Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by emjay2kay

  1. Great result tonight for Leicester. Spurs, Arsenal and City all lose. A win yesterday would have been great, but then if you'd been offered these results in advance surely you'd have taken them? Atmosphere at Arsenal must be toxic right now. I'm a huge admirer of Wenger's, but he's just not doing it any more. So fucking stubborn, always preparing for tomorrow but not living for today. If you can find a world class striker for £5m who'll tear Europe apart in 3 years, good for you. But a world class striker for now costs £40m+. You have the money, fucking spend it and win something. And his loyalty, admirable as it may be, just holds him and Arsenal back. Space and money taken up in that squad by players who are permanently injured, who don't progress and who are so inconsistent you've got to say that, on average, they're not good enough for a team who wants to challenge for the title. For all the undoubted talent in that squad, it needs a shake up this summer and sadly I don't think Wenger's the man for that. I'd hate to see him sacked. It would be a terrible way to end his tenure there and on the whole undeserved. But Christ would a manager of only a few years standing be getting the boot at the end of this season.
  2. Ha, yes to be fair to him everyone has been clamouring for Rhodes and Nugent to play together. I personally wasn't fussed - I wanted to see Downing - Ramierez - Adomah behind Rhodes, so I was pleased to see it used and work well against Fulham and Cardiff. I'm not a big Nugent fan, and never have been. I wasn't impressed when we signed him in the summer, but he's a good option off the bench especially against tired legs. The home games against Hull and Brighton are must win in my view (albeit Brighton's the last game of the season so it might not matter either way by that point). Burnley away is huge. I pray to God we have our back 6 fit for that.
  3. That, er, said, I am tempted to kind of ignore this for the next 2 years until it comes out and let it spring itself upon me. I know I'll never achieve this though.
  4. We're going to balls this up aren't we? *puts gun in mouth*
  5. Utterly unbelievable that we came from 3 nil down, needing 4 goals in like 60 minutes, and we did for the second round in a row in the last few minutes. I still get goosebumps watching even highlights like that, and the commentary is almost burned into my brain. Sadly, the commentator in that clip died only last week. I think most Boro fans consider this their favourite commentary of his.
  6. emjay2kay


    I am trying to imagine Fox's reaction to Flamini.... I am picturing resigned despair.
  7. Wouldn't be a fan of that suggestion at all. It would benefit only the few teams playing in Europe, who get more money as a result and who have (generally) bigger squads which should see them able to cope with all the games. Teams in the Football League already play more league games than PL teams, with no where near the same squad depth. I know you're not saying that is what should happen, but I really would be against it - it does nothing to help those outside the PL. Look at Hull's fixture congestion at the moment - they've got 10 games to play in 35 days with an FA Cup replay to fit in somewhere. They're going for automatic promotion which I think is no less deserving of "help" than teams slogging their way through the Endless Europa League.
  8. No doubt the PFA will get involved again and Johnson will be playing again in no time.
  9. I don't think that makes a difference does it? "Look at all those fans paying £45 each to come to our stadium and hold up a sign." I'm not saying fans don't get reamed - of course they do - and they should be treated much better by clubs. But the only way to stop that is to stop paying the money in the first place. That's hardly a great solution, I know. Why should fans, who've supported a club and possibly been a season ticket holder for years, give up something they love in protest? They shouldn't have to, but I think it's the only thing that would make a difference. That money that gets handed over doesn't get an asterisk next to it in the club's accounts - "£60million - ticket sales* *handed over grudgingly" An empty stadium, devoid of atmosphere, sends a bigger message than those banners.
  10. It's his first spell in management too. He obviously has a deep understanding of the game, but translating that to your players and getting them to play the way you want is a skill itself. I'm sure given time he'd make a successful manager, but this is/was clearly a bloody hard place to start out.
