brommy

I think that's probably pretty relevant to the story, though if it's true they had flares then they are words removed for not making any mention of it in a derogatory fashion. Either way, we can't really have much to complain about considering those bellend Villa fans invaded the pitch with minutes still left on the clock, so what do you expect? I think people are looking for some perspective from the media in regard to a very foolish but relatively small and quick celebratory pitch invasion that was a couple of minutes too early and was followed by a mass celebration on the pitch after the match had finished. The media seem to have bound both incursions together under the 'disgrace' category; criticising the after match celebration as a potential danger to the players (although it would appear from video evidence that some of the the wba players were more dangerous than the happy fans). I haven't yet seen any media outlets criticising the Reading pitch invasion, complete with flares on the pitch, as a potential danger to the players. Much like decent refereeing, most people prefer consistency from the public media. I wonder, when the FA fine Villa for the pitch invasions (as they should, at least for the invasion during the game), will the fine be broken down into a penalty for the invasion during the match (£150k for example) and a fine for after the match (£50k for example)? If so will the FA fine Reading a similar amount for their invasion at the final whistle? It will be interesting to see what happens.

Fixed.

She sounds like a sore loser.

I am very slightly 'ITK' and whilst I am never likely to ever know any technical 'advantage' information (or reveal it if I did!), I do know that Mercedes F1 have been working shifts to cover their research, development, manufacturing and technical support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In contrast, the last I heard, Renault were working normal midweek daytime shifts, rarely working on Saturdays and never working on Sundays.

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop.Spot onBetween the 'could's and 'if' that clearly didn't actually happen, thus negating any need or right for the FA to order a replay, what part of nazfc's post is 'spot on'? Even given the thought of nazfc's work colleague!And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. The blame for a pitch invasion remains clearly with the people who invaded the pitch, so why state the obvious? because the obvious to some...is not necessarily the obvious to others....as,has clearly been illustrated by the perpetrators Who on earth has said the pitch invaders were not to blame for the pitch invasion? People may have said there were circumstances that may have contributed to an increased desire to celebrate on the pitch, such as a late kick-off on a non-workday, but I haven't seen anyone say that absolves any blame. Hopefully our fantastic win today will steer the media away from hysteria regarding pitch celebrations.

What was the response? Read somewhere that he can play on Saturday and the case will be heard on Monday with the late reply. I suspected they knew requesting a personal hearing at the last possible hour would mean the charge could not be dealt with before their home game against Stoke. Better to have a first-teamer banned against Man City away than a more winnable game at home to Stoke.

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. Spot on Between the 'could's and 'if' that clearly didn't actually happen, thus negating any need or right for the FA to order a replay, what part of nazfc's post is 'spot on'? Even given the thought of nazfc's work colleague! And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. The blame for a pitch invasion remains clearly with the people who invaded the pitch, so why state the obvious?

So he can be replaced by someone else that some Villa fans think is crap and can do a better job themselves? I hear Clarkson might be available. No, just by someone who can commentate, interview and brush his hair. I dislike most football commentary; at least Jack's is a bit eccentric. Interviews with footballers are always bland because most footballers don't converse well or are aware of the restrictions they operate under. Little point in asking anything taxing or controversial.I don't care what any bloke's hair looks like. You have never watched Stuart Pearce or Steve Claridge on your screen and wanted to punch your television? Just me then. From something they've said, possibly. From the state of their hair 'do', no.

Leo the Lion.

So he can be replaced by someone else that some Villa fans think is crap and can do a better job themselves? I hear Clarkson might be available. No, just by someone who can commentate, interview and brush his hair. I dislike most football commentary; at least Jack's is a bit eccentric. Interviews with footballers are always bland because most footballers don't converse well or are aware of the restrictions they operate under. Little point in asking anything taxing or controversial. I don't care what any bloke's hair looks like.

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. No excuse whatsoever for doing that. FA are within thier rights to replay. The ref could have abandoned the game. Someone at work mentioned that if pulis had called his team to walk off once the fans came on the pitch the ref could have abandoned the game. Spot on Between the 'could's and 'if' that clearly didn't actually happen, thus negating any need or right for the FA to order a replay, what part of nazfc's post is 'spot on'? Even given the thought of nazfc's work colleague!

