Sunderland v Everton

It's on Wednesday I think.

2-0 to Sunderland.

Sunderland v Everton SSP1 from 19-00pm
Wednesday 11th May 2016.

I have never felt so disinterested in a fixture in all the years supporting the Club.On paper we look unbeatable but ? The only thing you win on paper is the lottery, if your Lucky, Martinez & Is band of merry men can't even put up a challenge to the opposition,its got to a point we all know are season ended at Chelsea,Don't know if I want to watch this or not?

Feel sorry for the fans travelling away, they are loyal supporters and the club should be paying them to travel and watch the dross that's been served up, I just hope that the board come to their senses and put Martinez out of his misery as a manager, A lot of the players should be held accountable for pretending to be footballers,

Is it not true that in Boxing, If you don't perform the Organisation with hold the purse money?

0-1 Everton only because I'm deluded-Clueless

Is this a thread theft from Statman? Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

Super wrote:Is this a thread theft from Statman?  Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

I don't think Statman has done anything wrong.

The complicated book of rules wrote:2... If the person who has the thread honour does not start the next thread before 48 hours of kick off, anyone may start the next thread without a theft penalty ... anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief & fined accordingly

The rule above states that anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief. Therefore it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone who starts a match thread within 48 hours of kick off will not be considered a thread thief (otherwise the rules would have mentioned it). Therefore the thread ownership passed successfully and legally to SST for the Leicester game. With us having established that no thieving has occurred, it's hard to see how any rules regarding the reinstatement of the person who lost the original match thread can be applied.

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:

Super wrote:Is this a thread theft from Statman?  Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

I don't think Statman has done anything wrong.

The complicated book of rules wrote:2... If the person who has the thread honour does not start the next thread before 48 hours of kick off, anyone may start the next thread without a theft penalty ... anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief & fined accordingly

The rule above states that anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief. Therefore it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone who starts a match thread within 48 hours of kick off will not be considered a thread thief (otherwise the rules would have mentioned it). Therefore the thread ownership passed successfully and legally to SST for the Leicester game. With us having established that no thieving has occurred, it's hard to see how any rules regarding the reinstatement of the person who lost the original match thread can be applied.

The only aspect of reinstatement applies to the original owner who having been stolen from and then had perpetrator caught is allowed the privilege to reacquire the thread or to pass. In this instance Bluejagz wisely looked at the fixture and passed. With the defeat the availability of the next thread is once again free.

Which does bring me to the rather arcane rule of 'actions defined as ultra vires' and the in-built mechanisms to mitigate the actions of conflict of interest and being despotic. I only mention this in that the mail above the definition and parlance came across as quite legal and even judgemental. Now, as you all know a Supreme Court Judge can never be asked to resign - nor can he/she be replaced (look it up ). And to the best of my recollection there are not many of us (1 - I think). Now we do have other positions in Court which include inter alia Chief Snitcher.

It is not my job to investigate but could someone please advise the Court as to whom the role belongs?

Couldn't give a flying fuck.

Didn't watch the Leicester debacle and won't be watching this shite either.

1-0 The Black Cats

Super wrote:Is this a thread theft from Statman?  Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

It's on Wednesday, I think.

Da Judge wrote:

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:

Super wrote:Is this a thread theft from Statman?  Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

I don't think Statman has done anything wrong.

The complicated book of rules wrote:2... If the person who has the thread honour does not start the next thread before 48 hours of kick off, anyone may start the next thread without a theft penalty ... anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief & fined accordingly

The rule above states that anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief. Therefore it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone who starts a match thread within 48 hours of kick off will not be considered a thread thief (otherwise the rules would have mentioned it). Therefore the thread ownership passed successfully and legally to SST for the Leicester game. With us having established that no thieving has occurred, it's hard to see how any rules regarding the reinstatement of the person who lost the original match thread can be applied.

The only aspect of reinstatement applies to the original owner who having been stolen from and then had perpetrator caught is allowed the privilege to reacquire the thread or to pass. In this instance Bluejagz wisely looked at the fixture and passed. With the defeat the availability of the next thread is once again free.

Which does bring me to the rather arcane rule of 'actions defined as ultra vires' and the in-built mechanisms to mitigate the actions of conflict of interest and being despotic. I only mention this in that the mail above the definition and parlance came across as quite legal and even judgemental. Now, as you all know a Supreme Court Judge can never be asked to resign - nor can he/she be replaced (look it up ). And to the best of my recollection there are not many of us (1 - I think). Now we do have other positions in Court which include inter alia Chief Snitcher.

