Liverpool laughing stocks?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As you say, there is already a practice of running so as to keep one's hands and arms out of the way. Good. Let's see it done for closing down too.

And if you want to take the full benefit of your sprint training, you're entitled to do that and conclude that the occasional accidental free kick is a price worth paying.

[Prufrock]

If all it lead to was the occasional free-kick, I'd not be too bothered.

Defenders do it closing down crosses, and often shots too, but the ball still hits their arms regularly, just by running that way they make a point of making the point that it isn't intentional. Do you really want to watch a game of football where everybody runs around with their arms behind their back, or alternatively, where the game is stopped two or three times a game for nothing other than a matter of chance. At least the current state of affairs leaves a measure of self-determinism.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20978255" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In what sense does a football club need an 'ambassador'?

Are Liverpool going to be opening up their own embassies and consular offices?

[Lord Kangana]

I thought they called them shops?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ah I see - Kenny is going to be selling merchandise. Got it.

[thebish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20978255

In what sense does a football club need an 'ambassador'?

someone has to spoil us with the ferrero rocher....

[bobo the clown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20978255

In what sense does a football club need an 'ambassador'?

Are Liverpool going to be opening up their own embassies and consular offices?

Like he was when Hodgson was manager .... & he spent the whole time undermining the poor sod ??

This can only end badly.

[CrazyHorse]

This can only end badly.

Yeah I know, brilliant isn't it?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This can only end badly.

Yeah I know, brilliant isn't it?

[bobo the clown]

Suarez has, it seems, admitted he's a diver. Specifically against Stoke in October ...a match where Pulis accused him & Rodgers and the huge mass of retards who follow Lerpool defended him to the hilt. I recall some saying Pulis should be admonished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21064709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 October 2012: Stoke manager Tony Pulis accuses Suarez of diving in 0-0 draw at Anfield.

8 October 2012: Brendan Rodgers defends Suarez, saying "the vilification of Luis is both wrong and unfair".

16 January 2013: Suarez admits to "falling" to try to win a penalty against Stoke to Fox Sports Argentina.

17 January 2013: Rodgers says Suarez's admission of diving is "unacceptable" and he will be dealt with "internally".

[thebish]

Suarez has, it seems, admitted he's a diver. Specifically against Stoke in October ...a match where Pulis accused him & Rodgers and the huge mass of retards who follow Lerpool defended him to the hilt. I recall some saying Pulis should be admonished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21064709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 October 2012: Stoke manager Tony Pulis accuses Suarez of diving in 0-0 draw at Anfield.

8 October 2012: Brendan Rodgers defends Suarez, saying "the vilification of Luis is both wrong and unfair".

16 January 2013: Suarez admits to "falling" to try to win a penalty against Stoke to Fox Sports Argentina.

17 January 2013: Rodgers says Suarez's admission of diving is "unacceptable" and he will be dealt with "internally".

is it the admission or the diving that is unacceptable?

[boltonboris]

The diving, in fairness.. Although, the BBC timeline thing quoted above doesn't really suggest that. His actual quote is in the body of the article, itself.

[malcd1]

Suarez has, it seems, admitted he's a diver. Specifically against Stoke in October ...a match where Pulis accused him & Rodgers and the huge mass of retards who follow Lerpool defended him to the hilt. I recall some saying Pulis should be admonished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21064709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 October 2012: Stoke manager Tony Pulis accuses Suarez of diving in 0-0 draw at Anfield.

8 October 2012: Brendan Rodgers defends Suarez, saying "the vilification of Luis is both wrong and unfair".

16 January 2013: Suarez admits to "falling" to try to win a penalty against Stoke to Fox Sports Argentina.

17 January 2013: Rodgers says Suarez's admission of diving is "unacceptable" and he will be dealt with "internally".

is it the admission or the diving that is unacceptable?

I thought the same thing when I read the article. I think the "will be dealt with internally by the club", means he will be told not to admit it again.

[Athers]

No doubt by Gerrard ROLL MY EYES

[Annoyed Grunt]

Almost got away with it

[Bruce Rioja]

Almost got away with it

[Always hopeful]

Almost got away with it

[bwfcdan94]

Almost got away with it

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The logic is very simple - the enterprise is either being managed through a registered charity or it's not?

Am I missing something?

Genuine question then, cos I dont know. The Hillsborough 'charity' single isn't raising money for a registered charity. The X factor single is? VAT can only be excluded for registered charities? Is that right?

If so - fair enough I suppose

When registered charities sell something to raise funds it is almost always 'zero-rated' for VAT. This is part of the special advantages accorded to such charities.

I don't know what's going on here for sure, but the only thing that makes sense to me is that one single is being sold as a fundraising activity by a registered charity and one isn't.

Just a thought, but if somebody like HMV collects a load of money on behalf a charity, and then goes into administration before the money is passed on, is that money ring-fenced for its purpose by the administrators?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

No, charities are treated the same as other unsecured creditors.