boohog

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This looks way over the top to me. Realistically, how can the likes of Lazio et al be expected to stop racism from their crowd in what could amount to 3 games before getting relegated. The sentiment is right, but there has to be some realism involved. Some of these 'supporters' probably don't even care about the implications of being relegated, so its unlikely that the threat will be enough to stop the supporters and it will be left up to the club. I just can't see any club being able to act quickly enough to weed out all the horrible little feckers (particularly for those clubs where they are the majority rather than the minority). And as mentioned above, this really is liable to cause rival fans to get in amongst the home fans and get them in trouble. Only recently for example: Steve Finnan accused of racism The Millwall 'riot' where most of the leaders of it were Hammers fans It seems to me if people will get up to this sort of behaviour, now we are giving them an actual goal - to get teams relegated, rather than just to tarnish their reputation. Its quite scary actuallly when you think about it.

made up s*** - i.e. the person is a liar infers that if people sing those lyrics, then Ring of Fire is a Munich song. So basically you called the person a liar. Now if I use you method of inference, i.e. if some people treat it as a Munich Song, that makes it a Munich song, then i can also infer that if that person is a liar, he is therefore also deaf and a Manc. i.e. if some people who lie and deaf Mancs, then all people who lie are deaf Mancs. see now?

And lo, history was rewritten.

By the same tenuous argument, the guy that posted the letter on F365 could be called deaf. And a Manc. Because some deaf people lied about Stevie Finnan. And they were Mancs. edit - blind, lol

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but this letter was in the mailbox of football 365 today: Footy365 A Complaint From Someone Who Didn't See What They Were Complaining About Am I the only person to be quite literally gobsmacked and disgusted over the Liverpool fans on Soccer AM Saturday morning? They over and over chanted the tune to Johnny Cash's 'Ring of fire' which is a direct taunt to Manchester United?s Munich air disaster. I for one want to see LFC doing something about this and banning these so called 'fans', and Sky issuing a formal apology to all involved with Manchester United ASAP for this appalling act of sheer sickening disrespect. This is one of the best shows on TV at the moment but there needs to be some control over the invited fans' behaviour during a live show. I didn't see the show but a gooner mate of mine says even he could not believe what he was hearing. Peter Keating, Dublin

This content is not viewable to guests.

Nice. it wasn't posted on there until after 2pm though, so they're fibbing a bit on the time. Maybe I'll forgive them. This once.

Nowt rude: Dear Sir, Following up on your informative article on 1st March regaring Steve Finnan's alleged racist comments to Patrice Evra of Manchester United: http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1720499,00.html I was wondering when we could expect an equally prominent follow up to the article explaining that the Greater Manchester Police have dropped all charges? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4779418.stm I am sure you would not want to be seen as a newspaper that does not give a balanced view of things. Yours sincerely,

Boycott the grauniad. Still nothing on their website. I have sent a complaint to: football.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Given that he's unlikely to be as closely marked as in the prem, he might actually get a shot off. so I see where you're coming from.

This content is not viewable to guests.

The shards of glass / plastic would help to protect his eyes

Did Finnan follow him or was he pacemaker?

I thought he had an excellent game today. One of our best players, and far better than he has looked in the albeit few opportunities he has had to date.

Fair enough gents. I can see that an away game on the day is totally inappropriate, but the idea of an evening game seems to me to be not entirely without merit. But then my life wasn't affected in the same way as many other people's lives were, so it is not for me to make that decision.

None of my family or friends died in Hillsborough, so please forgive me if this sounds insensitive, but why not play on the anniversary? It seems as good a way as any to get people together in remembrance. Do you think that the people who died there would have wanted us not to play on the anniversary?

It's not often that happens Fair point, given the delays, forward contracts could have left Multiplex on the hook for steel shipments before they were necessary, but did the steel price volatility hit before or after the contract was awarded - i can't remember? If it was before, then not hedging is potentially understandable. If after, then it should not have been a problem. On award of the contract, MPX should have been able to estimate timing of their steel requirements and hedged accordingly, with any increase (or decrease) in forward costs being taken on the chin by the FA. The fact that this didn't happen implies that either the FA was badly advised (by its own advisers and MPX) or that they were prepared to take the gamble, which points towards incompetence. Any additional delays as a result of the FA should have resulted in reimbursement to MPX for the opportunity cost of having to hold on to early steel shipments for a period before being able to utilise the materials.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I often work with companies that are required to put a bond in place for the entire contract value, however I defer to you as to whether this is commonplace or not. Bonds have nothing to do with cash being held anywhere. It is the construction firms bank taking the payment responsibility on behalf of the company. Thus the procurer of the services is not worried about taking a double risk on a construction firm defaulting and therefore not being able to complete the work or pay out on a guarantee. The bank takes the risk of the construction firm defaulting. Most construction firms would enter into forward contracts on a job like this which would be priced into the bid. Either MPX the FA or both have cocked up here because once a job of this magitude is taken on, all material cost risks should be hedged. The FA may have not cottoned on to this and MPX may not have bothered as a result, or the FA may have wanted to minimise costs and gone with a contractor who did not propose the service (and additional cost), but the simple fact is it should have been done.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.