@markdoughty88@_mmamark@TheCardDealer Sure but I'd like to know how much it's skewed by weird games like the opener, and how many were given after the first round of fixtures - I could of course be imagining stuff but still feels like an odd change mid tournament.
@markdoughty88@_mmamark@TheCardDealer In how many games though? There was a sea change, around the period we moved to the second round of games, where we went from normal card numbers to cards not being given for things that are a card 100% of the time in any other situation. It's obviously deliberate.
@LukeP13136452@TheCardDealer There's lenient & there's not giving cards for blatant cheating like scuffing the penalty spot, kicking Mbappe after the tackle & several more I haven't got space to list - none of those relate to letting play continue - he's a fucking idiot and FIFA are weirdly instructing refs.
@TheCardDealer This might be the worst refereeing performance I've ever seen, he's not even giving fouls, never mind cards. And to only have given cards out - to France - is absolutely wild. I mean I backed two France cards, happy days, so I've won, but it's the principle. No deterrent at all.
@claretcrumpet Makes a mockery of the rules (why are sleeves still allowed?), but are we even remotely surprised? (And I say this as someone who likes a flutter)
@claretcrumpet People in England couldn't even bet with most of the bookies that were on the front of shirts, they were mostly far eastern companies - not sure how these trading companies work out, but could be that they're even more accessible to UK punters
@fesshole Hang on, I have a Sainsbury's and Red Cross on the high street where I live. Do you live near me? I suppose checking the Red Cross will give me a clue
@BBCNews Oh that's a relief, I'm neither young nor fit, so it sounds like this doesn't apply to me and I can crack into as many beers as I like! I haven't got time to read beyond the headline.
@Tontkowalski@zeitgeisterman@MarkHam80780803 Successfullyπ, doping regs meant he couldn't take beta blockers to control a tremor, so he used booze instead and as he needed it to play snooker - his job - some of the lager became tax deductible.
@BertieSlack2@portly_pete@MarkHam80780803 This is true - he had a tremor which beta blockers could ease but he was banned from taking them, by which time only 6 or more pints would help him be able to hold a cue, so some of his booze became a tax-deductible expense. Legend.
@mylefteyeuk@gordonclynn@MarkHam80780803 He was able to use lots of the booze to as a tax deductible expense - true story. He had a tremor that he could only calm by having six or so pints because he'd been banned from using beta blockers.
@reeves1960@PaulNic_Journo@NUFCgallowgate Think you might be missing his point. It's that they were forced to sell him. He could've become the real deal there and gone for 120m. Instead they sold for less to satisfy PSR and a club with 115 outstanding charges is buying him for a fortune. It stinks.
@claretcrumpet Oh absolutely, and I understand why they did, they make a fair point. I just think it's hard to prove - if that's a word - and sets a strange precedent, where people will start using this kind of litigation for missing out on all sorts.
@claretcrumpet Also, wasn't that 3-1 game in September? Bit of a reach to say that game was so pivotal. There was a lot of football played after that. And even if they had been deducted the points in that season - depending on timing they may have recovered. We'll never know.
@claretcrumpet Townsend was free. Gray was under Β£2m. Everton received a sporting sanction. The same panel now thinks they should incur a huge financial sanction now. It sets a major precedent and I just can't see it sticking.