It is not my job to investigate but could someone please advise the Court as to whom the role belongs?

WTF does all that mean???  

I was merely making a watertight case for the defence. My opening line outlined my thoughts, and the remainder justified those thoughts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:

Da Judge wrote:

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:

Super wrote:Is this a thread theft from Statman?  Surely the thread honour is still with Bluejagz after the victory over Bournemouth and he still has time to start the thread before someone can sneak in???

I don't think Statman has done anything wrong.

The complicated book of rules wrote:2... If the person who has the thread honour does not start the next thread before 48 hours of kick off, anyone may start the next thread without a theft penalty ... anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief & fined accordingly

The rule above states that anyone starting the thread prior to 48 hours from kick off will be considered to be a thread thief. Therefore it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone who starts a match thread within 48 hours of kick off will not be considered a thread thief (otherwise the rules would have mentioned it). Therefore the thread ownership passed successfully and legally to SST for the Leicester game. With us having established that no thieving has occurred, it's hard to see how any rules regarding the reinstatement of the person who lost the original match thread can be applied.

The only aspect of reinstatement applies to the original owner who having been stolen from and then had perpetrator caught is allowed the privilege to reacquire the thread or to pass. In this instance Bluejagz wisely looked at the fixture and passed. With the defeat the availability of the next thread is once again free.

Which does bring me to the rather arcane rule of 'actions defined as ultra vires' and the in-built mechanisms to mitigate the actions of conflict of interest and being despotic. I only mention this in that the mail above the definition and parlance came across as quite legal and even judgemental. Now, as you all know a Supreme Court Judge can never be asked to resign - nor can he/she be replaced (look it up ). And to the best of my recollection there are not many of us (1 - I think). Now we do have other positions in Court which include inter alia Chief Snitcher.

It is not my job to investigate but could someone please advise the Court as to whom the role belongs?

WTF does all that mean???  

I was merely making a watertight case for the defence. My opening line outlined my thoughts, and the remainder justified those thoughts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Da Judge, may I approach the bench and make a suggestion? Can my learned-friend propose a poll headed by the Chief Administrator since he's nothing else to do

Who fucking cares? 10-0 to Sunderland, hat-trick for Adam Johnson.

If they don't relieve Bobby of his duties soon, the club should be disbanded.

Even if we lose this we could claim we took a 'dive' to relegate Newcastle.

Or we are just more shite than The Shite at the moment and couldn't fight our way out of a paper bag with big holes in.

I am going for another draw at 1-1, which means Sunderland only need another draw in their last game to stay up.

Come on you blues, give us something to smile about!!

Roberto Martínez ....promised relegation-threatened Newcastle and Norwich that his players ...will not roll over again at the Stadium of Light.

How about promising the fans?

and how about resigning if we do roll over and get beat by Sunderland?

26 - 0 to Sunderland, Zinedine Kilbane to get a hat trick

Wouldn't trust Bobby to even organise the school pick up schedule at moment. Players have hit the beaches. Fully expect Sunderland to roll us over. 3-1 probably worse if Bobby can't put out a proper back four. Feel sorry that Pennington has been dragged into this mess although it will probably stand to him when we get an actual coach in next season.

Can't say il be watching it either.

Sunderland to complete another great escape.

I won't be watching either.

we'll lose this because Bob is a twat...

on the plus side this small club will have relegated that Fat Spanish Waiting cunt

This game has the real opportunity to kick start our season

The President wrote:This game has the real opportunity to kick start our season

Made 4 Sackys wrote:we'll lose this because Bob is a twat...

on the plus side this small club will have relegated that Fat Spanish Waiting cunt

Then the Barcodes will sack their Spaniard and he may be in line to take over from ours.

Royal Blue Mersey wrote:

Made 4 Sackys wrote:we'll lose this because Bob is a twat...

on the plus side this small club will have relegated that Fat Spanish Waiting cunt

Then the Barcodes will sack their Spaniard and he may be in line to take over from ours.

we are way too small for that Fat twat to get in the office door... despite the fans backlash would be enormous

Robles
Stones
Pennington
Funes Mori
Baines
McCarthy
Barry
Miralles
Barkley
Cleverley
Lukaku

Substitutes
Gibson
Oviedo
Lennon
Niasse
Besic
Osman
Howard

When did Lak score last?

Is it over yet

66% possession 1 Shot

Sunderland
34% Possession 4 shots 1 Corner