stknowle

The very fact we are talking about the ref's performance tells you all you need to know about the magnitude of wanker that Mike Dean is.

Nice one. An excellent display that you worried would be undone by our usual failure to turn possession into chances and chances into goals. Armstrong I thought was great, Salisu really encouraging despite a couple of iffy moments, Forster looks like a new man (unhesitating well timed charge off the line to clear the ball, WTAF), and Tella showed in his brief cameo tonight why the club rate him and most on here haven't in his appearances so far. MOM for me though has to be Moss - a considered, uncontroversial, non-look-at-me-I-AM-IN-CHARGE, let the game flow performance from a ref who has previously demonstrated himself to be a bit incompetent but who ruled it fantastically tonight and - crucially - was big enough to accept when he'd got something wrong.

G T. F I. Superb from Tells snd Armstrong.

Kin ell Redmond.

Whilst that was silly I generally like the look of Salisu

How refreshing

Fair point, I have absolutely no idea how the sell on clause in DI's contract is structured (or even if there is one). I'd always assumed these things were based on a flat percentage of whatever the player gets sold on for, certainly would have thought that's what the original selling club would be looking for.

How does Liverpool having a sell on clause benefit us? Are you suggesting that it will spur us on to agreeing a higher fee than we otherwise would have done with whoever we sell him to and it is therefore a good thing that a sell on clause was inserted into his contract?

You've answered your own mystery. He looks ok for Celtic because he is playing in a 1 star league. He looked shit for us because he was attempting to play in arguably the most competitive league in the world. I don't really know much about what he's done in Scotland, I do know he was off-the-stratosphere shit for us. And before anyone asks - no I did not realise I was answering a post from 3 months ago when I wrote that.

I think the answer to that question is probably no.

And the last goal he conceded was spectacularly crap, stupid hospital pass followed by being far too easily beaten at his near post. Let's see how Fraser gets on against Wolves, if he does well I think it might be time to change it up.

Palarse LOL!!!

You selling it Vince? PM if so.

Nice first couple of posts. Tip - there is usually a thread about the team we most recently played which negates the need to start a new one with the name of said team as the title of the new thread. (Winky smiler emoji)

Generally agree, he isn't at his best though. First chance he had yesterday his touch took him too narrow and gave Darlow a far easier save than it should have been. Last season the touch is tighter and he smacks it straight in.

People who use the initial of their 2nd name in their signatures. Jack P Shepherd.

Just seen it, so blindingly obvious it was accidental and not even slightly, vaguely malicious in any way whatsoever. And yet the wanker gave it.

The player that is 'fouled' admits that it wasn't a foul and tells Dean it wasn't a foul. Why would he do that if it was a foul? But twat-features' arrogance won't allow him to listen to anyone else - HE WILL DECIDE - if anything being told that probably made him more determined to give it as a foul.

Nice one pal . Reassuring to know. Notwithstanding the point we were arguing about having been long forgotten. Nighty night

Ye? You absolutely sure pal?

But were we though?

We only have slow defenders. Vest makes Bedders snd Stephens look like Carl Lewis and Linford Christie and he’s our best defender........LOL(?)

Yeah agree absolutely ref the third goal. It’s looked inevitable all season we are going to get caught out by the playing around at the back bit. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, generally it’s good - shows we are in charge, confident - but FMOB it’s not always the right approach ffs. His foot goes through that ball and we do not concede. Simple. Even after that Bertrand’s foot goes through it and we don’t concede. So that’s a point thrown down the drain regardless of our hopeless inability to break teams down.

There were large amounts of standing water on the pitch when we conceded our goals (particularly the third). Why was that so difficult for us to cope with Matthew, and with 11 men on the pitch?