Stive Pesley

Did it?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than 'pure football' to return, an isolationist 90 minutes once a week, just I'm not sure that's ever existed or hasn't for a very very long time.
There were probably boardroom kerfuffles when the Football League was created.
Barcelona FC were on a list of organisations behind only Communists and Anarchists to be purged by Franco back in the 30's.
Celtic and Rangers entire shared history is based on their political, cultural and religious differences.
The NF actively tried to recruit from the terraces in the 80's.
The Hillsborough cover up and the fight for justice campaign thereafter was political. 
Other than university campuses, the only place I've ever seen the Socialist Worker sold is outside football grounds.
Know any Forest fans who went to any Yorkshire away games during the miners strike?
Hell, George Weah is president of his country.
The game can be 90 minutes of pure escapism if you let it. Just requires you to ignore the noise surrounding it, which granted, is probably louder thanks to 24/7 media coverage now. The game was never pure, I think you're just looking back through the soft focused lens of nostalgia.
But get yersen in the South Stand for our next home game and shout your head off for 90 minutes and tell me you had any worries in the world.

I’m willing to bet the reason you don’t like politics in football is because the politics in football doesn’t align with your personal views.

Keep the politics out of our forum too?

2 of which aren't even cities.....

Marty McFly easily.
 

Appreciate the response, and I was kind of hoping you might be able to add more context around it.
As you say - the question of "why do we continue to let America and others decide how we live our lives" - is a universal one, nothing mad about asking it
But framed in the context here of "how we live our lives" meaning conducting all-out aggressive military assault on our neighbours, indiscriminately killing civilians etc etc is certainly an extreme position
We can all see the contradictions and hypocrisies at play but it feels like only a madman would draw attention to them in such a murderous way. 
 
 
 

I condemn the war, the actions on Ukranian citizens, the decision to send Russian soldiers to their deaths, the indiscriminate bombing of civilian locations, the attacks on nuclear power stations that could easily go wrong, the used of thermobaric weapons. I condemn it all and it should stop at the earliest opportunity. Both sides will need to compromise for that to happen - Zelensky is saying as much himself - but I do condemn the war.
I do hope that is clear enough for you, all my previous statements to the same effect seem to have passed you by.

I fear that could well be the case.  Ordinary Russians may blame the West's sanctions for the hardships they are enduring and that will only stiffen there support in support of Putin's war in Ukraine.  And that's obviously not what the West had hoped for. 
Unfortunately it's reasonable to assume that Russians are constantly being bombarded by misinformation regarding the war. Not that we get unbiased information here, but the situation in Russia seems to be of a different order.  Press freedom, being ranked as 150th out of 180 countries before the war, has been curtailed even further so it seems inevitable that the average Russian is constantly being fed little more than state propaganda with respect to the war in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, judging by the Putin speech above, he still seems to be worried about dissent within Russia.  The most common way to attack people that are not following the state's orthodoxy is to accuse those voicing different opinion of being traitors. Pathetic and predictable but almost inevitable  It's a playbook we've seen countless times before and not only by dictators such as Putin. 
 

The ramblings of a mad man 

You’ve just invented a new game! ?

Yeah, but let's be honest, He's always said he'd love to buy a football club, but would prefer it to be Preston!  ?

In my opinion, the only attractive thing about being a Phoenix club would be the opposite.
It would give us a chance to be a truly fan owned club, not beholden to the whim and whimsy of a passing businessman, but a truly fan driven project, that spent what it earned and not a penny more.
If that model could only take us so far, and I suspect at this moment it would only be an occasional flirtation with the Championship, so be it. 
It would be our club again, for the first time in many decades.
Our success would depend on our engagement of both the local community, and pulling in fans from farther afield looking for something different in the cesspit of football generally. 
We have a fanatical local fanbase, a fading but still resonant history, a reasonable ground if it can be reunited with the team that currently play in it!
We shouldn't be looking at becoming a Mike Ashley's Newcastle pt II, we should be aiming for an English version of St Pauli.

Isn't the other attractive part about being a phoenix club here that you could start in League 2 (or wherever) with whatever business plan you like, and spend as much money as you like? We could outclass everyone in the division and put on a real spectacle for the fans
Or alternatively - you buy the club out of admin and we'd (almost certainly) be in League 1, with possibly -15 points and definitely a strict curb on any spending plans. We'd be forced to operate at the same level as the rest of the league in terms of wages - and therefore the quality of player we could attract. We'd literally be dragged down to the level of L1 cloggers by the vindictive EFL muppets. 
Which of these scenarios would sound the most attractive to you as a potential buyer/investor, cos I know what I'd pick

My energy supplier proudly boasts that they use 100% renewables. They sent my renewal quote. Can anybody tell me what day it was, when wind doubled in price?.

This was a friend of mine's guess for today - he's boiling about it still 

I don't think many people understand the history of the police and the reason they came into existence.
The police were invented to protect the rich from the poor. Is that not a well known fact now?

They appointed someone to the House Of Lords whose father was in the KGB, and is almost certainly holding kompromat on our PM - so anything can happen with these idiots

Yes - it's been closed for a couple of years and been totally rennovated/changed. It's well worth a visit now

Yes - it's been closed for a couple of years and been totally rennovated/changed. It's well worth a visit now

Changing the world, one football forum at a time ?

An oft-quoted 'fact' that when I looked into it a few months ago could find no evidence of.
Closest I could find was the FDA saying it would take 55 years to fully process an FOI request based on the number of staff and the level confidentiality required, which was a bit questionable but.... ehhhh. That seems to have jumped to 75 years now, although maybe we're talking about something else entirely.
Whether I checked the 'wrong' places I don't know, but I suspect it didn't cause a ripple because it was baalocks, not that such a status ever stopped anything else from gaining traction, on both sides.
I did very very briefly look into links between Pfizer & FDA and can see how one may influence the other, and can see why suspicions and conspiracies may arise there. Whether they bear out under close inspection I can't say. I'm not anally obsessive enough to check further, especially now.
Either way, it's ducking hilarious to see that even though this thread and the discussion is pretty much dead, some people are still using it to push an agenda, desperate to be proven right,  even when nobody can be arsed to argue with them!

Surely you can? There are 2 reasons
1) Because Pfizer want to cover it up
2) Because the document has been tampered with by those behind the leak in order to throw suspicion on 1
The beauty of actually questioning everything is that you have to actually question everything. 
In 3 months worldwide something like 9 million people die - the vast majority of which will be the elderly and the clinically vulnerable (ie in the target groups for the first 3 months of vaccinations) - so to be honest the number seems very low to me
Again - not dismissing the figures - just that there are far too many unknowns in this document for anyone to draw any conclusions from
He spent 20 minutes in that video repeatedly saying the word "safe" in a sarcastic voice, thereby implying that these figures show the vaccines aren't safe. That's despite there being far too much missing information for anyone to draw that conclusion
Sorry if I find that schtick a bit suspect. I would happily value his opinion if he was honest about the facts that the documents lacked enough detail to draw any useful conclusion. But he didn't so I don't
To be honest - given that I know you like to question everything too, not sure why you didn't pick up on that
 

DIY roofing must take precedent.

If you're lucky enough to get through, Or an Officer on Duty maybe, And here they are below