This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Typhlosion
1
« on: March 04, 2016, 21:12 »
Things have settled down since I finished Uni and finally got out of retail  but I do miss the time I used to have most nights to dedicate to this site (I am about to waste an entire weekend watching House of Cards but that's not the point...) https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B2zi77ZNdKzRaUVjU1hLcG5tVUk&usp=sharingSo this is everything I have. The contestants you saw in the Series 7 section were the actual contestants (and Bibarel did go first). Episode 1 is there in it's entirety and the plans.txt file will give you a basic breakdown of the series and the sort of clues that would have been planted (including an explanation of the clue image that would have been used to promote the series). ... Christ I didn't realise how much I missed this 
2
« on: March 04, 2016, 20:12 »
Can't believe this topic is nearly a year old and I've only just seen it.. hi! There was a 7th series planned and work started initially. I think I even have a full Episode 1 draft somewhere (I could always upload it if there's interest) but it never went any further than that for many different reasons. The system we built for PokéMole puts episodes/seasons up automatically based on a date we set in the background - I guess whatever date we put in there temporarily to hide it got passed and the season appeared  Really glad you enjoyed it though! I adored writing the series and it was with me for many years. Always nice to hear that people read and enjoyed the series  Well worth watching the original two UK series on YouTube if you haven't seen them. You'll see where a lot of the inspiration came from.
3
« on: March 10, 2013, 18:35 »
No point worrying about the Nani red card anymore - we've just showed what happens when we're in a comfortable home lead against an opposition who look like they've never seen a football before ;;
4
« on: March 06, 2013, 18:26 »
I dunno about the Premier League, but in League One players tend to straighten their foot when going to control the ball like that. All the time? Every single time the ball drops? Regardless of the direction the ball is travelling? League One is unique then. From what I saw, the only person 'flying in' was Nani They both flew in, as they were both entitled to. But how many players attempt to control the ball in that way every week? No idea, I'd suspect a fair few. Nope. Micah Richards had the sense to back out of it because he saw what Rooney was going to do. If both of them had gone in then play would most certainly have stopped. You've missed the point though. According to this argument, the fact that Rooney COULD have seriously injured Richards had he not backed out means Rooney should have been sent off. But the counter argument from most referees and pundits is that Nani didn't NEED to jump as high as he did. Arbeloa was always going to get there first Why not? The ball was there to be won, it was at a reasonable height and Nani went for it. As for the 'always going to get there first', the fact Arbeloa got there about half a second before Nani suggests otherwise. [Will edit this post with a full response soon]
You don't control the ball with the bottom of your foot though, hence why it's dangerous. By going for it in that manner Nani put those around him at risk. A studs up tackle is a red card due to the danger of it; the same applies to this.
[pending]
You're entitled to control the ball with the top of your foot, and at that angle that will leave your studs showing. It happens, we see it happening week in week out. Nani didn't know Arbeloa was there and as I've shown, no rule exists which supports the red card.
5
« on: March 06, 2013, 16:34 »
Fifa law 12, fouls and misconduct, states:
"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play." It clarifies: "Excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent." Nani attempted to control the ball while it was landing - if you let it bounce you risk a player nipping the ball away from you. Nani clearly does not know Arbeloa is where he is - that much is obvious from the way his eyes never leave the ball until it's too late. He does know a player will be in close proximity - of course he does, it's Real Madrid, they won't just leave him with yards of space - but Arbeloa comes flying in from nowhere. As indeed, he has every right to. The ball was there to be won. You say it's very high - I disagree completely. Head height might be a different story, but it's barely chest height. The ball is kicked and flicked around at that height every week across any league in the world. how Nani attempted to control the ball was completely wrong because he's gone at it studs first Well at some point FIFA might need to accept that when you put studs on the bottom of