Thommo on SSN last night

[Marky]

Sky Sports News really ****ed me off today.

[Tee]

Sky Sports News really ****ed me off today.

Why?

Were they harping on about Chelsea and Manure. Sky are loving it now that they think we will not go through. Tossers.

[Guest]

I like Merson. He is usually a good presenter.

And who can blame him for laughing?

[Marky]

Why?

Were they harping on about Chelsea and Manure. Sky are loving it now that they think we will not go through. Tossers.

Because they were counting how many mins the ref should of added on at the end, worked it out at 5/6 or something.
I honestly don't think they'd do the same if Fergie gave off about how long was added on in a match, like Rafa did last night.
Also they showed Thommo's reaction to the equaliser, they seem to do it when it's him when we have conceded a major goal, ****ing focus the camera on McQueen or some one of them Manc knobs when they concede a big goal and show it 20 times over. FFS, ******s.
Then they had a pile of ex Chelsea knobheads on slabbering away about a fluky last minute goal that has them on the verge of the final.
I just got a strong feeling they were loving the fact we didn't hold out for a 1-0 win.
****ing shower of ****s.

[CJ]

Paul merson

[Tee]

Because they were counting how many mins the ref should of added on at the end, worked it out at 5/6 or something.
I honestly don't think they'd do the same if Fergie gave off about how long was added on in a match, like Rafa did last night.
Also they showed Thommo's reaction to the equaliser, they seem to do it when it's him when we have conceded a major goal, ****ing focus the camera on McQueen or some one of them Manc knobs when they concede a big goal and show it 20 times over. FFS, ******s.
Then they had a pile of ex Chelsea knobheads on slabbering away about a fluky last minute goal that has them on the verge of the final.
I just got a strong feeling they were loving the fact we didn't hold out for a 1-0 win.
****ing shower of ****s.

Only the cunts at Sky would try and justify that stoppage time.

[RhylRed]

I thought 4 subs in the 2nd half = 4 mins injury time???

[Craig_H]

The stoppage time wasnt too much. There SHOULD have been over 5 mins, if you're counting all the proper stoppages.

However...the difference is, there's NEVER enough actual stoppage time, according to the amount of actual stoppages in a game. Usually, the ball is in play for something like 25 mins of the 45 but you wont have 20 mins stoppage time, obviously.

The problem with Sky is that they're making a huge fuss of this, but why now all of a sudden? The amount of stoppage time played is nearly always less than the actual amount of time it should be, but who cares?

[Tee]

I thought 4 subs in the 2nd half = 4 mins injury time???

1 sub = 30 secs, so 4 = 2 mins.

[shanks69]

1 sub = 30 secs, so 4 = 2 mins.

aurelio needed treatment and was stretchered off and i think drogba got treatment so i think 4mins was about right.

[chadrtc]

1 sub = 30 secs, so 4 = 2 mins.

Is the correct answer!

[Roboklopp]

I ****ing hate Sky- I wonder if DIC take us over, they'll ****ing take the piss so much

[robbielad9]

1 sub = 30 secs, so 4 = 2 mins.

Plus time added on for each time Dogbreath ended up on the deck................................another 25 minutes..........cheating cunt (sorry wrong thread)

[Los Rojos]

If it wasn't for the cricket this summer, I'd be binning my Sky Sports.

[Sarb]

I'm going to ditch Sky Sports when the Champions League run is over. Hope it's not next week. Paying ****ing 40 quid odd for them to take the piss out of us. ****ing cocks