buster.

Third place play-offs have tended to produce goals. The last four have seen an average of 4.25 goals (5, 4, 5, 3)

France (4) and Croatia (1) semi-final starting line-ups featured 5 players from the EPL. England (11) and Belguim (10) featured 21 players who started their respective semi-finals. The extra quality that some of the players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletico Madrid and PSG seems to have made a difference.

It certainly was important (not to win) and England, by 'accident' or design managed to get beat and have the easier route in the competition in front of them. So whilst technically, they had been behind in the scoreline and beaten by Belguim...the pragmatic view has to be they were actually ahead and came out of the game as victors wrt the a 'bigger picture'. As you say, "savvy". -------------- Two Belguim v England matches in a WC and both have a strange feel about them that will feature mucho rotation

Aye, Gazzer in his pomp would have made a big difference. Some of the previous England sides that failed might well have done better than the 2018 team, if they had benefited from the same route to the Final. The better teams in the EPL tend to bring foreign players in to fill that type of role instead of playing and developing younger English players (other than sending them on the loan circuit). The prevailing footballing culture that has seen the UK relatively short on gamechanging numbers 10's could be starting to undergo change but it'll take time to work it's way through.

When it came down to it, England weren't good enough to take advantage of a relatively straightforward route to a WC Final. They have a solid team who are excellent at set-pieces. Their team spirit was also evident. However, they don't have the level of creative abilty middle to front to excite, entertain or take advantage of a golden opportunity. Southgate will stay in the job and if the creative talent develops in the coming seasons, then they'll be a really good team.

Thanks lad's ! An hour is fine if the content is interesting, there are varying views on X and Y and you offer a little bit more than standard Bear chat, eg. the vew on Flanagan from Liverpool fan recently. Conversely, 45 minutes is long if the show is medoicre. ie. concentrate on quality

Spending 2M on an Iranian left-back with a year left on his contract when we curently have three left backs on the books........ I doubt it.

Belgium 4 - 2 England France 3 - 0 Croatia

Team with a population of just over 4M reach WC Final

'They're coming home....................'

A similar tone would see him accused of bridge building by some on our messageboards The statement is excellent, btw.

Belguim reached their ceiling in the first half of the Brazil game, who IMO were easier to play against than the French. Wrt midfield creativity, I think Griezmann often drops back and alongside Pogba helps link middle to front. All things considered, the French, IMO have been the best all round side at this WC. They've got a good mix of ingredients that is proving to be effective.

It was basically 'The Hazard Show' (what an effort plus a sackful of ability) , very little from the rest. De Bruyne was poor and they couldn't get decent service to Lukakua. France have a very strong midfield and this helped keep the Belguims at bay.

You asked me a question on another thread about SDI. I'll break a habit and make an effort not to take threads into off topic areas and p it in here Your question.... How can the SDI thing possibly have a negative financial effect when the only way SDI get to invoke their rights is by offering a deal at least as good as JD ? ---------------------------------- Firstly, any (further) delay because of legal fighting will mean lost revenue and a vacum that fake tops will partly fill. It will also mean significant legal costs. To go into the legal arguments re. what has to be matched (whole/parts) and potential outcomes is pretty pointless at this stage, especially when it has been deemed complicated enough to go to trial. Best to see what actually transpires when it goes to court again. Regarding the logic of your question, equally if there was to be no negative financial effect then why would Rangers contest the matter (incurring significant costs) and have the injunction put a hold on preparing the ground for the retail set-up ?

MR JUSTICE ROBIN KNOWLES Hopefully this Justice will have done his homework on Ashely like his colleague Justice Peter Smith had a couple of years ago and Know.es that SD are Rob'in ...........I'll get ma coat

SDI matter is better parked until we see how it develops in court today. Interesting take on TOP issue,..... can't agree with it though. Celtic sowing up much of the political influence in Scottish football is something they've done as part of a wider plan that sees them esconced in pretty much every way as the establishment club with a finger in just about every pie in the country. We have finaly reacted because of charges brought against us by the SFA.....when that and more should have been part of a wider strategy several years ago. Bottomline, the boardroom have perfomed well in putting up cashflow but don't seem able to get a handle on a holistic medium to long term strategy. Until we do, it'll be reactions to X and Y, soundbite statements that amount to little and continued dominance by a club who do have a strategy with competence in place to carry it out. We don't have a strategy, nor a cohesive boardroom and we don't have a competent CEO figure.

Three out of four ain't bad

Daily Record headline this morning......... Council to hold talks over future of Orange Walk marches in Glasgow amid fury over sectarian attack on priest ------------------ Political opportunism or a set-up ?

I may be saying similar to you and Gaffer but try reading it slowly instead of going off on one. I'll try and make it as simple as possible. 1. I agreed with the counter attack from club to SFA charges at the time it was launched. 2. I was happy to see that extended to MMcL/SPFL and repeatedly posted the Private Eye article on here (first posted by Forlansister). 3. I have no issue with the statement by itself. 4. I do however think the timing of publication was chosen at least in part to deflect from other matters. 5. I don't want a statement re. SDI. Firstly, we'll see what happens today in court. --------------------------- The bottomline for me is that the club is badly run at an executive level and too often instead of building something, we react to events. The reactions often include statements that go down well but end-up achieving very little. Relatively recently, AJ openly talked of 'institutional failure' that surrounded the handling of the Pedro Caixinha appointment....something that continues to cost us. Round about the sametime we signed an agreement with SDI which is the subject of todays court proceedings and threatens our kit launch. The Takeover Panel stuff and current SDI issues stem from actions/contracts taken or signed by the present board. These IMO are potentially very important because they may effect our financial position/projections in a significant way. We hear that the TOP can be ignored as it has no effect on the club, that's bullshit. Does there come a point when Dave King becomes toxic and would there be any 'Rangers friendly' rich folk out there willing and able to buy him out ?

Stopping 10IAR has to start with concentrating on ourselves, building and improving our football operation and finances. Realistically, IMO, they are going to get to 8 by next May but we have to be in much better shape by then so we can actuallt win either the 19/20 or 20/21 League Championship. No patience, annual chopping and changing will present them with 10!AR on a plate.

Any extra points on offer for the prediction that this will be billed as the World Brexit Final and the No Dealers will be exploring ways to stoke animosity.

He shouldn't have to ask for patience, we should have enough gumption to know that we are going to need some. If there is a clear indication that things are improving and moving in the right direction, he's more liable to see some patience when a bad result comes down the road.

I agree with what was a counter-attack to the SPFL charges and that we should where possible develop it further, of course ! All I'm saying is that the timing of this particular statement has IMO, more to do with deflection, than the issue by itself. With benefit of the doubt, you could call it a '2 in 1'. Deflection is from what Big Jaws described as "a 3 point attack" (SPFL charges, Takeover panel & SDI Retail), although the present emphasis being on the latter two, especially SDI.....I doubt SD will be straightforward, their lawyers and small print are difficult to shake. The more important and immediate aspect to it is what comes out of court proceedings tomorow. Retail revenue will be an important part of financial projections.

I agree with that and was clear about it on the relevant thread a month or so back where I advocated the pushing of the 'Private Eye' article as part of the offensive then in play. I also said then that I hoped we had more material to push because if we don't, then it'll go no further. We can only hope it's being kept in reserve pending what happens with the SFA charges. What I'm saying is that IMO it looks like we are now using the issue for another temporary purpose.