shoes, that's sort of a natural outcome. Just because Nani intended to control it doesn't mean he's safe from trouble. Due to the danger of him attempting what he did intention becomes irrelevant because the damage had taken place. The rules do not mention intention or malice. I think that's a very poor argument (which I've heard a lot today) and I'll explain why. You can find "dangerous situations" all over a football pitch IF you deliberately go around looking for them. As the FIFA laws quote, excessive force or brutality means far exceeding the necessary use of force AND being in danger of injuring the opponent. That's not an or, it's an and. And that's really important. Let's assume Fernando Torres is running clean through on goal but the ball is just running away from him, and David De Gea comes out and goes down to smother the ball. It's a close run thing, so Torres also attempts to try and shoot. De Gea smothers the ball, Torres collides into him, De Gea is hurt. It's a foul against Torres, but it's nothing more than that, it's a ball two players were both entitled to go for. According to this argument, Torres should walk for that. Oh sure, there's no intention to harm De Gea, but hey that's irrelevant, he's basically kicked De Gea in the head. He has to go according to this argument, and I think we can all establish that's completely ridiculous. What about Rooney's overhead kick against City? Doing an overhead kick in the air like that? When he can't see what's behind him at the time? Well that's a straight red card as well. Sure, there's no intent to hurt anyone but he could seriously injure an opponent doing so. Nani did not use excessive force or brutality - he tried to control a dropping ball he was perfectly entitled to go for. Therefore he did not contravene any part of that rule, therefore it does not justify the red card. And personally, the fact that even Mourinho says it wasn't a red card speaks volumes to me. The rules also don't have anything to say why it isn't a red card. That's a bit of an anti-argument, of course they don't say why it isn't a red card. There are no such rules, the rules dictate when a red card should be given, not the other way around. And to my knowledge there are still no rules which can justify sending Nani off. It was a poor decision. Consider as well what the referee is seeing from real time. From his angle it does look like a kick to the chest =P Nani goes for the ball and Arbeloa jumps into his foot. If the referee can't see that (i.e. foot up, eyes on the ball before Arbeloa arrives) then he's even either a) more useless at his job than the decision he gave makes out or b) not in a good enough position to justify sending Nani off since he isn't 100% sure. As for the "ref ruined a good game" argument that's flying around. Up until that point the match was bloody boring. Exactly the same points apply to everything you said Aidan. And to put it another way - the referee ruined a fair game, and the opportunity of a fair end to the game. And on a side note that made me giggle to myself this morning: to everyone getting excited because of this decision going against Man Utd and somehow justifying it as karma, the irony is that no referee in the country will dare give a big decision against Man Utd at Old Trafford now for months . Liam: Yeah, no taking away from the goals. Great movement by Ronaldo and Modric's goal: wow. Shame the fact we went out to two great goals (kind of how you want to go out of these tournaments) has been completely overshadowed.
6
« on: March 06, 2013, 12:50 »
People are overlooking that fact because we'd done enough. We were leading the tie on aggregate, that's all we needed. Hard to say whether Madrid would have gotten back into it anyway but the decision certainly seemed to spur them on - couldn't have predicted that comeback coming until the red card, Madrid looked lifeless before then. Tactically we beat them all ends up.
The behaviour of the whole team was bad in the way they surrounded the referee, and I wouldn't be surprised to see action taken, but when the referee gets such a massive decision as that ridiculously wrong it's easy to see how tempers can be lost.
I'd be interested to know why you think it's a red card Alex. No argument I've heard yet has convinced me otherwise, nor concurred with the rulebook.
7
« on: October 31, 2012, 22:30 »
Scott Wootton's Wikipedia page is becoming hilarious.
"October 31st , Scott Wootton played his last game in Manchester United Shirt"
"On October 31, 2012 Wootton was sold to Liverpool."
Lmao Shame, he'd looked rather decent until injury time.
8
« on: October 31, 2012, 22:25 »
So what excuses will it be from Fergie tonight?
Why would there be any excuses?
9
« on: October 31, 2012, 21:43 »
*headdesk and reach for another Strongbow*
Karma's a you-know-what, eh?
