NJS

We only played one good team away with Allardyce and that was Chelsea(lost) - we also lost quite heavily to Man City and Blackburn. Do you honestly think we would have got something at home against Man U or Bolton? I'd also add that the away games at Derby, Wigan, Sunderland and Reading could be what costs us relegation.

Which results would have been different under Allardyce? That's the point though. There is precious little difference between the performances and results. 4-5-1 today. Utter shit. Sorry, we won games under Allardyce. My mistake. What formation were we playing today? As I argued before and after he was sacked, the fixture list made Allardyce look a lot, lot better than he really was. Now its making Keegan look worse than he is.

Which results would have been different under Allardyce? hard to really say but do think the black/b game at home would have given us all the points.if we get the drop would'nt be surprised to see KK do a runner Created more chances against Blackburn?

Which results would have been different under Allardyce?

She was that arrogant it didn't occur to her to expect straight questions. The sinking on the surface looks like an act of war (despite being outside the exclusion zone) but in the context of her being under pressure from Reagan to accept Schultz's deal it seems a tad too convenient to me. That feeling becomes a bit firmer in light of the question avoiding. Even then if the Falklands were the main charge against her then I could accept it makes a good argument - though your charges of bullshit could be countered by one of naivity - however she was guilty of many, many more crimes and a "glorious victory" against a third world country does not negate them.

Not saying they don't but they don't decry the institution and make remarks about "going off to battle" like she did.

Like deliberately sinking the Belgrano to scupper the US peace deal? War is war, you don't start one then claim foul. The captain of the Belgrano admits they were awaiting weather changes to then support further air attacks, and Argentina has admitted it was a perfectly legal act of war (a bit of an oxymoron, but then that is war). So yes, even more it seems. So why did the bitch lie about it and allow herself to get so bothered when put on the spot? Another convenient opportunity.

Pricks on sky the same - I despise Trevor Francis.

Spawny scouse gets.

Steven Gerrard: "I hate divers me" - well heres a mirror you cheating souse cunt.

Like deliberately sinking the Belgrano to scupper the US peace deal?

The great euro-sceptic who signed Maastricht? She played the Euro game like the French and Germans did and still do. Yes but they were honest - they didn't denounce the concepts for the benefit of Mail and Sun readers and then sign the single European act. She is still hailed as a "heroine" for gaining the rebate - why didn't she rather do what Ireland have done so well and make the EU work to transform their country? - which is better "sticking it to the Krauts/Frogs" or working for your people?

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down. Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message. The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such. Or in fact a wide ranging defence review that reduced much navy "east of Suez" operational ability to try and bolster/retain any North Atlantic blockade fleet whilst reducing the over all budget. Warnings were certainly ignored and overlooked, but that's a long, long, long, long way from anything like goading Argentina into an invasion (and again the Junta was in a much more precarious position domestically, politically and economically, than it had been a few years before). One perfect example of this is that they scrapped the heavy repair ship HMS Triumph just before the Falklands War, which would have been UTTER MADNESS if they expected or wanted an invasion of the Falklands as it's role (heavy repair ship to the east of Suez fleet) would have been VITAL to successfully winning such a campaign. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy tale. She was also lucky as her plans for the navy would have left them unable to fight the war a year later. I'm not saying she sat down and planned the whole thing - I just think that very early on she recognised that a situation which normally would have been resolved by diplomacy gave her the chance to turn things around politically. If you want to turn that into making her a good leader then fine - I think it showed her willing to sacrifice lives for power - a charge I would also level at Blair btw. She also rewarded the shipbuilders who had worked so hard during and after the war with closure.

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down. Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message. The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

The great euro-sceptic who signed Maastricht?

Just read this on the BBC: Augurs well for hell then.

France, Germany, Canada and even Ireland could be argued to be doing just as well - if her methods were the only ones which could work why are union-led places like France just as well off? How can countries like Germany still have a mining industry?

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time. I'm not completely naive enough to say that the unions weren't a problem. However destroying their power completely by destroying their industries was not a sensible approach. There are plenty stories about how bad british leyland was in terms of the unions but it was the management that let them get away with it. Other countries, notably Germany, rode out the bad times while keeping core industries because they knew how important they were. Thatcher sold any money making ones to her cronies in the cities and watched the north burn with no regard for its future. Was reducing union power worth the price?

The first thing she did on getting into power was remove exchange controls and watch £65bn (a lot of mony then) leave the UK in a single day. This was a major contribution to the recession she needed. What a patriot. Anyone who lived in the North East knows how "balanced" her approach was to it - it was a scorched earth policy which blights it to this day. Also Cameron said she "transformed the country" - she did - she destroyed any sense of greater good and replaced it with the "Me, Myself, Now" attitude which pervades society from the non-dom tax evaders all the way down the charver scum on street corners who were raised by her "children". Everyone here know my views on religion but I'd love hell to exist just for her.

If the Unions ruled Britain why did they have to strike in 79? Surely they would have been able to just ring up Callaghan and demand 20% rises which he would have given them on the spot? If Thatcher had been in power then they would have been refused the pay rise and gone on strike....hmm. Was destroying huge drafts of industry without any plan for the people and communities destroyed a sensible approach of a good leader or the actions of a class war practicing megalomaniac who only cared for herself and hers?

A yellow card which was given after one of their players was doing the LeBeouf imaginary card wave which had been made a bookable offence that year. Also Titus being booked for handball when he was on the ground and a fucker passed the ball past him. Also the free kick they had in the last minute where they took 10 minutes to take it by messing with the wall knowing that we needed a winl to have a chance of progressing. Cunts.

It was the Portuguese winger who was the biggest cheat - Simao? - coincidentally the ref was from portugal and quite simply the worst ever.

Same day is a "Bonus" - just booked my travel - day trip. Always in two minds for derbies - if we win I want to celebrate until coma - if we lose I want to crawl home and die.

"the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons" Almost everything I hate summed up in one sentence and its context - very efficient.

Party conferences? Or will that fall under national security? (surprise, surprise)