Randomness

We setup to play for a 0-0. Negative tactics at home do my fucking nut in. only if we are playing arsenal should we resort to those tactics i agree with mark except i thought hibbert did ok.

Fellaini however doesn't have the fitness i could see him blowing up once he gets used to this pace it'll be ok.

Saha did look good. glad he took that shot on.

Petition to Kidnap and force Super Lee to play for us again?

The inconsistancies where woeful today, fuck the sky4

Love Cahill you can trust him to score. a few times what else he brings to the team was questioned but he runs like an eager beaver, plus he's a committed player (see ossie's first goal vs brann who decided to put their foot in!) plus he gets goals when we play the sky 4.

if we had a championship winning side, then perhaps people would talk about cahill as an equal to alan ball as an evertonian legend.

all we want is consistency ................. :lol: :lol: :lol:

No i think in all seriousness At least we dont have a rookie ref.

So if a winger gets to the by-line and cuts the ball back for a striker to score and then the replay shows that the ball was actually out of play (so it should have been a goal kick) it's a technical error and the game needs to be replayed?

 

Doesn't matter how you define it, the game can't be replayed, it'd cause chaos in the future.

no that would still count. my thinking is that if the ball crossed the line before the winger crossed it and the goal was given -that is to say instead of a goal kick a goal was awarded- technical error replay.

Shows what i know anyway the result stands and we'll forever be :unsure: :unsure:

because TC's Shot went in to the Goal. Rather than 4 yards wide of it.

i think the technicality though is that the ball DID cross the line of the playing area (where cahill's did or did not) so play would have stopped because of a goal kick or corner etc. i can quite find the words (where's JD)

What i'm trying to say is, it's a technical error because it crossed the line outside of the goal, therefore should have been a goal kick or corner, with cahill's the difference is, it didnt cross the line at a different point of the pitch, so That could have been a goal where as the Watford one definitely could not.

its a technical error and there is a precedent for the game being replayed in such a case, http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/06/sports/soccer.php

all the papers i've been reading online carry the same thing. Contentious Tim Cahill goal. It was A FRENCH CONNECTION UK-ING mile over the line, you could see the whole of the line and the whole of the ball past it. whats the debate?!?!

Sorry to be Pessamistic. but this whole offside for stoke against luckypool Guarantee's a crap decision for us next weekend!

Discuss

i'd take a kharkiv repeat tbh.... if it meant we won the 2nd game and went through again of course.

i Did see this on f365 first but went to the actual column to see it all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...asrath.medialaw

How can the rich still be buying our silence with this 13th-century law?

If even football fans can be sued by their club for online remarks, it's clear libel is too easily used to stifle legitimate dissent

So we saw him off. Last week, in a victory for both medicine and free speech, Matthias Rath dropped his libel suit against the Guardian. But it seems amazing that the courts of this country allowed him to pursue this case. Rath, a German doctor, appears to have encouraged South Africans with HIV to stop using anti-retroviral drugs, and take his vitamin pills instead. Several of them died. It's an important story, which shows journalists are of some use after all. But the Guardian stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds for having the impudence to publish it.

 

This newspaper is big enough to look after itself. But the legal net that Rath used is now being cast to catch ever smaller fry. In the past few days, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club has dropped its cases against some of its fans. I am now allowed to write about the worst example of legal bullying I have ever seen.

 

The club has had serious problems, on and off the pitch, and many of its fans use an internet forum - owlstalk.co.uk - to discuss them. They make the kind of comments you would expect to find on any talk board, and which would normally be forgotten within 15 minutes. Two and half years ago the club launched its first suit. Only now have the people who posted these comments emerged blinking from the labyrinthine nightmare of English law.

 

As Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol explain in their excellent book, Media Law, England's defamation laws date back to a statute created in 1275. The criminal offence of scandalum magnatum was devised to protect "the great men of the realm" from stories which could stir the people against them. Three centuries later, the Star Chamber allowed noblemen to launch civil actions for libel, to provide them with an alternative to duelling.

 

They made prolific use of this privilege until Fox's Libel Act of 1792 determined that the claimant (the person bringing the case) had to prove that the words used against him were false, malicious and damaging. This means that libel law 216 years ago was more liberal and more in tune with the principle of free speech than it is today.

 

During the 19th and 20th centuries, Robertson and Nicol show, "the common law was re-fashioned to serve the British class system from the perspective of ... the Victorian club". To protect wealthy people from criticism, the courts reversed Fox's burden of proof. They created a presumption that any derogatory remark made about a gentleman must be false. This remains the case today. Defamation differs from all other civil or criminal laws in Britain: the burden of proof is on the defendant.

 

The law remains the privilege of gentlemen, by which I mean people who are able to afford costs that often exceed £1m on each side. Cases tend to be resolved by sheer financial might, as the plaintiffs bankrupt the defendants, or force them to give in before their money runs out. This ensures that the law retains its 13th-century function. It guarantees that most attempts to hold the wealthy to account founder before they are launched, as people bite their tongues for fear of losing their homes.

 

Since 1879, corporations have also been able to sue for libel. The inequality of arms this causes is compounded by the fact that there is no legal aid for defamation cases. Lawyers are now allowed to fight these suits on a no-win, no-fee basis, but this freedom is double-edged: if a defendant loses, he could end up paying double the claimant's legal costs.

