badgerx16

On the evidence of today's cameo, he wouldn't even justify being selected as an unused sub.

Yet, before the game, SKY said he never changed a match with his substitutions.

I don't think we will be in a relegation fight, but somebody needs to put a rocket up Puel's rear-end. The last couple of HOME games have shown very little fight, very little inspiration, and a team lacking cohesion. JWP comes across as one of the most overrated players in the Prem, where does his reputation come from ?

McQueen, Sims, Yoshida ?

Our midfield are too slow to get into the opposition area, we drop too deep instead of pressing them in the centre of the pitch. Defensively we have generally handled the usual Pulis style. I think FF is a bit short of confidence, but hasn't been as 'at fault' for several of the goals we have conceded as other posters seem to feel.

You are free to present your opinion, I am free to present mine.

Yoshi must be pleased that we seem to have a new scapegoat - all these goalkeepering experts on here ripping Fraser every match.

Yet you voted IN on the 'in or out' thread.

As long as we keep screwing them on price, it supports what some on here term our 'business model'. What if they open the bidding at £40million ?

He must have some good performances coming up then !

Berk.

I think I'll give the post-match thread a miss.

He was clearly moving to his left, the shot swung away to his right.

Want to try that again ?

VVD flat-footed and allowed the scorer to get on his 'wrong' side.

Other than 'Brexit means Brexit', what exactly is 'our hand' likely to be ? The UK voted to leave the EU, and the EEA option seems to be unacceptable due to the links to freedom of movement, so it wouldn't need the best brains on the EU side to work out our 'worst case acceptable position'. Any idea what the EU's 'hand' might be, are they likely to show it in advance ?

As you have as little idea about where we will be in 5 years time as anybody else, epecially those doing our Brexit negotiations, can I suggest you keep your powder dry. You may yet find the schadenfreude heading your way.

Problem is, we will probably have to wait 10 years to find out whether Brexit was a good idea or not. This thread has the potential to surpass the Pompey Takeover epic.

( Some people need to take a chill pill. This is hardly an appropriate exchange for such a thread. ) Best wishes Carrie.

http://nato.gov.si/eng/topic/national-security/neutral-status/neutral-countries/ "Neutral European countries: Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Ireland" Finland derives its policy of neutrality from the period directly following the Second World War. Its interest in remaining neutral in conflicts between great powers was first recognised in a treaty between Finland and the USSR in 1948 (the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance). The treaty forbids the signatories to join a military alliance against the other, and Finland could not allow its territory to be used for an attack on the USSR. Finland was also bound to preserve its neutrality through adequate armed forces. Finland's neutrality does not have roots in international law, and there are no international pledges for its neutrality. Thus Finland, like Austria, is a case of enforced neutrality, again by the USSR.

And hardly a 'wise' one.

Obviously a glitch in the 'black box'.

Whilst their Government maintained an ostensibly neutral stance, about 100,000 Irish Republic citizens fought for the British armed forces in WW2, with nearly 5000 dead. Plus, there was a lot of less overt assistance from the Irish authorities relating to convoy routes and air transport / reconnaisance corridors, etc.

But, didn't we send Tommy Fourpast in the other direction ?

Fonte replacement ?