AndyinLiverpool

1 minute ago, B4ev6is said:

Well there must be bids over 30m or they would not turned down bid would they.

Hopefully

6 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Maybe but they might not be offering enough B4 ?

There's not much to bid for, is there?

For 28 million quid you get the honour of paying someone else's debts, half a dozen players, a nice badge and 3rd division TV revenue.

17 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

As with FFP loopholes and commercial confidence (remember, Gibson is very litigious about commercial confidentiality when it affects him, less so when has mystical knowledge of dcfc's finances) before, he is ranting about his benefit as if it's for some greater good. The Christian Horner of EFL owners. 

I don't know who Christian Horner is (some relation of Little Jack?) but I'm guessing the comparison is an unflattering one.

2 minutes ago, OwdGladysHinton said:

When did we last win at Blackburn?

We won 3-2 four or five years ago, after conceding in the first minute.

12 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Years ago Camaroon turned up with a kit that was skin tight FIFA banned the wearing in future games

That wasn't the kit that was bound. Nor was it the reason. The banned kit had no sleeves.

4 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

 

They look like they are about to slip into a coma.

I'm scarred by this fixture in 2 significant ways:

1. Being 2-0 in a playoff semi-final then caving in.

2. Simon Garner.

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Jack Charlton really was ahead of his time.....

Tony Cascarino was my favourite of Charlton's trawl through the genealogy section of the FA's registration department.

Turned out he didn't really have that Irish grandmother.

9 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't want to see the case notes, if that's what you're getting at, but I'd like to know they actually GAF. 

Ask them.

They will probably give you a more professional version of what I said.

1 minute ago, Crewton said:

Care to explain that further? 

Yes. You want to hear more about what the pfa is doing to support the mental health of the players and I don't think that's any of your business.

3 minutes ago, Crewton said:

He's 19. The fact that we're having to rely on him as our main striker and can't give him time out of the starting line up to take a bit of pressure off him is the perfect illustration of what the EFL stranglehold has done to us.

As an aside, the impact on the mental health of some of the younger players must be a concern, yet where are the PFA in this? Too busy counting their cash balance and finding an alternative source of caviar? Shouldn't they be a bit more vocal and engaged with our situation? 

Just because they are not vocal doesn't mean they are not engaged.

The mental health of players is nobody's business.

41 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Does anyone think Everton will actually go down?

yep

I don't know why Chelsea haven't had a player sent off and why Newcastle haven't had a penalty.

What does VAR do?

17 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Handball Situations – when is handball given

Intentional/deliberate handballs are always punishable. The following handball circumstances, even if deemed unintentional, are punishable by free-kick or penalty.

The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm

A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then scores, creates a goal-scoring opportunity or gains a significant advantage

The ball touches a player’s hand/arm that has made their body appear unnaturally bigger. For example, a player extending their arm(s) widely

The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hard/arm)

That is not the wording of the law for 21-22 season. It was changed and most of the stuff about teammate's arms, goalscoring opportunities, arms above shoulder height etc was removed.

Law 12 now has only this to say about handball:

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player: 

deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

scores in the opponents' goal:

directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

24 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

imagine if you were Mel and Ashley said:  I need you to pay off the debt on the stadium for free if the club is relegated.
 

I think you might say ‘Ok I agree, because I want to ensure liquidation is avoided.  But if I do that,  I need to share in your upside as the club recovers. 
 

that might be where the discussions are and - if so - it’s a complicated negotiation 

He might tell Morris he can keep his stadium and Derby will play their home games elsewhere.

5 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

"An arm extended away from the body makes that body bigger, in an unnatural position," explains Mike Riley, Managing Director of Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), the referees' body.

 

What is an unnatural position handball?

-The ball touches the arm or hand extended in an unnatural position. An arm that is extended laterally or vertically can make the body unnaturally bigger, covering more space than necessary. Therefore, a handball in an “unnatural position” can be called, even if it is not done so deliberately.

An arm away from the body does not necessarily make it an unnatural position, as the wording of the law states.

'A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation' (Law 12)

What the ref has to decide is why the arm is in that position. Is it as a consequence of his natural movements (in my opinion, yes) or was it there to make contact with the ball? It is quite natural to have an arm in that position when moving in the way he did.

As an aside, I am not sure, apart from becoming tumescent, how anyone might make their body bigger just by using their own body parts.

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

It was

how so?

7 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Not deliberate, But in todays game it goes down as "an unnatural position" if the ball didn't hit his hand the goal would not have come about...Poor Refereeing, Also should have sent QPR player off for raising his hands and putting them on the Luton players face books him instead, The authoritys make the rules...the officials interpret how they see fit ?‍♂️

It wasn't an unnatural position. The way the player jumped and lifted his foot, the arm was in and can be justified as a natural position:

'when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation'.

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

You could ask the same question about most handballs but for me that was handball and a free kick and nothing is going to change my mind.

Ok. My point is that if the referee doesn't think it was deliberate, he's not going to give it.

Since you have not answered the question both times I have asked it, it would suggest you at least have some doubt about whether it was deliberate. Since the player did not score with that touch and since the player's arm was in that position through his own 'body movements for that situation', you should not penalise it.

Feel free to not change you mind but you can read the laws of the game here:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

If you don’t give that then you don’t give any handball surely……if that had of been in the penalty area would you have been a tad cheesed off if that had been the ? and a penalty wasn’t given ?

Most handballs aren't handballs.

Do you think it was deliberate?

35 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Nothing to report I see, but Wazza was told 4-5 working days by Q, so perhaps an announcement by Wednesday? Hoping Mel is cogitating over his roast beef and coming to a decision re the stadium.

I wouldn't take any notice of any timescale set by the administrators. They have a proven track record of being BS.

That said, they are going to be right eventually I suppose.

15 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Luton goal up v QPR….clearest of handballs in the build up but ref ignores it….then a Marshall howler to top things off. I just think the standard of refereeing is poor across the board…

Do you think the handball was deliberate?

2 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

Another disastrous clanger by Marshall for QPR

not having a good time of it, is he?

1 hour ago, Eatonram said:

Btw to those who say the club has no assets of value I would say any new owner would see the almost guaranteed income streams as the main asset. Yes this will go down for a period when we regroup in L1 but a long term view is that we will always generate good income flows in the Champ and at some stage we will return to the prem

Isn't the hope that we'll get our noses in the Premier league trough exactly why we are in the mess we're in?

42 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I know its the Sun and I know our positions are totally different but Chelsea apparently after 2 days have a £110m lifeline to stop them going out of business due to MPs renegotiating their special licence. 2 days. For a club that was essentially Millwall with some celeb fans. Not an old historic club who were founding members of the league but a club allowed to thrive based on extremely dodgy money. 2 days. What do our MPs have to say about that? Article says 

"But MPs yesterday revealed that two days of negotiations with club chiefs had resulted in a revised licence which will now allow the Blues to access previously FROZEN television and prize money.

Chelsea are permitted to use all the  potential £35m in TV income from the Prem and Uefa until the end of the season PLUS all prize money they are due from domestic and European competitions.

They are set to pocket £39m from the Prem if they stay in third place — and up to £36m if they retain their Champions League crown."

well isnt that nice

They have better negotiators than us.