sadoldgit

Should add that we stayed in 5* hotels back then as the prices were very reasonable, (Peru close to being a third world country back then). We had a nice meal in Cusco in the hotel that John Peel died in a few weeks previously. Don’t worry, I don’t think it was as a result of the food. It’s quite high up there (oxygen cylinders on every floor in the hotels) so that is something else to factor in if altitude is a problem. I was 50 when I went but could struggle with some of the trips now I am in my 70’s. As well as Ollantaytambo, which I think is in the Sacred Valley, the Inca walls at Sacsayhuamān are worth a visit (near Cusco I think).

I went on a bespoke trip in 2004 and had a great time. Can’t remember many travel details other than we went via Amsterdam and Aruba. You can’t go wrong with the main tourist attractions although we included a flight to Iquitos and spent a few days in a lodge in the Amazon rainforest (maybe best avoid the Ayahuasca though!). Take plenty of Imodium. The food is interesting. I had alpaca (not a whole one) which was fine but passed on Guinea pig. We went on a lot of internal flights which were cheap (but that was over 20 years ago). A friend of mine who had contacts out there arranged the trip but I lost contact with her a while back so can’t help there. There are plenty of agencies who could help you put something bespoke together though. Have a great time!

There is a lot wrong with him. Go look up Mary Millington if you need more evidence. You don’t find many decent people making fortunes out of pimping and pornography.

I’m guessing but would assume that having interviewed the women and investigated it more than you or I, they think it worth pursuing. The bloke had a shit reputation as it is. He made his money through the sex trade.

It is like the hot girlfriend who delivers on all front but then lets herself go and you are glad to see the back of her but there is always that nagging doubt that she will turn into a hottie again with someone else down the line.

Some of our own fans were saying the same thing, along with losing our sponsors, but P & O are staying too!

Yep, it’s awesome when he runs 60 yards to tell someone their hair looks really cool! 😉

Is diving to get a penalty acting in good faith? Is pretending to be injured in order to get another player booked or sent off acting in good faith? Of course not but the worst you are likely to get is a yellow card, not a £200m sanction. Both actions are far more likely to effect the result of a game than spying too.

My spy was just as effective as Will Salt it seems. Spygate was mentioned in a few of the speeches. Roy Keane shed a few tears when he saw his daughter in her wedding dress and during his speech. No inside info about any intentions to move or not. I’m expecting to face EFL sanctions for this?

I had an insider at the wedding. I’ll see if I can get any info.

Numerous? 3. None of which were a big deal by all accounts. As has been said numerous times, a storm in a tea cup and has been blown out of all proportion.

So obvious that the EFL have them yet nobody else does? The principle is that you don’t spy yet it is common place on the continent and the EFL say it is okay so long as you don’t do it within 72 hours of a match? The game is the same the world over. Where is the consistency? There is none. The point I and others are trying to make is that it is a stupid rule and that to throw a club out of a competition for breaching a stupid rule is completely disproportionate to the offence. I know a few posters struggle to understand it but it really isn’t that hard. I am sure even Noddy Holder in his mirrored hat could understand it.

There has been a lot of talk about how EPL training grounds are hidden behind high walls etc., but there is absolutely nothing that says you can’t fly a drone or even an hot air balloon over the training grounds.

And yet if they did it would not be against the EPL rules.

No it has nothing to do with Spygate, other than demonstrating that a spying mission the day before a match might be just as pointless as one more than 72 hours before a match and therefore no big deal.

“They” being who exactly? We still don’t know who is responsible for what and when. We don’t know of any mitigating circumstances. We don’t know one side of the story but you would carry on regardless? The only thing we know for sure is that the club has held its hands up to spying on other clubs within the 72 hour rule on three occasions. Before anyone is found guilty and thrown under the bus, for want of a better term, I, and I am sure plenty of other people, want to hear what exactly happened and who is responsible from the club itself.

I couldn’t agree more. I can’t find an ounce of enthusiasm for this World Cup. Everything Trump touches turns to shit.

It doesn’t matter if the training is tactical or not. The rule is about observing training within 72 hours. They brought the rule in because of what Bielsa did and had to be seen to be doing something.

You mentioned cup competitions. You were not specific.

The poster said that if you do it in a knock out competition you get kicked out. The FA Cup is a knock out competition. If two EPL clubs play each other in the FA Cup and one “spies” on the other, do they get kicked out of the competition?

Yes you have, because most people see what has occurred as being a minor breach of a silly rule (remind me again how many times Leeds committed the same offence, a lot more than 3 wasn’t it?). The anger being expressed is because the punishment does not fit the crime. If you don’t understand that by now there is no helping you. *** If the shoe had been on the other foot and Gibson had apologised to Parsons under the same set of circumstances, given what we now know a Parsons being a decent guy, do you honestly believe that Parsons wouldn’t have accepted the apology and leave the matter there? As Tonda said, games are settled by what happens on the pitch. In this case, ours wasn’t.

Not if you do it in the FA Cup. The other rule broken was one of fair play which could apply in all instances of cheating and was probably the more serious given that we didn’t gain a significant advantage in all 3 matches mentioned. Stick fair play in after all future infringements and any team could be looking at expulsion. The main point remains. The punishment did not fit the crime. Any crimes committed in future will raise the question of the possibility of expulsion.

A bloke standing by a tree nearly seeing something. Where in the rule book does that say it was the crime of the century? Also you need to look up the word “systematically.” I don’t think doing something 3 times qualifies as being “systematic.” It looks like you have swallowed Gibbo’s guff hook, line and sinker.

Because they have set a precedent in giving a massive sentence for a minor breach of the rules.