlton yesterday and mostly in bed today with a ****ty cold... basically what is happening is the following: 1. Normal registered members will be able to vote in polls. 2. Full Members will be able to create polls on a number of forums. It won't be implemented right across the board because some forums simply don't need polls and one or two will just have the privilege abused by certain people. For example, The Lounge will have polls, but the Muppet Show won't. If I'm feeling better tomorrow, I'll try to get it all done then.

That would be the same Skacel who is, er, playing in the first team, I presume?

Probably the most cost-effective solution, IMO.

WTF? :shock: I've got one Sky+ box on the all-singing, all-dancing package, and that's £47 per month. As far as I'm aware, multiroom costs £10 per month per extra box, so I think you should only be paying £57 per month. Having said that, the £10 multiroom might only apply if you only have a basic package on the second box... By the look of it, you'd be best off putting it all in together with Sky, whose broadband service is generally rated among the best in the country. There are various discounts to be had from them for having TV + broadband + home phone (and various combinations of two of the three) with Sky. Virgin do similar deals, but you need to be in an area that can receive cable.

Christ, that's a VERY recent bandwagon he's jumped on!

I'm not bitter at all. PFC has earnt (albeit in a totally skewed debt-ridden market) the right to compete on that stage (just like we've done on many occasions in the past), and I don't blame Pompey fans for making the most of it. I'd be surprised if things ever get any better than the prestige of last night for Pompey (or any middling-sized club), so make the most of it.

He's still got to find the top corner from 25 yards. Anywhere else and James probably saves it. Fantastic defending for the equaliser as well, by the way. 2nd minute of injury time, I know, we'll leave their centre-forward, who has given us a torrid time all evening, completely unmarked in the penalty area - the only part of the pitch where he's useful.

Bournemouth came back from a 2-goal deficit in the last 10 minutes of their last away game as well...

I came in here to say that. To be fair, still a great result. Also still ****ing funny

I'll withhold my response to that until the final whistle...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7724084.stm 140,000 added to the unemployed list between July and September (presumably more than that actually lost a job during that time as some from the previous list will have begun a new job in that period), and considering the real **** has only hit the fan publicly since September, I'd imagine that figure's risen again.

It's really nothing major

Should have a couple of additions/changes in place by the weekend along these lines.

4-1, I reckon if Adams - as expected - plays a weakened team. To be fair, we've always milked any praise given to us in the past, so I don't begrudge them their evening tonight. Remember the fuss people made over our 2003 Cup Final appearance, despite (IMO) the atmosphere actually being a bit rubbish (and the team's tactics basically conceding defeat from kick-off), and the 2000-odd turnout in Bucharest... it'll be no different, really. Redknapp's not involved anymore, so it makes it slightly more bearable for me. That said, Pompey fans would do well to take note of everything that's happened to us since Bucharest 2003 - it could very easily happen to them in the not-too-distant future. If people think a £25m debt in the Championship is unmanageable, how about contemplating £100m (and rising), which is the reality Pompey face right now...

I really didn't understand the logic in dropping Bell to bring in the most non-one-day player England has available at the moment in Alastair Cook. Cook is a fine Test batsman, but that is down to his fantastic temperament and concentration, two qualities that aren't quite so important in the shorter form of the game. I've got no problem with Shah batting down the order - he's made his runs in this series from that position. He might not be so effective at 3 or 4. I'd like to see us *really* take advantage of the powerplay overs by putting KP and perhaps Bopara, if you're going to select him, at the top of the innings with Bell, Flintoff, Shah, Swann, whoever they select as keeper and Broad making up the top 8. The other three should be bona fide front-line bowlers. I thought Harmison bowled reasonably well yesterday, Flintoff's an all-rounder and I genuinely believe Stuart Broad should be classified as one as well. That leaves two bowling spots, but who to choose is a bit of a lottery. With the exception of Flintoff (and Broad to a lesser extent), we don't have anyone who is a genuinely world-class ODI bowler. We have plenty of fantastic Test bowlers, but it's a completely different environment in ODIs. I'm not sure whether Collingwood should be picked solely on the strength of his ability at backward point either, I'd like to think we have other players who are good enough fielders to fill that gap.

