Its all silly. Rugby doesn't bear thinking about. American football. They hadly ever kick the ball? Cricket isn't merely silly, it is prolonged futility. The Haka seems comparatively sensible and brief.

settle down Big Balls .... I used the n word to graphically show Chris how irrational it was to penalise people on accusations alone .

Read my explanation you bed wetting old nanny ..... engage your two remaining brain cells

The American connection is exactly as my friend from Townsville says .... you couldn't get a more graphic example of penalising people without due cause than the way white Americans treated African Americans .

I like the normal run of the mill Ka Mate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnXeL5zC1M

but on this ocassion both my son and I remarked the same , the Maoris decided to cook up something different ... it went on too long wasn't to co -ordinated and in a word was pretty cr**p .

Unfortunately a bleedin awful analogy.

Hope Pakistan beat India tomorrow. I would normally want India to beat them, but Pakistan have been going through a tough time in cricket recently and I'd like to see them pull off a surprise to regain some of their former status.

No i wont settle down
You could have used the word bloke or man but chose to use the n word.
I suppose its only us who rape women eh

A row of blokes doing a Morris dance or prancing around in kilts might not be quite as intimidating. Welcome to give it a try though.

Metaphor?

Intimidating, no. But it would be funny.

Or perhaps more importantly when do we have to spell out slurs? Make reference to in context perhaps but this forum has members from all over the world, All races, religions, ethnicities. Whether its this or anti semetic references to Tottenham, or whatever, it shouldn't have a place here.

Horrendous use of language

Some interesting rule changes are apparently to be discussed. Not sure everything seems problem free. If the referee's watch or the stadium clock stops at various points when the whistle blows to avoid time wasting, shouldn't there be a whistle blown to start the game again? But then it mentions players taking free kicks being allowed to kick it to themselves, for example meaning they can dribble away when fouled on the break. But when a free kick is taken so quickly, it is surely going to be hard to get the whistle blown to start the timing of the match again. Also time wasting can occur when taking a throw. Does a whistle get blown when the ball is thrown, or have I missed something?

Various fairly minor changes seems a good idea. Like substituted players leaving the pitch near where they are rather than having to walk across the pitch to get off. Also, goal kicks being taken from the side the ball went out. That used to be the case, and the rule change giving keepers the choice of which side to take the goal kick has enabled them to waste taste by moving, often very slowly, the ball to the other side of the six yard box.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40311889

I suggest you read the whole email. It is about peoples reaction to a situation and how people want retribution against a group without realising if there is someone who individually committed an offence, then it is them that must be punished. Would I have expressed it the same way - no, but the comments were a theme I have seen time and again in American issues, particularly the south of the US. This is a typical kkk theme. Hence the US connection. Sorry if you thought I was defending the remark, I was putting it in context.

True I could have used the word bloke or man but it wouldn't have conveyed the same irrationality of punishing someone on accusations alone .

I'm wondering how much of your outrage is fueled by the fact I didn't agree with your take on the "odious bitch " in Post # 480114 .

" Only us who rape women " oh please .

It wasn't my intention to upset anyone so apologies to both you , Dave and Old Man

Amazing American ...... how you've never got the balls to fight your own battles ...... but when someone you don't like is involved you magically appear out of the woodwork to add weight to the opposition .

If you weren't such a spineless half wit I'd be really hurt .

He won't see this Pete, because of course he has you blocked.

Yeah son and I gave it a view .... Fords 1 and 2 made good viewing .

My first car was a 1939 Ford V8 coupe and I've always been a Ford man ever since ...although I have owned and loved five HQ Holdens .

Surprisingly it is Kiwi Shane van Gisbergen the one I most like to see run into tyre wall .

True John

My prediction on the Lions is not running according to plan . Maoris last night ; very disappointing , were never in it , totally outplayed .
I actually wanted them to beat the Highlanders .

There are some big units in your mob the All Blacks might not have it all their own way .