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. No excuse whatsoever for doing that. FA are within thier rights to replay. The ref could have abandoned the game. Someone at work mentioned that if pulis had called his team to walk off once the fans came on the pitch the ref could have abandoned the game. The ref made the correct decision to identify the pitch invasion in the 93rd minute as little or no threat to his staff or the players and, after a short pause, successfully continued the game to its conclusion. What makes you think the 'FA are within thier [sic] rights to replay'? It would appear that some are remembering the short interruption during the added time of the match as if it were the mass invasion that happened after the match had finished. For the former, the club should (and will) be fined. For the later, the club should be reminded of its duty towards stadium safety, even given the mitigating (celebratory) circumstances. As for the need, or 'right' to replay - no chance. Any talk of a replay actually happening is OTT and a purely knee-jerk reaction to the media hype. Better to never make a decision based on media hype, in my opinion. In fact, I'm even slightly disappointed in myself in giving talk of a replay any thought at all. I would be interested to know what your stance was on the subject In what respect? Whether you think running on the pitch is ok or not ok I do not think running on the pitch is okay.

Let Qatar bid for the game and play it in July. Hundreds have died building their stadiums so they shouldn't be too disgusted with the prospect of a celebratory pitch invasion, or two.

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. No excuse whatsoever for doing that. FA are within thier rights to replay. The ref could have abandoned the game. Someone at work mentioned that if pulis had called his team to walk off once the fans came on the pitch the ref could have abandoned the game. The ref made the correct decision to identify the pitch invasion in the 93rd minute as little or no threat to his staff or the players and, after a short pause, successfully continued the game to its conclusion. What makes you think the 'FA are within thier [sic] rights to replay'? It would appear that some are remembering the short interruption during the added time of the match as if it were the mass invasion that happened after the match had finished. For the former, the club should (and will) be fined. For the later, the club should be reminded of its duty towards stadium safety, even given the mitigating (celebratory) circumstances. As for the need, or 'right' to replay - no chance. Any talk of a replay actually happening is OTT and a purely knee-jerk reaction to the media hype. Better to never make a decision based on media hype, in my opinion. In fact, I'm even slightly disappointed in myself in giving talk of a replay any thought at all. I would be interested to know what your stance was on the subject In what respect?

Apparently it will be played behind closed doors at a secret location in Antarctica. The FA are currently busy trying to find doors to close... somewhere near the North Pole.

And the blame lies with all those dickheads who encroached on the pitch before the final whistle and caused the game to stop. No excuse whatsoever for doing that. FA are within thier rights to replay. The ref could have abandoned the game. Someone at work mentioned that if pulis had called his team to walk off once the fans came on the pitch the ref could have abandoned the game. The ref made the correct decision to identify the pitch invasion in the 93rd minute as little or no threat to his staff or the players and, after a short pause, successfully continued the game to its conclusion. What makes you think the 'FA are within thier [sic] rights to replay'? It would appear that some are remembering the short interruption during the added time of the match as if it were the mass invasion that happened after the match had finished. For the former, the club should (and will) be fined. For the later, the club should be reminded of its duty towards stadium safety, even given the mitigating (celebratory) circumstances. As for the need, or 'right' to replay - no chance. Any talk of a replay actually happening is OTT and a purely knee-jerk reaction to the media hype. Better to never make a decision based on media hype, in my opinion. In fact, I'm even slightly disappointed in myself in giving talk of a replay any thought at all.

So he can be replaced by someone else that some Villa fans think is crap and can do a better job themselves? I hear Clarkson might be available.

It can't have taken Brunt and his advisors more than a few minutes to decide what course they were taking after he was charged early on Tuesday morning, so why wait three working days before responding in the last hour or so before he had to respond this evening?

Quality backdrop - I've had the same bath towel for the past 20+ years!

In the 2 seconds it took for Sinclair to cut inside and take a couple touches, I thought he'd lost his goal chance. Staring down from the Upper Holte, I was starting to think 'oh FFS' just as the ball left his boot. Seeing the ball curl into the net was fantastic and shows what I know about having to shoot early. Well done Scott, long may you continue to produce for our club.

If Jim can adapt, you will be fine.

Wrong thread? #rattlerattlejewelleryjewellery

Is there any pattern of whether the bigger* semi-final is played on the Saturday or Sunday? * bigger in the opinion of the national media, eg. Manu vs Plop instead of Villa vs Reading.

Gabby appears to be hated by boggie fans and their players weren't enamoured either, thus Gabby was worth his starting place in both games. That Gabby caused difficulties and damage to olbiyun shows how insightful their fans and players are and it was a welcome bonus. Nice one, Gabby!

Who do you think represents the interests of the British Public more? In my opinion they are both deeply flawed but at least the broadcasters are attempting to engineer what approximately 70% of the british public want to see (according to recent independent polls). Can anyone explain what DC and his advisors are running scared of? If agreed by at least 4 of the 7 proposed party leaders, I would run the 3 debates as proposed by the 4 main broadcasters. I would also give the Prime Minister every possible opportunity to change his mind if he wished, right up to the last second. Even if that meant starting each broadcast with an empty chair. Talk of repeating the 'tub of lard' stand-in is a stunt that will only cheapen the broadcasters level to that of... politicians.