aaid

100%

He didn't mention anything about the summer though did he. Lets face it, this is just yet another occasion when football fans are completely hypocritical. They don't like it when one of their players or members of staff are tapped up but are not so fussed when its their team doing it.

So when Mark McGhee left Motherwell to go to Aberdeen, that shouldn't have happened then?

So you can sack a manager that is under-performing but a manager who is over-performing is not allowed to move to a job that he feels is better for him? That doesn't sound very equitable.

In that case would you agree that clubs shouldn't be allowed to sack managers during the season.

Another Maidenhead resident

I think pretty much all sports journalists do it to a greater or lesser extent.

Actually they don't or at least they rarely get their full contract paid up, which is why you generally see them back working before their contract would have expired.

As long as you can only sack managers in the same window. People often overlook the fact that clubs are pretty quick to sack managers and not honour contracts when it suits them, in fact I'd be prepared to bet that many many more clubs break their contracts with their manager than the other way around.

Pence is probably as compromised as Trump is - certainly in the Russia connections.

This whole thing is bringing in the game into disrepute and they'll all surely be "hauled before the beaks". While we're at it, has anyone other than a Scottish football journalist refer to tickets as "briefs"

He clearly needs to "issue a come and get me plea"

Do either of you continue to watch the BBC?

It's a bit of a strange one for me. It turns out to be a bad tackle as he catches him high and could have badly injured May. I don't think there was intent to injure but that's not been relevant to the law for years. All that said, if May doesn't pull out of the tackle then it's probably not even a foul so I think Jack was pretty unlucky to be sent off but it was a clear red to me - if that makes any sense. A very clear example of what I was taught as a kid, that if you hold back in a tackle, you are more likely to get injured.

Up until 1971 you were supposed to have a separate radio license if you only had a radio. It was scrapped presumably because if applied to so few people that the cost of operating the scheme vastly outweighed the revenue raised.

I'm no expert but I believe the basic premise of the law is that you have to have a TV license to watch live TV - any live TV, be it BBC, ITV, Sky, etc. The second part of this is that it's tied to premises, so for example, say you have two houses you have to have two TV licenses, you can't say that I'm only watching TV in one house at any one time. The problem of course is that the law is way out of date and is based on a time where there was only live TV, there was no concept of catch up TV or on demand or mobile. I understand that the law is going to be changed and to be fair it needs to be but as I understand it, there is currently no legal bar to watching iPlayer on catch up only, it's only if you use iPlayer to watch live TV that you need a license. The situation you describe of someone who has a license turning up with his laptop at your house is an interesting one, similarly, is there a difference between someone turning up at your house who has a license and then you all watching iPlayer on your laptop, is there any difference? I doubt these would ever get tested in court. The BBC have tried to mitigate against lost license revenue by implementing a registration and login before using it and obviously they are going to be looking for people registered that they don't have license details for but I think the BBC basically work off an assumption of presumed guilt, that every household has a TV and they use the same strongarm tactics and threats you've mentioned for any household that doesn't have the TV license. FWIW, I think you should have to have a license to watch iPlayer, including catch up. If you don't want to pay the license fee, fair enough, but don't watch the BBC either.

That font looks very familiar, in fact I'm sure I can say that yes, I've seen it before.

Clock's ticking now for Trump. He's cut a deal with prosecutors. Speculation is he'll testify that candidate Trump instructed him to make contact with the Russians.

A few years back I was at York Road one Saturday watching Maidenhead United who were then playing in front of crowds of a few hundred in the National League South. Midway through the first half, I went to the Gents for a Lilian and it was empty save for Matthew Cottle standing outside one of the cubicles. Who is Matthew Cottle you ask - he played the part of Martin the Ginger Tosser in cult 90s sitcom, Game On. I'd seen him at games before and knew he lived locally, so as I recognised him I gave him a sideways look as I walked in that he obviously interpreted as me thinking "what's the geezer doing hanging around the gents toilets" so he pointed at the cubicle and said "Err, I'm just waiting for my son". I twigged what was going on so gave it a sort of "Aye Right" look in response. A few seconds later, the cubicle opened and this young kid came out and he sort of pointed at him to indicate "Look here's my son, I'm really not a nonce".

I saw him in Dun Laoghaire the day after we played Ireland in the Celtic Cup a few years back. It was only because I'd watched a "Making of Father Ted" documentary a few months before that I recognised him.

I see that the Herald who were so keen to lambast Salmond for appearing on Russia Today and deriding that as Russian state propaganda are quite happy to report on what's on the program. They've had articles on all three episodes so far.

I'm not saying it isn't true but there are three parties involved here the SFA, the IFA and Michael O'Neill. That's not to mention others, such as agents, etc., that would be aware of what was going on. I don't know that it wasn't the SFA that leaked this but by the same token, I don't know that it was them. Whenever something like this happens, you gave to ask yourself "who benefits from this being in the public domain?" That's usually either the manager or "selling" club or association, it's rarely the "buying" club or association as they won't want to encourage any competitive offers.

How do you know it was the SFA that went public?

I don't think most football managers or players bother too much about being considered "second best" if the job is attractive to them. From a very early age as players, they are being judged against their peers and to be successful in that environment they have to have huge self belief. Unless they are someone like Messi, they will all have had another player chosen ahead of them at points in their career. I think they understand the realities of how football works as a business much better than any fan does.

A few years back I used to work with a young South African guy a few years back who lived in Wimbledon. I was talking to him one Monday and asked him what he'd been up to at the weekend. Blah, blah, blah and on Sunday we went round to John Simpson's house for a barbecue. I was, hold on, *you* know John Simpson, the BBC's chief foreign correspondent. Turned out John Simpson's wife is a lot younger than he is and she'd been in ante-natal classes with my mate's wife and had become really good friends, so he was round at John Simpson's house on a regular basis. The Hong Kong football sevens was on just after Scotland played there in 2002. You couldn't move in Wanchai for professional footballers both Scotland players and ex-pros.