  11. Are there really promoters bigging up their own fighters by saying they could beat a mid-50s Frank Bruno? Reporter: So how good, really, do you think your man is? Promoter: I'll tell you this - he could wipe the floor with Frank Bruno. Reporter: That's quite impressive - Bruno in his prime was incredibly strong, strange out-of-date reference point aside. Promoter: Well, I didn't say anything about him being in his prime. I meant he could beat Bruno now. Reporter: ....the Frank Bruno in his mid-50s who's famously had a mental breakdown and hasn't boxed in 20 years? Promoter: You better believe it!
  12. Rumours that the deal was agreed in principle and then the agent has started adding clauses and bonuses on top of bonuses. Boro have grown uneasy with each passing one until it's got too much and eventually the agent's broken the camel's back. Sounds like a right mess though - there's quite the chain running down the league waiting for this deal to happen so others can too. Lambert doesn't want Rhodes and he wants to leave. I think it'll probably get worked out by close of play, but whatever happens I trust Gibson completely. He rescued the club from the brink - he knows what he's doing and he's not going to put us at risk of undoing 30 years' worth of hard work. I still think if he just play Stuani up top we'll be ok. I was never happy with signing Nugent and I don't think I've been proven wrong on that, and hard as he and Kike work neither are clinical enough. Maybe Ramierz in the no.10 role will create more chances for them and it'll all work out. We'll see.
  13. What stood out for me in Inglorious Basterds was music re-used from Kill Bill. I found that very jarring for some reason.
  14. I think McCormack would have been better suited to our game personally. Sod age and resale value - promotion is what I want, not a return on investment (albeit, obviously, promotion would be a huge return on investment). That said, Rhodes is better than what we've got up front at the moment (albeit I think Stuani would be great if we actually played him up top) and I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. A £9m gift horse, as it were.
  15. Don't know if I'm that excited about it. Hopefully he'll feel he has something to prove but he didn't do much at Southampton or Hull. We'll see I guess. If it kicks some of our other players up the arse then I'm fine with it.
  16. What "highly significant" information has been left out, exactly? That Avery's DNA was on the latch of the car bonnet? Ok - but that was minuscule and it was such a small sample they couldn't even identify what type of DNA it was. It also could have come from cross transfer; a police officer confirmed that he'd forgotten to change his gloves during the search when going from taking blood samples in the car to lifting the bonnet to re-attach the battery. The *67 hidden number feature which Avery used twice to call Theresa? That doesn't mean too much to me, personally, although I can see why others would take a different view. She'd been to the Avery's before, she knew the address (it was on Avery Street at Avery Auto Salvage) so if she had no idea who she might be going to meet then I'll be astounded. I'm quite certain she would have recognised his voice on the phone when they did speak. That she didn't like Avery and found him creepy? Kratz says she told a co-worker she didn't like Avery and had answered the door in a towel. It's not clear whether this co-worker actually testified to that though, or whether the interview we did see with a co-worker was edited so as not to include that. If this co-worker didn't testify, and didn't say that in the interview, how was it supposed to be included in the documentary? It's this thing again of Kratz and the family not wanting to be a part of the documentary, then complaining that things they would have contributed weren't included. One thing I will grant you is that I would like it to have been clearer who the person was that was calling Theresa. The documentary made it seem like it could have been Avery or someone else the police should have investigated. However, does anyone know who the person was? The colleague they interviewed said she hadn't told him who the person was. Maybe her family knows, but if they do they've not divulged it as far as I'm aware of. So it's harsh to criticise the documentary for not making it clear who this person was if perhaps Theresa and the caller are the only people who know. What I would say though, is if Kratz has been through Avery's phone records and Theresa's, and the only thing he has to say about any of it is that he called her twice on the day of her disappearance using the *67 feature, I'd be tempted to say it wasn't Avery calling her those other times. If it had been, I'm sure Kratz would know and damn certain he'd have said so. Her phone and purse were found on the property? How much attention should have been given to this? It could have been included at the end of a