For which the government (whether it be under a Labour or Conservative leadership) is well known for it's "efficient" use of funds...

Fail. (link doesn't work)

159/3, Sehwag out for 91 to an apparently abysmal LBW decision. Oh well

He got a 3-match ban for punching Robin van Persie in the stomach which was missed by the referee but needless to say picked up by every conceivable camera angle in the ground. Predictably enough, everyone was treated to the usual "he's not that sort of player" rhetoric from his manager. "Chris is a great leader, a great skipper and a first-class lad too. We know it and they know it at Barnsley" were Kevin Blackwell's exact words. Classy, I'm sure you'll agree. Here's what Martin Samuel had to say on it a week or so ago. While a lot of the stuff he writes is toe-curling (his unhealthy obsession of everything connected with Frank Lampard as one example), he's absolutely spot on here.

Chris Morgan of Sheffield United elbowed Iain Hume of Barnsley in the head, who was stretchered off with a fractured skull. He now has a scar about an inch thick and ten inches long across one side of his head as a result of emergency surgery performed on the injury. Unfortunately, the referee (Andy D'Urso) showed Morgan a yellow card for the offence at the time, and because of this, the FA have hidden behind the "can't upgrade a yellow card unless there is conclusive proof that there was intent to harm the opponent" excuse. However, it holds very little water with me (and most observers, by the look of various forums where it's been discussed), and the reason for that is this: quite often, elbows to the head occur when a player is jumping for the ball, so it's claimed that the elbow just happens to be there for leverage, as the arms naturally wave about all over the place when you jump. Fair enough, in my opinion. However, on this occasion, you can clearly see from the replay that Morgan's feet are planted firmly on the ground, so there is absolutely no reason for his elbow to be where it is - and particularly to make contact with Hume's head with that amount of force - unless there is clear intent. What makes it worse is that Hume allegedly had been pointing out to Andy D'Urso throughout the game that Morgan was constantly elbowing him and asked him to look out for it. Hunt wasn't booked for the incident (here's the match report), and the FA didn't take any further action because there was absolutely no way anybody could prove that it was intentional. His defence would clearly be that the ball was there to be won and momentum carried his knee through accidentally. Dermot Gallagher only gave Thatcher a yellow card at the time, which is why it's been used as a comparison with the Morgan incident, because the FA used the "conclusive proof that he intended to harm the opponent" rule to override their "can't upgrade a yellow card" policy.

Clearly the better side in the first half, clearly knackered in the second half. Let's make it clear though, Plymouth are no mugs, they've got a very good away record (15 points from 10 games) and when they've got Paul Gallagher in the side they look a very decent side. If we'd taken one of the chances that came our way in the first half, I think the sheer adrenaline would have carried us through for a win, but the longer we went without scoring the greater the frustration and that saps energy from the best of them.

Hardly surprising. I think this was initially mooted by Platini a few weeks ago because it's basically the only conceivable way under EU law that English football could be placed under restrictions that would prevent it being such a dominant force. Needless to say, it won't ever happen.

Which is exactly right. They provide sufficient carriages, within reason and allowing for platform sizes etc, to take as many people as possible on the busiest routes. If a train has 12 coaches but is still packed, there's not an awful lot they can do about it.

Who'd have thought it, the FA in "spineless ******s" shocker. They were happy to ignore their own rules when Ben Thatcher nearly cut Pedro Mendes in two a couple of years back, but presumably because this one happened in the Championship which doesn't generate anywhere near as much revenue for the FA, they've hidden behind their "once the referee has dealt with it (so long as it's not a straight red card, as those could affect John Terry), we can't intervene" rule.