 

This is the context in which Sheffield Wednesday went to court to demand the names and email addresses of 14 people who had posted comments on owlstalk. Here are some of the comments over which the club complained. "What an embarrassing, pathetic, laughing stock of a football club we've become." "Another day, another blunder. I doubt even Leeds were in such a mess this time last summer, and look what happened to them." "I am waiting with bated breath to hear who the Chuckle Brothers have signed after their trip to watch players abroad. With the amount of money they have to spend and the wages they can offer the best we can hope for is that little known Transvestitavian International I Sukblodov, who last scored in a brothel."

 

Such comments were deemed by Sheffield Wednesday's lawyers to be "false and seriously defamatory messages" which had caused grievous injury to the delicate flowers who ran the club. (They should try posting an article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site.) The lawyers threatened "proceedings to include claims for injunctions, damages, interest and legal costs (which could be substantial)". The judge threw most of the application out, but instructed the forum's host to reveal the email addresses of four of the posters, whose remarks seem to me to be almost as trivial as those he dismissed. This took place a year ago, and the long shadow of the law hung over the posters until the club's lawyers dropped the case last week.

 

Another case dates back to February 2006, when the club sent a warning letter to a fan called Nigel Short. When he received the letter he offered to apologise and to change his comments, but the club rejected this. He was able to fight it only because he found a lawyer - Mark Lewis of George Davies Solicitors in Manchester - who was incensed by this case and was prepared to represent him. "I've had two and a half years of worrying I was going to lose my house," Short tells me. "It's been hell. If Mark hadn't done this no win, no fee, I would have been bankrupt by now."

 

In November 2007, Short was diagnosed with throat cancer. The case continued. But on Wednesday September 3 he announced that his treatment had been successful. On Friday September 5, the club dropped the case and agreed to pay his costs. It issued a press release which suggested it had done so because of "Mr Short's medical condition". I asked the club whether it had abandoned the case because it knew that Short would now live to fight the action. It has refused to answer my questions.

 

The point of this story is not that the directors of Sheffield Wednesday have behaved like a bunch of petulant bullies. It's that the law equips them to do so. Most people see this as an issue only for journalists. But the internet ensures that the law of defamation now threatens anyone who stands up for what he believes to be right.

 

This autumn the English branch of PEN, which defends the freedom to write, will launch a campaign against our libel law. But where are the rest of you? Where are the petitions, the public protests, the lobbies of parliament? Why is this 13th-century law still permitted to stifle legitimate dissent? Wake up, Britain: your freedoms are disappearing into the pockets of barristers and billionaires.

So lets just get this cleared up.

IN MY OPINION. Bill Kenwright your a dunce. To other people you may be a success but you know terrorist/freedom fighter.

my housemate is a spurs fan. He was ultra Pissed off when they fired jol last season, more angry at those spurs fans who were saying he wasn't good enough etc. His arguement was that spurs; well they conceeded a lot but also scored a fair few, and The Football was

Fun, How it's Supposed to be

To make Matters worse As jimmy Mentioned;

Hamburg 10 points from 4 games, Scored 11!!! Conceed 7!!! Don't care what you say, that's some entertainment there.

He scores game changing and game breaking goals. I disagree with the not much else comment. he can pass it really well too. (ok in comparison with some Neville's- i mean members of our squad.)

Jesus H Christ, he's had a meeting with ashley probably regarding Compensation or comments attributed to the club. but still makes a headline.

i do the love hype people are saying "it's the biggest thing since the moon landings"

This is More like Apollo 11's Takeoff. When the Collisions Occur that will be the landing, and in 6 months when the first results are coming through that will be "one small step for man...."

Then in 10 years

"The LHC is actually a Conspiracy by the US government To find out how to make Temporary Black Holes to Help America and it's Zionist Allies"

B)

My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them?

well dk was called in for breaking rules regarding its retail development. Not because KEIOC asked it to be called in.

if it is the start of great things then it may be ok to like england again. While i do hate most of the primma donna's in the england setup THEO THEO THEO!

now we have someone else to overhype.

Shrek didne do too bad either.

I think the critical point was WC 2006 The way we crashed and burned was the last straw, all summer we'd had hype and the like telling us we'd win, and they were Horrid. thats when the clamour for an "english (shit) manager" came from. that didnt work.

John "Lionheart (when he isn't crying his eye's out like a little girl)" Terry Personified why people hate england now.

I think playing in Champions League competition year after year and in some Premiership games are as big as this - sometimes even bigger in the Champions League

Nice to Know where the Captain's Priorities Lie.

all the hype for a machine that isnt going to be working at 100% for 2 weeks and then it will be 6 months of nothing while results are found.

all those doom mongers check out the bbc i-player and watch the programme about it. 5-4-3-2-1 NOTHING!!

just taking a cruise through 606 and the people on there are naturally blaming KEIOC.

This is a bad move, once the majority see what the board has done, Dirty Linen Public Hanging.

Louis did u get a proxy?

I think this is a great idea.

 

1. We stay in the city

2. The capacity would be bigger

3. It's cheaper

 

The only thing i'm worried about is the liverpool fans, did you see phil thompson on ssn

what did he say?

there arnt 2 other clubs who could match us and the shite's history together, i'm for it IF the Capacity is at least 80,000

this topic should be WHEN will keegan walk?

whoop de doo.

We should spend our transfer budget Resurrecting Sir John Moores' he'd see us right....again