Search results

I use that euphemism sometimes too.

Can't help but think you might turn this statement into a "I didn't vote for Truss - I'm not in her constituency. I voted Conservative" at the next election.

Even more worrying is she's supposed to be a qualified Chartered Management Accountant.

He's signed a contract OH NO HE HASN'T!

I disagree. The laws are wholly inadequate to deal with this problem and situations are far too open to interpretation for there to be any consistency.

Wouldn't it be better having the ball in play and teams trying to keep possession, which the opposition can try and prevent them doing, and run the clock down than ambling over to take a throw in or walking off the pitch slower than an octegenarian with a hip replacement when being subbed?

Something no-one noticed or cared about? Do you not read manager interviews/fan comments or listen to pundits? Always talking about whether too much/not enough time was added on, especially for timewasting. Complaining about players deliberately taking too much time over things and walking off...

Dress it up as taking back control and getting rid of foreign influence and control over British business and the rewards going to hardworking British people.

In years to come this may well end up like the goalkeeper handling a backpass. Loads of people said it'd make the game rubbish, now it'd be weird to change it back.

Because it stops all the nonsense about whether the correct amount of injury time was added on, it's stop timewasting for the purpose of running down the clock. 90mins of actual football you'd have a lot more injuries and games would take about 3 hours in total.

Not all, as has been mentioned they might want to disrupt play, but it would be a pointless thing to do to waste time. It could then be supplemented with a player not allowed back onto the pitch for 1 minute of game time to stop people doing it.

They wouldn't be playing an extra amount. The time would be 60mins with a stopped clock, equivalent to the amount of time a ball is in play under the current rules.

Agree entirely. It's a massive problem and one which could be largely fixed so easily.

Matches wouldn't be extended. Stuies have shwon that ball is in play for roughly 60mins out of 90, so make it 60mins stopped clock is no extra burden. If anything it'll speed it up a bit as a lot of the faffing around will no longer happen as there's little benefit to doing so (maybe trying to...

Absolutely. Would get about the same amount of game time and solve so many problems with time wasting, feigning injury, disputes over added time etc. Pretty much a no brainer really. Only reason I can see people objecting is a "we don't like change do we Deirdre" attitude.

It does seem both of them are pandering to the nutcases at the moment. I'm sure Grendel will be on here soon enough to castigate the policy seeing as it's pretty much as close to the way Communists tend to rule. Seems like he thinks the markets and rich people should be given the freedom to do...

And then Kick for Cash played with it afterwards.

Man Utd are one of the most hated here. Chelsea were after getting the Russian billions, ditto Man City with the Abu Dhabi cash. Newcastle aren't exactly popular after the Saudi's and that'll only grow if the start buying their way to the top.

It is a bit weird how people talk about the identity and how it'd be sacrilege to change it when most revere the man who changed our identity in the 1960's and consider him our finest manager. We're not Singers anymore. Or the Bantams. Our first kit was black. The badge changes subtly all the...