10
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:10 »
Oh, this is what makes football such an interesting game to talk about (or so I keep convincing myself, I'm sure it's so mundane to others) because nobody will ever share the exact opinions and that there will always be something to debate. Like I say, I can see why Torres was booked for diving, but I do not agree with it because of consistency's sake because I believe what Torres was sent off for Young was guilty of just prior to it. Whereas I believe Young's reputation has sadly gone before him here, and the contact from Ivanovic looks like it felled him. The point that I'm making in regards to Rooney is very valid here, actually, because your point was about Torres going down not being caused by the contact from Evans (debateable in itself) which thus equates to being a dive and thus, a bookable offence. But, in the video shown, Rooney was going to the ground regardless and went for the penalty because of the ball being sent out of control, so do you punish him for that? After all, whether inevitable or not, he's gone down before any contact has been made full stop, which in my eyes is the same as doing what Torres has done; feigned an increased amount of contact to win a foul. Rooney knew what he was doing. But, of course, this is meaningless and pointless because at the end of the day, it happened what.. three years ago..? (I'm not one to hold a grudge.. honest..) and you'll never see the point where they punish blatant diving because it's hard to actually pinpoint whether the player definitely dived, otherwise you'll find instances where the player jumps to avoid collision but loses balance (for example); do we take that as a foul or not, and if not, why can everybody not fly in with the idea of preventing the opposition getting past..? I have long said that punishments should be dealt out in both directions in situations like this. Let's use the Evans/Torres incident as an example. Evans would commit the foul by clipping Torres, Torres also gets a yellow for diving and making the most of it. Was it you I had this discussion with who argued you can't do that as fouls have to go one way or the other, not both ways? Somebody made that point and I don't agree at all. When two players start fighting and attacking each other you don't send one off and leave the other, you send them both off (was it Bowyer and Dyer for Newcastle many years back?). The rules would have to be changed to allow for it, but it would stop players from throwing themselves on the floor the second that an opposition shoelace brushes against them. The problem is that because the game has grown so much and has become so pressured, so demanding and so fast, there will always be that element of players pushing their luck as much as they can to get that upper hand. But because it's fast as well, if I was running at full sprint I'd be far more inclined to get out of the way than actually be fouled as we all know what can happen in a split second (was it Marc Wilson who broke his fibula this weekend?) such as Eduardo and Ramsey, which makes it harder to determine intent; was the player avoiding contact, but was fouled, or was the player avoiding contact to win a foul? It's usually these same players who throw themselves to the ground on a regular basis though, so if they leap out of the way to avoid a challenge and then don't get a free kick then it's ultimately their own faults. Although saying that when players then decide to randomly do a swan dive after missing the contact, they make the referees decision harder. Once diving is eradicated, which it would be with retrospective 5 match bans for those found guilty of it, then you can start worrying about incidents like that. The players are the ones that do it, and it's usually the ones who protest innocence about it as well. Yes Stevie Me, I'm looking at you. ... but my point has always (and will always) been that you seem to get far more decisions go your way than any other team, including Chelsea. Always have done. There is a conspiracy mate, you perhaps just don't see it when it's going in your favour as the rest of the world looks on you with anger as you seemingly appear above it. In regards to Clattenburg, such as;
"Last season, The bitters romped to a 6-1 win at Old Trafford, inflicting on their rivals their biggest embarrassment under Ferguson. The referee on that day was Mark Clattenburg. He sent Johnny Evans off in the second half for a clear professional foul. It seems that the FA, for whatever reason, doesn’t want Clattenburg to referee Man United games anymore. Some of us more paranoid folk may just wonder who’s behind that decision. There have been 34 Man United league games since that day. The number of times Clattenburg has refereed them? Zero. Not a single one." But we're not responsible for choosing referees, the FA are. The same FA who banned Ferdinand for eight months for missing a drugs test (and then suddenly realised Euro 2004 was coming up inside those eight months) then a few weeks later banned another player for considerably less for failing a drugs test, surely a massively greater offence. The same FA who couldn't dish out three match bans to Rooney and Scholes quickly enough after they got sent off in a pre-match friendly in Amsterdam in 2007. Who then decided they couldn't ban Ivanovic when he got sent off in this seasons Community Shield because "it wasn't a competitive game". The same FA that decided that John Terry, found not guilty of racism in a court of law, WAS guilty of racism according to their own terms. Leaving my own feelings aside in that last example particularly, The FA as a general rule of thumb are an incompetent organisation who make up the rules as they go along, who couldn't even approach a new England manager without accidentally announcing to the world what they were doing when it was clear Eriksson was leaving. Who couldn't attempt to bid for the 2018 World Cup without seeming to break every single rule along the way. And we're supposed to believe Man Utd have some sinister, backhanded influence which the FA have managed to keep quiet for years? The FA are incapable of keeping anything quiet. Let us not approach Howard Webb though for this big myth about him liking your lot more than the next person.. oh can we please?