The Lions have always been tour favourites , 1959 and 1971 stand out some magically names from the foggy past , Tony O Reilly , Peter Jackson , Gareth Edwards , Phil Bennet , Barry Johns , Bev Risman .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv6UoAnsVRE Here's one for Brom , I was tempted to go down and take part but in the end opted to chop down a tree .

Sander Berge

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/footba ... ews-gossip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuE00aMM2UA

What is exactly is going on with us and contract negotiations. Before the cup final wenger was singing The Ox's praises saying he wanted him to be a key player for him and sign a new deal.
Few weeks ago newspaper articles that a new deal had been agreed and that he would be snubbing interest from Liverpool. Now these articles are dropping that new deal hasnt been offered and that in fact he wants to leave.
IF true then what the hell are we playing at and what are we waiting for??
Surely he is a player we should be looking to keep and getting it done quickly

This is worth a look, he looks a good player. Actually he's the type of player arsene used to be all over.


https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/ ... a-dembele/

I don't know what's happening with Chamberlain. But all I would say is that I doubt the Metro do either, which was the source of the rumour you're responding to david. With regards to their trustworthiness for transfer rumours, I don't rate the Metro as all that much better than the Sun, Mirror and Star. Having said that, if their story is true I share your concerns. Apart from the cup final when he looked a bit out of place at left wing back or whatever the position is called, he had a strong end to the season. In the semi-final at right wing back he was absolutely outstanding.

I think one of our current problems is that too many players have got down to having only a single year left on their contracts. That's obviously the case with Sanchez and Chamberlain this summer, and I'm not even bothering to include Özil in that list as what he wants to do is even less clear. It basically means either letting them choose where they go for a reduced transfer fee, or letting them go there on a Bosman in twelve months. It seems Sanchez doesn't fancy Munich, and surely Arsenal would bite Bayern's hands off to send him there. That means either selling him to City now, or run the very real risk of losing him to exactly the same club on a free transfer next summer. The same principle may well apply to Chamberlain and Liverpool, although the transfer fee to be gained now from Liverpool would be much less than the transfer fee that City are presumably willing to pay for Sanchez.

Personally, I'd sell Sanchez to City now if they are willing to pay £45-50m rather than let him go there for nothing in a year. With Chamberlain the money to be lost by keeping him next season is less, if it's £25m that Liverpool are willing to pay now. So with him we'll only lose about half of what we'd lose with Sanchez going on a free transfer. But there again, Chamberlain isn't as important a player as Sanchez, so I think I would sell him now as well. Okay, we strengthen two rivals for a top four place, but hopefully Wenger will be able to use another £70-75m (the fees from City and Liverpool combined) to compensate, at least to a significant extent, for the immediate loss of both players. But the whole thing, if the unreliable stories in the Metro and other sources are true, seems a fiasco for Arsenal, if not a total cock up.

Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

All the transfer rumours are just that until the window closes. No point in getting fussed about anything until it is, as Benitez would say, 'fact'. However, as a general principle, I think Arsenal should always move on guys who have lost their appetite to play for us. If it is only about money, then yes, look to reach a mutuallyy agreed solution, but if it is anything else, hit 'em up and move 'em out. Keep them doggies movin'.

What problem did we have fitting Sanchez into our team? He played on the left and centrally, and did very well in both positions. Also, who are the "several replacements for his position just as good" as Chamberlain? What are you counting as his position anyway? I accept the validity of your view that he hasn't had lengthy spells of good form. However, he has had some fine games at central, left and right midfield, as well as right wing back. One of his strengths is his adaptability and unless I've forgotten somebody then off hand I can't think of anyone already in the squad who could do as well covering those areas of the pitch as him.

Having said that I do agree, as I made obvious above, that we should sell both rather than lose them on Bosmans next summer. But I'm not going to pretend it's impossible their departures might not have serious problems with regards replacing them adequately. Hopefully Wenger can do it, but I've no longer got the faith in him that I used to have.

So who do you rank as good as the Ox currently at the club. I dont for one moment think he is great but I suspect another manáger may well work with improving him substantially. However I do not believe we have players at the club who are currently good enough.

