After the spurs match I posted that we would be getting Kroenke out protests within 24 months. I stand by this prediction.

Your right he doesn’t have to tell us anything.

The major problem the club has over the next few years will be the prices of tickets don’t justify the entertainment that will be served up at the Emirates so the empty seats will continue as it becomes abundantly clear arsenal can no longer compete at the highest level.

I really don’t think Kroenke cares at all about this, he’s borrowed about 1 billion to buy arsenal and the club is now valued at over 2.7 billion so he’s made 1.7 billion dollars purely from running an unsuccessful football club for 10 years.!!! Money for old rope.

Even if we had an empty stadium for another 10 years the club would be increasing in value anyway because of sponsorship and shares would be going up in value.

The only hope we are is that Kroenke finds a new business venture that requires financing and he needs access to the capital in his arsenal shares and sells. However that would be absolutely crazy on his part as he has made over 1 billion dollars from arsenal for just borrowing money to buy us and doing nothing and that profit will only increase

It’s like buying Buckingham palace letting the whole place rot and get run down over 20 years before selling it for a fortune. Kroenke is a *%^@

The only way I see Kroenke getting rattled is if the stadium is two thirds empty week-on-week and realistically that isn't going to happen.

Not sure how you get rid of an owner who isn't really bothered what the fans think.

Hang on the letter was co signed by Hugh Wizzy and arseblogger

Surely Stan must be feeling the pressure now !

I reckon it could be signed by Trump, Putin and Kim Jong-un and he still wouldn't be rattled.

Welcome back Daz !

Thank you, no way I was missing the opportunity to tousle the hair of my favourite forumite who is probably head-first in a barrel of rum burbling away about Chilean poofters, zionist helicopters, and how unfair it is they didn't change the pre-match formula to favour his poxy little country. And I bet Bernard's inflatable Mertesacker took a bit of a pounding last night.

(nb before anybody comes and tells me, I know the kiwi cricket team are a decent bunch and if I had to lose a final to anybody it would have been them but I'm still *%^@*** glad Lady Luck, Trent "rope" Boult, and our middle order showing up prevented it from happening).

Not to mention the Ben Stokes Moment: 'It was a little with my left arm, a little with the Bat of God.'

File under Lady Luck but yes that was nearly as delightful as Henry's handball for introducing the colonials to the concept of karma.

I hope Hoy has seen the Maradona movie. It is absolutely excellent and while he cannot be said to have a particularly endearing personality, the most striking thing about it is how alone he was in a city where predators waited at every turn. Ronaldo and Messi would have had an army of advisers and fixers; he just had the Camorra preying on him. It is a real indictment of Italy in the 80s - racist to the core - rather than a not especially bright and susceptible kid from a Buenos Aires slum. And yet so huge was his natural talent, he still managed to take a club looking more likely to be relegated and win the Scudetto. Twice. Just extraordinary.

Just to add to the slapped-arsedness of Pete's face, all those bleary eyed Kiwis should read this:

MCC Rule 19:8 states that, in the event of an overthrow, the runs scored are the allowance for the boundary and "the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

This image shows that Rashid and Stokes had NOT crossed when Guptil threw in from the boundary, hitting Stokes' bat and going for a boundary. Stokes was given 6 but it should only have been 5.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

I question that interpretation anyway.

Boundary(4) + runs completed(1) + run in progress (1).

Crossed which crease? It can only mean the crease for the beginning of the run otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense. But whatever if you want to insist it shouldn’t have counted you have at it.

England ICC World Cup champions - it’s engraved now.

EDIT: Not you per se DHD, I know you’re just pointing this out. Albeit I don’t think that’s the correct reading of it.

Afternoon Ash

In this context - "...if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.." crossed refers to batsmen passing each other in the middle of the track - once they've passed each other, they've crossed. It's a definition that triggers other actions as well. It's not about crossing one or other crease.

For Kiwis crying foul, there is another point about that amazing game.

Archer's first ball of the second 'super' over was called as a wide. That was a judgement on the part of Umpire Dharmasena but there's a perfectly reasonable case to argue that it wasn't wide at all. To my eye, the ball was on the blue guide line, not wide of it.

That would have been one less run to NZ and more importantly, one less ball which in the context of that over was worth 1, 2 or 6 runs. If the ball hadn't been called 'wide', that would likely have lopped a minimum of 2 runs off the NZ score - maybe more.

Mind you, there's a blindingly simple and indeed infallible way to resolve all these contentious issues - just read the scorecard in this morning's paper.

Overmars really talking up selling Ziyech. 21 goals and 24 assists last year, overmars saying he’s surprised no-one has properly come in for him yet. If we’re being quoted silly prices for wingers like zaha and Fraser, Ziyech can be got for around £20m and listening to Overmars he’s ready to sell

Respect to Martin Gupthill, to NZ and to Brendon McCallum whose influence and example pervades both teams.

It definitely wasn't a wide.

True Gaz ...... don't want this to come across as sour grapes ........ They were in fact tied twice ... the match then after the extra over

England lost all their wickets getting the 241 while NZ only lost eight .... now that surely would be the logical way to assess who won

...... but THEN they give England the win on the basis they had scored more fours and sixes during the match .....

Sounds like they were looking for any formula to guarantee an English victory .

I'm figuring if the fours and sixes had been equal they would have moved on to which team had the most supporters in the crowd .

Maybe the V8 supercar heirarchy is running that event as well .

Mrs Kiwi is a Pom I'll sort out my frustrations give her a damn good beating

I get the impression the calling of wides is an area of the game that has moved away from the rule book. I’m not saying that’s right. Just that it is what has happened, particularly in one day games, time after time after time.

Considering what seems to be called a wide whoever is playing, not just yesterday’s game, I’d have been astonished if Archer’s delivery had not been called a wide.

Well Kiwi nothing much I can say. Did not watch it but it seems like a heartbreaking end.

Time to think positive. You can wake up next month & know you have a great prime minister & they will have Boris and his bike helmet.

Tricky one Bern

The ump is supposed to use the blue lines as a guide but he’s also supposed to take account of the batsman’s stance at delivery and as the ball arrives.

The point about ‘wides’ is that the batsmen is supposed to be able to reach the bowled ball from a normal batting stance. But we all know that batsmen dance all around the crease these days as the bowler is about to deliver - backwards and forwards but more relevantly, to off and to leg, sometimes by a metre or more. Sometimes this is so he/she can be in a position to hit a ball bowled outside off to leg or a ball bowled outside leg to off. Realistically, there is no such thing any more as a ‘normal’ stance, particularly when the batter switches from a right to a left hand guard.

Archer’s first ball was on the blue line but crucially, Needham had moved across to be well outside his off stump as the ball passed him. From a normal - static - middle stump guard, he couldn’t reach a ball bowled on the blue line, though technically it should still have been a legal delivery. In the event, from where he was, he definitely COULD have reached that ball so it should not have been called as a wide.

I’m not disagreeing with you DHD. But from what you see being called a wide in countless one day games now, whoever is playing, I’d have been very surprised if it hadn’t been called a wide. I see it as the way the game has developed or moved on. Again, I’m not saying it’s right. Just that it is what has happened, for better or worse.

That’s hilarious - have you ever thought about becoming a comedian? Have you got over that humiliation in the semi yet?

What is really sad is that instead of talking about our signings and their impact we are talking about cricket and some strange decisions in a sport where betting dominates.