"Webb’s history in Man United games are well known and documented. All I have to say on the matter is that more than 18% of the penalties he’s awarded in his ENTIRE premier league refereeing career have gone to Manchester United. Over a 9 year period, that’s a huge percentage." Statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate Rob. 82% of penalties that the apparently biased Howard Webb have given have had nothing to do with Man Utd. And how do we know there's not another team that have had 17% of the penalties he's given? We don't, and because of that it's hard to take statistics like that seriously. Also worth remembering as probably the most attacking team of all time in the Premier League, we're usually in the position of being able to win penalties compared to other teams. Reminds me of Boothroyd whining about Watford not being given a single penalty in the Premier League by the time it had got to December. Yes Aidy, that's because your Watford side are hardly ever in the opponents penalty area. Who did that survey on incorrect decisions and how they'd influenced Premier League games? I can't find it now annoyingly, but Chelsea had accrued the most points from incorrect decisions in the Premier League era and in terms of overall incorrect decisions in our favour we were something like 5th or 6th. Of course it's a nightmare to measure. Just because you get that dodgy penalty and go 1-0 up with 10 minutes left doesn't mean that penalty has DEFINITELY given you +2 points compared to what you should have. You'd play a bit more attacking for those 10 minutes without the penalty, compared to pulling back a little to try and protect your lead now you have the goal. And just because you were wrongly called offside as you ran clean through on goal in a match which finished 0-0, doesn't mean you'd DEFINITELY have scored it and won the game. It's incredibly manipulable data and it should be labelled as such, but it gives a rough idea as to how ridiculous this conspiracy is. From last season alone, you've the two infamous Ashley Young dives, the clear-cut penalty Fulham were turned away in your 1-0 defeat of them in the dying minutes (Murphy being fouled by Carrick was it?) along with a number of questionable decisions in I think.. eight matches was it where you went eight points clear at the top (I'm working off the top of my head here, excuse me). This season already you've got Welback against Wigan, Evans against Liverpool, the Chelsea match, where these inconsistences all work to your advantage. The Fulham non-penalty.. in my defence you will remember the second that was waved away I texted you in complete disbelief that we'd gotten away with that one  The Young dives LOOKED like penalties at first glance though. While being the wrong decisions I didn't think it was completely unbelievable that either decision was given. In an ideal world Young would be retrospectively banned for the dives, but was it really a major "headdesk" moment that on first glance they were given as penalties? As you mention, the speed and pace the game is played at nowadays, with angles constantly changing and players constantly running in the referees and linesman's eyesight, I don't really think they were. Although, I've admittingly always had some form of bias since that game against Middlesbrough where somebody awarded a penalty against you, at Old Trafford, which is a crime punishable only by death really, and your players surrounded the referee and chased them halfway across the pitch. Since then I've probably noticed these incidents more, especially since we had a perfectly good goal disallowed and a clear penalty (and sending off appeal) turned down in the dying minutes of a 1-1 draw against you in 2001. Exactly. You notice these decisions more because you look for them. Just like I now roll my eyes everytime anything goes for Chelsea. They went through a period under Mourinho when it was impossible to get anything at all at Stamford Bridge. Which links in nicely to the point I know you've made next. Can't find it on Youtube, but remember when John Terry made a brilliant diving save at Stamford Bridge? As a central defender? And the referee had a clear view and waved play on? One of the most ridiculous decisions you've ever see in any match. .. I really aren't one to hold a grudge am I? Not at all dear My argument always has been that I suspect you get more decisions go your way because of Ferguson, but you get too many acts of karma for outright bribery; I think it's intimidation a lot of the time where, in the heat of the moment, you get the rub of the green. I know you'll admit when Ferguson is being out of order though, such as when he accused the five minutes added time against us as being an insult to the game (when it was worked out something like 4 minutes and 47 seconds was the amount of time to be added), or when he accused the amount of time against Tottenham the other week as "not being enough to win the match", completely disregarding the other ninety bloody minutes. Then again, cough cough Owen against The bitters cough cough, I suppose it can work sometimes... Oh yeah. I love Fergie to bits but he doesn't half chat crap at times. Wound me up something rotten when he started chatting on about injury time when we lost 2-3 to Spurs a few weeks ago. I mean, you're whinging about injury time not being given and thus not giving us a chance to win the