By the way 25 days until our first match.

I think it's reasonable to suggest other managers might get more out of Chamberlain than Wenger has. If self-improvement as a player is a significant part of his motivation, as one would hope it is, I can understand why he might think moving on could be beneficial.

With regards Sanchez I wasn't referring to his position in the team but his influence on the team especially since he started his childish antics. As a player I agree there aren't many better but do we need a winger or a striker afaic as a winger he wasn't all that but as a striker he was untouchable.

Assuming AW sticks to a back 3 which I think he will Chamberlain on the left, I prefer Monreal orIwobi on the right I prefer Ballerin or Walcott. Pray tell me why you consider we should keep Chamberlain, do you expect him to improve? We need to blood Maitland-Niles and a couple of others so afaic he is surplus to demand.

Selling City our only worldclass player for less than his market value is madness, allowing him to join in a years time for free is even more crazy unless we can afford to lose the money. We are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Imagine us getting Aguero for <£50m, we'd be jumping for joy.

It's a right mess with all these players entering the last year of their contracts. It may well be a damage limitation exercise now.

Sorry, but on the left Sanchez was all that. He spent the majority of his time at Arsenal on the left and has been a terrific player. I'd rather Chamberlain than Walcott, and I think we should keep him because of his adaptability. It won't be easy to find a player who can cover right midfield, left midfield, central midfield and right wing back as well as him. The idea that Maitland-Niles could do it straight away looks over-optimistic in the extreme, to me. The latter can be given chances, whether or not Chamberlain stays.

Mid June and all the gossip is about Sanchez and Chamberlain leaving, while we've signed a defender. Not a dickie bird about Özil.
I hope Wenger, Law and Gazidis are working hard to sort some signings out, as we were promised change but so far it's all been depressingly predictable.

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

Everybody knows you can't trust Wikipedia, but to be fair that comment is right. We have not been one of the dominant teams in English football since the period 1998-2005. We do win the FA Cup a fair amount though. So, Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement.

Lift your chin off your chest! Don't worry - we'll sell Sanchez, Ox and any other semi-detachee and use the money to buy Ronaldo. Simple. Win the quadruple next season; Wenger manager of the year; England win The Ashes and Continuity Corbyn takes over at Number 10.

Sorry but periods of not being one of the best teams does not, in my view, stop a club from being one of the dominant forces. I think Liverpool still warrant being seen as such, as did Manchester United pre-Ferguson and still now post-Ferguson. If Wikipedia is right and Arsenal are genuinely not one of the dominant forces, then I see that as a decline. Moreover, I see it as a reason to get rid of the person or people responsible for that decline. If that is one of Wenger or Kroenke, I'd like to see the back of the guilty party. If it's both of them together, which personally I believe it is, I hope they both bugger off.

I accept Wikipedia said team, not club or force. But would they imply Manchester United are no longer one of the dominant teams? I doubt it, despite their disappointing run in the league since Ferguson left. That's because, my guess would be, they still perceive them as one of the biggest or dominant clubs, with the same thing applying to Liverpool even though they haven't won the league for donkey's years. But they said it about Arsenal, and I do think a possible reason is what they perceive as our decline as a club.

You sure do read a lot into a few lines about a 1930s film written on an online 'encyclopaedia' that anyone can contribute to! And if Liverpool are currently a dominant team/force/club then the meaning of the word has changed beyond all recognition.

Time to take the anti-Wenger/Kroenke pot off the oven - you'll burn the stew.

Liverpool are a huge club though. Look at the size of their fan base. Is it only about the state of the current team for you? If so, how many years of having an under-performing team does it take for you to downgrade a club? Because it only took some three or four years, maybe five, of Abramovich's ownership (I'm pretty sure it wasn't that long after Cole's departure because that was a justification you used) for you to declare Chelsea as a bigger, and presumably thus more dominant, club than Arsenal.

By the way I'll keep going about Kroenke and Wenger because they're the people I see as primarily responsible for Arsenal's current problems.