egg

Err, that's beyond ridiculous! She sold up. That's a bit different to smashing it up.

You mean a comparison between the sale of an asset and the sale of an asset, and the obligations thereafter of the seller in both scenarios? The only difference is the ridiculous feeling of entitlement of the fans that populate this forum.

Kats club was her asset, not a community one. Our fans have become too expectant. That all said, Kat may have been assured by Gao that he would deliver the earth, and may be as disappointed as the rest of us that it's gone the way it has. The point though is that she had no obligation to the fans or the community, and has no responsibility for the future.

Let me get this clear. You honestly think that when kat sold up that she was responsible for ensuring that Gao thereafter invested in the growth of the club? Really? That's like selling a house, expecting the buyer to build an extension, and then popping round to check that he's done it. Ridiculous.

Unreal. ''You can't blame the fans for putting their trust in her''. She's a woman who owned a business and sold it. We're the customer's, nothing more, and she owed us fans no duty of care. Gao looks to be useless so vent your spleen at him, but that ain't Kat's fault.

We don't know what options she had. She was a seller, he was a buyer, she took his cash. End of. My dad passed a car down to me once. I didn't really want it but I kept it a while feeling it the right thing to do. I sold it a few years later. I didn't ask the fella whether he could afdord to maintain it, service it, wash it, pimp it up, or if he just wanted to let it rot. I to his money, that's what seller's do.

Mr Gratitude eh. She could have sold us to the highest bidder at the earliest opportunity. She didn't, but its obvious that there would come a time when she wanted out. People take the view that she sold us down the river but who's to say that this wasn't the best deal for the club? Sure, Gao seems to be a man of straw, but that's hardly Kat's fault.

Del, the spending of Newcastle has got to nothing to do with our ability to spend. Pointless point. Do you really take as gospel what you read as gospel on that website? It's made up figures based on unpublished transfer deals and agents fees. I mean, Cardiff were never going to say publicly that the £15m Sala fee actually cost them £25m were they. It probably doesn't suit your agenda to concede that we haven't got any money to spend but if you put that agenda to one side, its pretty easy to see that we haven't.

Without a doubt. At least one other political player will come from this. The demise of the lib dems, then ukip, and new labour's move to a confused mess, has left all sorts of voids on the political landscape.

So the fella with an ego leaked about a fella with an ego?

What's the basis of all this 'ego' talk? It just seems to be an opinion formed by people on here.

Seems that Cardiff have no intention of paying anytime soon, and will wriggle if they can. Pretty disgraceful imo. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47213352

Silly question. I would not want FF as our back up keeper under any circumstances.

Err, so you'd have had Mccarthy playing all cup games too, with FF on the bench? What would have happened if/when McCarthy got injured - would you really be OK with FF stepping up? I wouldn't.

Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.

I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.

Quite.

He was excellent but you're a whiny tool.

What's the basis for the suggestion that either a) Fraser is or has been unwell, and b) that he's taken a pay cut. Or is it baseless SaintsWeb b0ll0x?

Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

That's probably right but if nothing will actually happen from 30/3 if there's no backstop, it makes the EU's lack of flexibility on the backstop issue a farce. In May's shoes I'd call their bluff - be sensible on the backstop or it defaults to no deal and we won't impose a border. The ROI won't implement one.

I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen. Will Britain impose a hard border? If not, will the ROI? If not, will the EU? My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.

So what does Trimble say wi actually happen if we leave on 29 March without a deal? There will be no backstop. We (Britain) will not implement a hard border. What actually happens on that situation? Do the ROI or EU impose a hard border in contravention of the GFA?

Thanks, and that's how I see it.

Can someone please help me with a basic that I appear to have missed. As things stand we leave on 29 March on wto terms / no deal. The main issue with the May deal is the backstop / Irish border. I get all of that. I also get that the EU say that if there is no deal then there will have to be a hard Irish border, but that conflicts with the GFA. However, what I do not understand is what the ROI / EU will actually do if we go on 29 March with no deal. If we say, nah we aint imposing a border cos of the GFA, what then happens? Who imposes the likely ill fated border? Surely not the Irish who want a united Ireland.