Can’t imagine him wearing any other kit now. Very definition of an adopted Geordie. Really deserved his winners medal from the LC, maybe more than any other member of the squad

I pretty much agree with this apart from I’d have miggy for Murphy and Miley for Willock. You wouldn’t be bothered if we sent that team out in the PL which shows the current strength of the squad

Excellent as always Harry thank you. There’s simply no question of selling him right now

Completely!

Yep. I think it’s mainly about wages rather than transfer fees. Need to get some higher earners e.g. Tripps, Wilson off the books to bring in another one

Had we bought him we would have had to sell apparently

Luke, genuine question, not trying to have an argument. Why are multiple media including Matt Law trying to portray the 1st goal as controversial? The DT article even reproduces the law that proves no offence occurred. It just seems really bizarre. Disliking the law is valid but not relevant

…this season but I think they’re a good side. And Porro and Kulusevski are wonderful players

But then we’d be having the reverse discussion all the time. As ever, the problem here is common sense and consistency are mutually exclusive. We either have one or the other and accept that mistakes happen. Oh and binning VAR would be a great start. FWIW I think injuries have killed Spurs…

The problem with handball is when they removed intent from the law because it was impossible to prove in all but the most blatant of cases, they created a whole new problem that could only be solved with a strict law of “if it hits your hand, that’s handball”.

I can’t comment on your first point but I accept you know more on it. However I maintain my stance on the second. You can’t call it shocking or wrong or controversial if the law has been applied correctly. It simply isn’t a handball offence. You can be pissed off, that’s fine.

My thoughts exactly! The only difference with Svens was that Gordon got his blinking nose broken!

Karen Carney on BT simply refused to accept it despite having it explained and finally said that the law was wrong! That’s just daft!

I agree with everything you’ve said. My point is still the use of the word controversial. Journalists seem to use it to create the so called controversy and (and I accept I may be biased here) it always seems to be used when something goes against the big 6.

Why was it controversial please? It wasn’t intentional, his arm was in a natural position and 2 others touched the ball before it entered the goal so again, please tell me why it’s controversial? Granted however Spurs played well second half and could easily argue they deserved an equaliser

1997 apparently. Shearer, Lee, Batty. It’s absolutely brilliant it’s happened again

Greetings fellow Mags from an exiled fan in Scotland! ⚪️⚫️⚪️⚫️