game? If we hadn't spend the entire first 45 minutes stood back watching Spurs run at us without even trying to close them down we'd have had a damn sight better chance of winning that match that another 2 minutes of injury time would have given us. Ugh. And against you... you defended like heroes that day and got the rub of the screen (I think we missed 2 sitters that day). On the other side of the coin that Snodgrass free kick that hit the bar could easily have gone in. Sometimes you just have to hold your hands up and admit the other team were better than you that day and deserved the win. Like you did that day. But linking back to what I said before. Intimidation is probably spot on. Officials ARE scared of him but ultimately that isn't Fergie's problem. That's part of his character, that anger, that passion, that drive is part of exactly what has made him probably the best manager ever, and the onus should be on the FA to find linesman and referees who can stand up to that. It's not just a Fergie thing though. Referees were terrified of what Mourinho would say when he was here. They're terrified of upsetting particular crowds. Anfield is a good one for that. I even suspect the real Suarez was called offside for his last minute "winner" against Everton at the weekend was because the linesman was scared of allowing a last minute Liverpool winner at Goodison. The only one of your examples I can actually dispute is "2008: Michael Carrick penalised for a freak handball in the area, hands by his side, even Match of the Day acknowledged it was a ridiculous decision, giving Chelsea a late penalty. Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1.", I was always under the impression the change to "ball to hand" came into play then The rule is "deliberate handball" though. I can't find a YouTube clip for that either, but genuinely it was a ridiculous decision given because the crowd were getting rowdy because the pressure was really on Chelsea to win that game, after I think Chelsea had already gotten away with a similar incident earlier on in the game. All comes back to inconsistency again doesn't it.
11
« on: October 30, 2012, 14:10 »
The Torres incident goes down to personal opinion, but I believed he was fouled. Evans caught him, the speed they were both going at would've caused such. Torres could've chosen to stay on his feet, which you have this problem with, but this goes both ways and I can think of plenty of times where you have defended your own players for going down under minimal contact because it was a foul, such as Rooney's penalty against Almunia a few years ago. Even more brilliant is how the other side of the coin, Ivanovic's sending off was under minimal contact and again, Young could've easily chosen to go clean through on goal but chose not to, got the man sent off. Like you say dear, personal opinion. Personally I feel the right decision was made but on the other side of the coin I wouldn't have been that surprised if the foul had been given against Evans. Two major points to what you say though: 1. I believe the contact Ivanovic made with Young sent him down, he clipped his feet while he was running full pelt. 2. To clarify to everyone else, this is the Rooney v Almunia incident which Rob and myself have previously discussed at great length You're mixing me up a little bit here Rob. You argued that it wasn't a penalty because Rooney goes looking for the contact and because he's completely lost control of the ball. There is a difference between inviting contact and going down as soon as you feel it. I certainly don't feel Almunia spreading himself completely in front of Rooney and getting nothing of the ball can be classed as minimal contact. It's this huge issue of inconsistent that I absolutely cannot stand because it always You've hit the nail on the head. Ultimately I can't come up with stone clad evidence that says your opinion is "wrong", and I would suggest vice versa as well. One approach or the other needs to be taken and stuck to, because it's the inconsistency which fans are getting disillusioned with. Yet, your lot got the rub of the green there and in both matches, just when you were starting to find the match swinging out of your favour, two inconsistencies occur in two of your hardest away matches and all of a sudden, you end up with six points and very questionable decisions. But these things DO even themselves out. The immense spotlight that always seems to swing around whenever we get an incorrect or contentious decision winds me up something rotten. Match of the Day 2 treated us to a detailed analysis of the decisions that went our way on Sunday night. Match of the Day on Saturday night treated Arteta's clearly offside winner for Arsenal as though it was just a minor detail which didn't affect the game at all. Decisions go for and against all the big teams and yet people focus in immense detail on anything which goes for us as though it's some kind of big conspiracy theory. I texted you yesterday morning about the decisions we've had go against us there. I'll elaborate further now. 2007: Essien hacks Eagles down in the area, referee has a clear view and waves play on. Chelsea 0 Man Utd 0. 2007 (2): Ashley Cole handles in the area twice, arms out away from his body both times. Referee waves play on both times. Chelsea 1 Man Utd 1. 