sentence about finding her bones: "...bones were found, along with her purse and phone." Yeah, maybe. Doesn't make much of a difference to your opinion of his guilt though surely? Does it? I mean, her BONES are on his property! I seem to think they included something about that in the documentary, and I have to say, finding a dead woman's bones 20 feet from your house does seem suspicious. Seriously, if this is one of the key pieces of evidence you're seeking to hold against the makers on a charge of bias you need your head examined, because the implication is that this would somehow change your mind from "Hm, those bones could have got there anyway. I can't really say he's guilty just because her cremated bones are next to his house" to "Hold on, her fucking phone was there too? I can't believe both her dead body AND her possessions are on his property. That's just way too much evidence of guilt." What else are we missing? That he did have leg irons and restraints like Brandon described, and had bought them only a few weeks earlier? Ok... but her DNA wasn't on them, and the theory that she was tied up, raped, stabbed repeatedly and then had her throat cut in the bedroom is surely not one anyone, even those who believe them guilty, actually believes, right? They took away all of his knives (and this was shown in the documentary) and they couldn't find any of her DNA on the knives either. He plotted to do this to someone, according to a prisoner he shared a cell with? For one, this is pretty poor evidence. Even if it was included, I think it quite possibly would have taken up too much time in the documentary to explain all the reasons why testimony from former cellmates is shaky and dodgy as fuck and shouldn't be relied on. But maybe they could have, I don't know. The point still stands that, er, yeah, testimony from former cellmates is shaky and dodgy as fuck and shouldn't be relied on. The bullet found in the garage with Theresa's DNA on it was fired from Avery's gun? Well, no, it wasn't. It was fired from a .22 calibre rifle which is what Avery owned, as did Scott Tadych and any other number of people. No one could state it came from Avery's gun. I actually thought this had been included in the documentary, but plenty of people seem to disagree. What other compelling evidence am I missing? That no blood was found on Avery's gun? That animal blood was found in the garage, meaning it clearly hadn't been wiped clear of all DNA (as if that would have been possible)? That the lab technician who cocked up the DNA test on the bullet found in the garage had the highest error rate in the lab? That she was also the same scientist who confirmed Avery's DNA was found on clothes worn by the 1985 rape victim? That experts testified the cremation could not have taken place in an open fire pit in just a few hours? Stuff was left out for both sides. It had to be. There was a 6 week trial producing something like 600 hours of footage (albeit I'm guessing some of that is from multiple cameras). This was to be an 8 hour documentary, in which you have to set the scene of Avery's earlier conviction, his exoneration, his civil law suit, the depositions, Halbach's disappearance, Avery's arrest, Dassey's arrest, and then eventually a trial, and then the fall out, appeals, where we are now etc. Even with the extra 2 hours it's going to be a drop in the ocean for a story that lasts 30 years. What would you have taken out in order to fit more discussion of her phone, DNA on the bonnet latch, the leg restraints, the *67 calls and the rebuttals the Defence would have put forward? And does it make a difference? My view is that there isn't really anything to be taken out, unless you simply want to focus on the trial and never follow Avery's family. Would adding any of that lot above make a difference? I don't think so. It's not particularly compelling evidence of guilt over and above what's already included, and the evidence for the Defence outweighs that of the prosecution in my opinion. The only thing I would say, is I wish it had been included. There'd be nothing left to say "well, this wasn't included so it's obviously biased" and we could all just look at the shambolic investigation and prosecution that succeeded despite itself. I'm probably going to leave this thread - I realise I'm coming across like I'm married to one of the documentary makers. I just think the criticism of the documentary is very harsh. I read an opinion piece in the New Yorker today that criticised the documentary for not presenting a clear narrative of how Theresa actually died. I mean, WTF? Two men get convicted of the same crime on the basis of two different sequences of events, neither of which make sense on the evidence, and it's Making a Murderer that's criticised for not being clear on how she died? Fucking hell. Anyway, I've said my bit, and I've said it more than enough times now. Hopefully we'll find out the truth one day and we can all look back and laugh, or something.
