egg

A few points: 1. Show me where THE CLUB have made promises (or something close to it) that it hasn't kept. Please spare me one of your 47 paragraph essays, just a link will do. If you link me to an article in the press, please remember that it's a fact that journalists publish rumours, it's what they do. 2. Please explain (as per Lighthouse sensible post) why a football club would ask a journalist to write an untruthful statement that the club is trying to sign a certain player. It makes no sense whatsoever. How does it benefit the club or its fans? 3. Not getting targets over the line is a football reality; it doesn't suggest a broken "promise". 4. You mention my previous knowledge of financial facts as a criticism. I'm not sure what point you're making, but tell me how it's a negative that in the past (not recently, I have no current information) that I have posted from a position of knowledge rather than just guessing/speculating as per. It's obvious that you know feck all but you insist on telling everyone, at ridiculous length, what you don't know.

I'd wandered what had happened to him, hadn't realised he's on loan.

Post a link to where the club has promised something that it hasn't delivered. I don't mean a telegraph article that you believe comes from the club, I mean something from the club.

Agreed. It's illogical that the club would make up false transfer rumours then leak them to the press and I can't believe that people really think that happens. To do so would achieve nothing other than upset fans when the rumours don't materialise. Newspapers have printed groundless / made up rumours for years. Nothing to see as far as I'm concerned.

1. Forster.....Celtic 2. O'Connor - Gillingham 3. Johnson - Woking 4. Reed.......Fulham. 5. Jones......Gillingham.. 6. Hoedt......Antwerp 7. Elonouyssi.. Celtic. 8. Hesketh - Lincoln 9. Carillo.......Leganes 10. Lemina....Galatasery . 11. Barnes....Eastleigh. Found the last one, Tyreke Johnson at Woking, has played LB once too. Sh1te team, but a whole team out on loan.

1. Forster.....Celtic 2. O'Connor - Gillingham 3. - 4. Reed.......Fulham. 5. Jones......Gillingham.. 6. Hoedt......Antwerp 7. Elonouyssi.. Celtic. 8. Hesketh - Lincoln 9. Carillo.......Leganes 10. Lemina....Galatasery . 11. Barnes....Eastleigh. Slightly rejigged but I can't think of another to fill the last place.

Agreed. Our sports science guys need to take a bow. The full backs, Hoj and especially JWP, have worked ridiculously hard over this period and have looked fresh throughout. Moreover, Ings has stayed injury free and looked strong when played. Newcastle have lost loads of players to hamstrings which is largely avoidable with the right training, recovery, stretching, pilates, etc.

Very young team out to I. L'undulu back from injury and on the bench. https://mobile.twitter.com/SouthamptonFC/status/1214245246852354053/photo/1

We currently have an arrangement with Monster Energy. This could be as simple as us looking to shift that arrangement to Red Bull. Sure, there's the possibility of a much bigger relationship such as shirt and/or sponsorship, but ask yourselves what red bull would get out of buying us and sponsoring our shirts and stadium that they would get from not buying us but just sponsoring our shirts and stadium. At most it'll be an Arsenal/Emirates arrangement I reckon.

Your point was that people choose their religion. They do not choose it if it is imposed upon them when they are unable to freely choose, ie a child who is indoctrinated at a young age. Sure, they may subsequently abandon that religion, but if one is pedantic (as per), then it is wrong to say that religion is chosen - you are confusing the initial adoption of imposed religion with the freely chosen adoption / retention.

New energy drink supplier perhaps.

Smallbone is more attack minded but before his injury was playing more of a general cm role. I'd be surprised if he was pushed out wide so my guess is 433 with Smallbone being allowed to play his natural game.

Sensible from Ralph. Plenty of experience in that team, an opportunity for fringe players, and starts for Smallbone and Vokins.

Not necessarily. Many people are pushed into a religion at a young age and before they can decide for themselves.

Because what I believe has nothing to do with you. Live and let live.

I know!! I'm going out, enough of this ****.

You're moving your own goalposts. Your position is that the state of Israel and subsequent events came about cos people (not the Jews) created a reality to tie in with the bible.

This is tedious. You're a self proclaimed atheist. I'm not. I've said that I respect your view, and that I'm not here to justify my view. There is nothing more to say mate.

I'm saying that I don't have a theory on whether the realised events flowing from the prophecies were a) Bible predictions coming true because of some divine intervention or b) people working backwards to fulfil a prophecy or c) coincidence. I repeat that I can see how people could see a), b) and c) all as being far fetched but that I don't buy into this MLG idea that the whole Israel thing (it's creation and growth) has come about cos a group of blokes picked up the bible and said "we have to make it look like that".

1. Bingo. That's the million dollar question Matthew, which is more far fetched? The answer is entirely subjective and entirely free of evidence in my opinion. On your point, I agree that man created Israel in that it approved the idea, supplied the money, and bricks and mortar. It's a country. A physical entity. Of course it wasn't created by osmosis. Your idea, however, that the concept and subsequent events have happened because man wanted the reality to fall in line with prophecies in a book is a concept I can't buy into. 2. Mate, you're the man who says there's no such thing as an agnostic. As I say, be what you want, makes no odds to me. 3. That's a lot of words to say "I'm right, they're wrong, and I'll keep hammering my point home". Describing people's opinions as "irrational" hardly suggests that you buy into the "live and let live" concept.

If ever there was proof of God...or the devil.

Mate, we're never going to agree on this, but I repeat that I consider it far fetched that when creating the state of Israel that man whipped out the bible and worked backwards to what was written; that man then went out of its way to create the mess that is the middle east; and planted various foreign forces on its northern border just to fulfil a prophecy. If you want to believe that, cool, but I don't. Re atheism/agnostic. There's a debate about whether needing to be convinced about God by evidence makes one agnostic or atheist. There is also a school of thought that belief in a God but not a defined religion or holy scripture makes one an atheist. You can be whatever you want, makes no odds to me. On the lattervpoint, other people can be what they want and believe what they want. Live and let live pal.

I'm not here to tell you what you are, no more than you can expect people to agree with what believe / don't, but ^^^^ up there somewhere you said that you needed evidence to believe thus by my understanding that's the definition of an agnostic. The interpretation of atheism is a whole new subject, but if you want to be one of them instead, knock yourself out. Of course man created man made things!! Nobody is claiming otherwise. The point you make is that man created a whole nation (Israel) and made it a mega power cos man wanted its creation to tie in with the Bible prophecies. As I say, all options seem far fetched but I can't believe world powers sat down after ww2 and said "about this Jewish state, let's have a look at the bible and do what it said in there". Is that really what you're saying?

Mate, I'm not debating the former with you, and certainly so need to justify myself to you. You're an agnostic, I'm not, so let's leave it there. Re the latter, it's been done to death on this thread. Again, you have a view and there are other views. Personally, I can't see any options other than the 3 that I have outlined. People are entitled to believe in any of them, neither of them, or something else. I respect people's individual opinions on such a thorny and individual subject.

You're fusing 2 different subjects. God, and the Bible. I have a belief in the former, but find the latter hard to believe in many respects - the concept of a virgin birth being one - but whether the realised events flowing from the prophecies were a) predictions coming true or b) people working backwards to fulfil a prophecy or c) complete coincidence is a matter of opinion. I can see how people could see a), b) and c) all as being far fetched. Whilst I don't have a firm view on how it is that certain prophecies have come true, the great intellectual Einstein once said "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous", or to put it another way, coincidences are gods calling cards. Whatever anyone thinks, the bloke who formed the theory of relativity was no mug.