2008: Michael Carrick penalised for a freak handball in the area, hands by his side, even Match of the Day acknowledged it was a ridiculous decision, giving Chelsea a late penalty. Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1. 2009: John Terry hauls Valencia down in the box as the last man, referee waves play on. Darren Fletcher cleanly tackles Ashley Cole but the referee awards a free kick. Carvalho hauls Wes Brown down in the area as Terry heads the ball in, via Drogba standing in an offside position. Goal given. Chelsea 1 Man Utd 0. 2010: Drogba latches onto a ball and smashes in, despite being 2 yards offside. Chelsea go above Man Utd in the table and both teams win their final games, giving Chelsea the title by 1 point. Man Utd 1 Chelsea 2. I know you make these points as part of a balanced argument which is fine. A lot of people come across as though they're pursuing some kind of jealous vendetta though, especially amongst the media. It's important to remember the list I give above does not include decisions we have gotten against Chelsea. Such as the non-penalty in the Champions League in 2011. Or the Macheda handball goal in 2010. But I assure you the decisions Chelsea have had against us far outweigh anything we've had against them until Sunday, and most of them were pretty crucial decisions which influenced the outcome of the game. It irritates the hell out of me that people forget all these though and concentrate on the rare games where the big decisions all went to us. What about Man Utd v Newcastle last season, when Newcastle were awarded a hilariously bad penalty decision and a last minute Hernandez goal was ruled offside when he was onside? Finished 1-1. My argument is just as many decisions go against us as go for us, yet people seem to forget this and concentrate just on what goes for us. The only way you can really change this is to enforce 'after-match' punishments or to go down video technology route, punishing those who have blatantly dived to win a foul and not owned up to it afterwards. After crying out for punishments for years, the media then threw a tantrum when Arshavin was given a ban for a clear dive against Celtic in the Champions League, and he was suddenly let off. Whenever a player is punished for diving people suddenly start saying how harsh it is. Like I said, we're all just as much to blame for diving being in the game.
12
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:56 »
All this nonsense about the Torres sending off being a real injustice is starting to really annoy me. Especially now I've watched this incident about six or seven times.
The real injustice from the match was the Hernandez goal being given when he was clearly offside. Torres I have very little sympathy for. Football is a contact sport and I'm sick of commentators (and thus half the mimicking FaceTwit population) suddenly deciding that if you touch someone it's definitely a foul. Did that touch cause Torres to go down? No, it definitely did not. It was a minor touch and Torres still got past Evans before throwing himself to the floor. My first instinct upon seeing it was that Torres dived and that's the same opinion the referee had. Torres is not the only one who does this sadly, this isn't a dig just at him. It's to all players who do it. He could have gone clean through on goal but chose not to, he chose to go down. The touch did not send him down. Therefore he dived and got exactly what he deserved.
His ridiculous actions afterwards just convince me even more. Holding his knee for a good ten seconds until he realised he was the one who had been found out, at which point the pain magically disappeared.
Diving will continue in football for as long as people continue to defend it. The referee on Sunday booked two players for diving under minimal contact. Torres and Valencia both did it and rightly both got booked. The offside goal was the fault of the linesman, not the referee. I thought the referee had a good game and should be applauded for booking players for diving, getting the decision correct both times. Yet for some reason we're lambasting him for doing it. So he probably won't bother next time. And diving will continue.
And frankly, for this ridiculous overreaction whenever a referee stands up to it, we'll all have to take a lot of the blame for that.
13
« on: September 30, 2012, 19:42 »
Idiot. Pure idiot. Four minutes not enough? What about the seven minutes they got against Leeds in the FA Cup loss a few years ago? That wasn't enough either, apparently.
You'll probably double take when you see this is coming from me, but as Rob said to me: were the 90 previous minutes not enough? We were that abject in the first half that you cannot have a single complaint if you then lose the game. Not one.
14
« on: August 01, 2012, 22:58 »
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Financial Fair Play rules come into effect in the 2013/2014 season.
Chelsea will have to sell half their squad and Man City will be able to attract the likes of Gareth Barry, Elano and Bernando Corradi once again! 
15
« on: July 10, 2011, 20:13 »
Please note that the deadline for attendance has now passed.
Any further requests for attendance must to made to either myself or Joeno via PM and as soon as possible.
|
Information 
Content
News
Dex
Episode Guides
Trading Card Game
Columns
Interactivity 
Caption Contest
Name Rater
Ask Sentret
Cards
Trivia
PokéMole
Community 
Forums
Squads
Tournaments
Fanfics
Site 
Tagging
Mantis
About
Show Posts