  17. Me too. I live within earshot of the King Power Stadium and I love the atmosphere around here when they're playing. Can't imagine what it would be like if they make it to the Champions League. I'm certain I'd never get tickets, and not being a Leicester fan would feel slightly guilty about going, but the thought of seeing Barcelona play a 10 minute walk from my house is very exciting.
  18. Well, I'm not sure we're going to agree on this. I think it was Jerry Buting who said the broken seal and the vial were a "red letter day" for the Defence. He called the prosecution team and said exactly that - "game on" he said IIRC. They obviously thought it was a big deal at the time. The documentary team didn't manufacture that. Of course it was presented in a dramatic way - at the time the blood vial was examined it really did seem to be a big deal - and I think the documentary was well within its rights to show it that way. Did people want a monotone documentary? Maybe one day 6 weeks' worth of trial footage will be released on a special edition DVD and you can all watch that and see how fun (read: boring) an actual trial is. Or maybe at the time the Defence team were opening the old evidence and found the broken seal on the blood sample, they could have presented it in the documentary the same way but added a subtitle like "months later it would become clear that this wasn't anything useful at all. More details will be provided in episode 8." I don't think the documentary was biased, and I have no qualms about the way stuff was presented to us. It was a compelling story told in a compelling way. Nothing we've learnt since, or outside the documentary, has made me change my mind on that.
  19. Lot of talk about us signing Gaston Ramirez on a free, Matt Phillips from QPR in a player plus cash deal (£6m-ish plus Reach) and McCormack for £8/9m including add-ons and Kike on loan the other way. McCormack is "sick" for tomorrow's game, which is always a promising sign that a player's about to move. That's a ridiculous transfer window if it comes off.
  20. The documentary didn't make a big deal of the vial or the broken tape - the documentary showed the Defence team making a big deal of it. And again, if the prosecution didn't bring up the fact that holes in the tops of vials is normal, is it the documentary team's fault this information wasn't included? The prosecution wouldn't take part in the documentary - the makers can't be expected to include testimony from a nurse the prosecution never actually called as a witness. I think it's harsh to call into question the documentary maker's ethics or bias over stuff like this.
  21. I'll take that deal any day of the week. We are consistently poor up front - without our defence being an iron curtain for much of the season, we wouldn't be sitting at the top. We're a good team but we sneak passed teams with too many 1-0s in my opinion, and they're far too easy to slip to 1-1s and two points dropped. I find it all very uncomfortable. I'm not saying we should win every game 5-0, but we rarely put more than 2 passed teams. A consistent goalscorer, whether he cuts in the Prem or not, will be worth his weight in gold if he gets us over the line come May.
  22. Saw this the other night (Showcase, no intermission for those interested) and really enjoyed it. The time flew by and I didn't feel like the opening dragged at all (which was a criticism I'd heard beforehand). I quite liked the reveal at the end, but then I'm never one who tries to work out how a film is going to go - even obvious twists have to be signposted in giant letters before I really take notice. I'm just happy to let the film take me wherever it wants to go. That said, I'm not sure how it will hold up to repeat viewings, but my guess is that it will hold up well. There'll be all sorts of things you'll notice and try to work out, and see if x foreshadows y etc. My ranking of QT films would be... Jackie Brown Pulp Fiction Reservoir Dogs Kill Bill Hateful Eight (possibly moving up one once I've rewatched it a few times) Inglorious Basterds Django Unchained Death Proof
  23. emjay2kay


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35319202 Not great news just as the Australian Open starts. Although I can understand why they're not being named, it is a bit annoying that now everyone is going to be looked at suspiciously.
  24. Beat us at home as well! 6 points lost against a team in the relegation zone. Smith said it though - we just don't have a good enough striker. I don't know much about our new striker, Kike 2, but he's got 3 goals in La Liga this season. I hope that's from 3 substitute appearances, because it's hardly a record to inspire confidence otherwise.
  25. All of that is far more helpful to Avery's defence than the stuff left out for the prosecution was damaging. Be interesting to see if people still consider the documentary biased once they've read through that.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.