DuncanRG

We can be relieved we don't have to watch too many games like that. We could have been a lot bolder but hey, if you're going to defend, do it well.

Not sure how you've squared this one. Are they glory hunters or stuck in the 1980s, the last time they had that much glory?

Of course, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with Les Reed doing interviews.

How many goals do we need to score for Les Reed to give an interview?

Of course it's rehashed, but it's probably for the biggest broadcaster on earth to judge who cares. They wouldn't keep writing it if no one did. I do sometimes wonder what this big negative angle is that all the reporters are missing. Access-based football journalism is not in a good state but the fact that we're, y'know, a good club and things are going well for us does contribute to positive coverage.

Don't think Ed Woodward's sat refreshing BBC Sport, mate!

It really doesn't! Unless you think he's been making these pleas for the years he's been contributing to these sorts of pieces. It's for the BBC, not Saints r Us. The most interesting nugget for me (that we'd been watching Tadic since 2010) is the least interesting thing for almost everyone else. If any of us read a feature on, say, Crystal Palace or Swansea, we'd learn things that their fans are sick to death of reading. That said I would like to read more about how our academy targets have moved and changed over the last few years, how much each manager could and did affect things on that front.

Seems unlikely as those other fixtures have been set for a while now and it's not been picked for TV. But with the Premier League you never know...

I didn't, Batman said that. He couldn't predict the behaviour of Congress. But even if it was a lie, it doesn't compare to the daily lies told by Trump, and by suggesting they're 'all the same' you're absolving Trump.

There's a difference between a lie and an unfulfilled promise. Obama believed he could close Guantanamo, tried and failed. Trump, on the other hand, told falsehoods every single day of the campaign. You can't equivocate the two.

No, he's clearly not, but he's suggesting he is. He's a liar, you see. As I say, the bit about criminality is misleading. I believe it's being used to give a false impression that these people are robbers and rapists. There is nothing wrong with immigration enforcement but I believe in limited amnesty because deportation tears apart families and damages children who are not responsible for the actions of their parents.

It's actually more than Obama managed in his first six years (2.4m) - and Trump wants to do it "immediately". One assumes there will be many after that. Also worth noting that the reported Obama statistics include blocking people at the border, but Trump is only talking about taking people out of America or jailing them. The bit about criminal records is disingenuous as well. There aren't three million illegal immigrants with criminal records - for the vast majority their only crime is emigrating and they have no record. Trump wants to give the impression that these people have committed other crimes - "they're rapists" and all that.

What evidence do you have for that? Again, I have seen very few dispute the outcome, only dispute Trump's views, actions and policies. That must continue.

What's more complicated is whether he's adequate replacement. I'm not sure.

In fairness, delays aren't only down to the powers that be. Some Hillsborough families are set against it, which makes it politically difficult for Liverpool and indeed the government, should a law change be required.

Has this really not happened yet?! Wow

Of course not - I get that impression from Lord Duckhunter's wider outlook and postings on the subject.

I've hardly seen anyone disputing the result, though you have to expect some discontent when Clinton won the popular vote. People will continue to oppose Trump's bigotry. The only reason you dislike that, it seems, is that you support Trump. Justify that instead of targeting his opponents.

I think their fears about being tarnished will have been eased by the results. Trump didn't hurt the party down-ticket, and he was elected on extreme and untenable policy.

Nope. He's 31.

Can you name any teams as good as us that have ever been relegated? We are light years ahead of Hull and got beaten, just like we've beaten Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea in the past.

This too.

And the emails aren't even a scandal, just a storm in a teacup. Thank you for this. I fully understand why an America hungry for change is unimpressed by a Clinton candidacy, but she is good and her election should be a proud moment in America's history. People who equivocate her with Trump are trying really, really hard to justify their refusal to support a woman or establishment figure. The mental gymnastics involved are quite incredible.

You said he hinders us on the counter as well, which I think is particularly daft. He often starts counter attacks by picking the ball up and turning on the centre circle, even if he doesn't finish them. You may have a point about needing more creativity against brick-wall teams, but it's only our ability to move and protect the ball which allow us to camp in the opposition half. He can't sacrifice his job to do the job of attackers.

Actually, he's a nasty piece of work as well...so maybe not.