All Activity

I've heard suggestion that it could be a done deal. Nothing to prove it, but one bloke I know who was there reckoned they were definitely pushing this as the direction in which they were going. I fucking hope not!

Didn't they say something about 3 approaches - refine, revive or re-invent. Assume this is "refine" which they need to avoid like the plague. All that does is create an alternative take on the current crest that no-one will want. If its going to be different; it needs to be ... different.

Relax. No fucker is voting for that. Apart from Adam Pearson and Gemmill, obvs

Sorted mate. Already have the invoice in the post to the pope.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn05x60p8dro Well this all seems very legit. Of course a man worth £110m is keen to put nearly 20% of his fortune into buying a 10% stake in a women's football team on the other side of the Atlantic. I'd like to stress here that this is definitely not, I repeat NOT, a ruse to justify Chelsea's inflation of the price that they used when selling the club from themselves to themselves.

Michaelangelo obviously couldn't get his Sistine Chapel paintings ready for the digital age so I'm sure the Vatican are looking to get someone to reimagine them for the digital age as we speak.

So they've basically taken the current badge and just removed any distinctive colouring from it? That should sure help us stand out in the 'digital age'.

It looks cheap as chips.

Exactly!

Even my tattooed NUFC badge looks better than that.

Rapists on the rise itt.

Alreet Drago.

Rayvin's point still stands.

He's already pulling a wage from Everton the greedy bastard.

And 🤣

xURF?

That's dreadful

Fucking hell! https://x.com/ncsl1892/status/1922749824316616735?s=46&t=z2j8swpKHKggwsIUQJsACw

It was an obvious offside but the current rules are the rules so the lino isn't to blame. More importantly to me, a direct rival is now a bit weaker and therefore increases our chances of CL qualification.

Maybe you’re confused on who was offside? The offside player was Elanga in the build up not the one who hurt himself going for a cross. Through ball from Forests own half for Elanga who was offside by about 3 yards. Elanga runs the ball down field and crosses. Forest lad knackers himself on the goalpost. Then the flag goes up for Elanga being offside which was obvious from the get go.

I've struggled to follow this a bit but.. is the argument here that the offside ruling is to blame because a player ran into a goalpost, on the basis that had the whistle gone, that never would have happened? Surely the same thing would have happened if he was onside as well, meaning that the offside call is fairly irrelevant. What am I missing?

I know exactly what you’re saying. If he were to spend the rest of his career as a substitute then I’d had no problem with that as he always gives 100% on the pitch despite his obvious limitations. The feeling I get from him though and the way he has spoken previously is that he wants to play football and fair play to him for that.