horsefly

Agree with the vast majority of that. I have no time at all for Corbyn and his crew; they absolutely take the lion's share of the responsibility. However, it wouldn't be right to claim that the LibDems were without any blame; Swinson was always very vocal that she would never do any kind of deal with Labour.

I think you have misunderstood the question of the thread. It's "who is your weird crush?" Not, "who has been weirdly crushed?"

Indeed! I don't think I will ever forgive Corbyn and Swinson for their hubris in refusing to work together on an issue of such national importance. To this day I can not understand what was going through the heads of Corbyn and his acolytes when they granted Johnson a general election instead. Self-delusional doesn't get close to describing the arrogance and idiocy of that decision.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/suella-braverman-bans-lawyers-from-telling-ministers-their-policies-are-unlawful/ar-AA106X7l?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=edcd00b769cb4f729aed578d4cf33ad1 Braverman is without doubt the worst Attorney General in living memory. Not only did she seek to undermine our system of trial by jury (in the case of the Bristol statue removers), now she has instructed the government's own lawyers to stop referring to the government's proposals as "unlawful" even where that is their considered judgment. They are now expected to give a percentage assessment of the likelihood of winning/losing in a court of law. Just consider that for a moment. The person most responsible for protecting the legal system in this country wants her lawyers to judge the government's own laws and policies not on the grounds of an impartial consideration of their lawfulness, but on the grounds of the percentage chance of winning in a court of law. The office of Attorney General is supposed to be free of the normal constraints of party political affiliation precisely because the law of the land trumps all in our constitution, something established in the Magna Carta and the many other subsequent documents that make up our constitution. The woman is not just thick, she is a danger to our democracy.

This conversation surely supports the view that there should have been another confirmatory referendum once the actual details of the Brexit deal were established. The first referendum was an advisory (not binding) referendum so parliament certainly had both the power and good reason to seek the nation's approval for a deal which was very different from what had been promised by many on the leave side.

Huddersfield looked dreadful in significant parts, Burnley looked reasonably competent. Certainly there was nothing in either teams' performance to concern City. It is of course the first game of the season so nowt of significance can be concluded at such an early stage.

The weird thing is he hasn't seemed to listen to a word of the club's own very clear explanation of its "self-funding strategy". When Alex Neil's team were relegated from the PL the club was in serious debt and in real danger of falling into administration. Ed Balls gave an excellent long interview with Radio Norfolk in which he announced that a top to bottom review of every aspect of the NCFC business structure would take place before a new managerial team would be appointed. The self-funding model was duly announced and the key appointments of Webber and Farke secured. The subsequent success of that model speaks for itself (no debt and two promotions). A key concept of that model is the notion of becoming a "top 26 club". It is both aspirational and, crucially, the only realistic plan for the club to achieve established PL status. Until a beneficent billionaire turns up ready to splash 2-3 hundred million on players (not something the club could possibly plan for) the club's only plausible strategy for generating the cash required is two-fold; to achieve promotion, and to develop young talent capable of demanding high transfer fees. The "top 26" aspiration was very specifically adopted precisely because the club was realistic and honest in its recognition that a single promotion would still leave the club short of the sort of funds needed to compete with PL clubs funded by billionaires and massive debts. Yo-yoing between the PL and Championship is built into the plan not as a desirable outcome, but as a near inevitable part of a process of building up the financial resources required for achieving established PL status. We were able to spend an enormous amount of money last time we went up (by our own benchmark) precisely because of the self-funding model. No one should conflate the fact of that record spending with the subsequent reality that the players bought didn't prove capable of keeping us up. The idea that we should abandon players proven to be Championship winners and promote less capable academy players to the first team in their place, spending years "consolidating" in the Championship in the hope that those players develop into PL superstars, is frankly insane. Firstly, there are no grounds at all for believing such a team could be formed; we have already seen that a single academy only very rarely produces PL quality players (witness the top six with their massive academies). Secondly, such a team would by definition contain no players with any PL experience, thus would be far worse off in that respect than our current squad. Perhaps most importantly of all, spending years in the Championship would result in a massive loss of funds. Any young talent capable of competing in the PL that we did develop would have to be sold off to keep the club solvent. Thus the idea that we could develop a young squad over several years capable of promotion and consolidating itself in the PL is nothing more than pure fantasy.

No! But he's great at Vulcan

It's the same fantasy about a mystical set of players who are going to miraculously develop into a PL quality side. Care to identify some actual players who should replace those you label as "bang average"?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/i-was-like-boris-s-nanny-downing-street-aide-reveals-how-she-had-to-mind-the-pm-during-covid-pandemic/ar-AA105UWq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b08de2a9c53148a2af67f0810082868f

http://sportwitness.co.uk/details-norwich-citys-agreement-midfielder-talks-went-weeks/

Every single episode I watched (note, I have never watched one).

Indeed! I think the main difference at PL level is simply explained by the fact that we don't have the financial resources to compete with other teams in the PL for the same pool of available players. Thus, Webber was always going to have to take more of a risk on (good) players that he had reason to believe could step up to that level rather than "proven" performers. We also have seen that even with proven performers things don't always go well (eg Maguire and Pogba at Man U).

There are several different ones to be found depending on their dates, and what they include (cup, games, league games etc). However, it doesn't really matter which ones you pick as his stats remain excellent, and show why Webber thought he was a worthwhile acquisition rather than a random punt on an out of form player who he hoped might come good.

Indeed! And both were well researched justified signings given their records; neither was merely "stumbled" upon, nor just a random "punt".

"Clarification" of one's comments is a very different thing from changing them. One can only respond to what has actually been said as opposed to a change a view later. As for your second point, it's pretty damn obvious that no one can guarantee how a player will perform; plenty of teams have payed tens of millions for players who have proved ineffectual. But that doesn't alter the fact that Webber and co did extensive scouting and brought in players who they judged could perform to a high level. Pukki's record at Brondby hardly suggests his signing was a lucky random punt.

Whereas what you actually said was: "Teemu I think we rather stumbled upon. I dont think anyone looked at him and thought 'aha, now there's a 30 goal a season striker'. Free punt really I think rather than inspired scouting, his record previously never suggested what was about to come - just ask Celtic fans". Obviously Webber and Farke were entirely unaware that, "...all that potential that had seemingly laid dormant for years was released. Pukki scored 48 goals in 90 games for Brondby and once again interest in his services was high" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49977448#:~:text=Pukki scored 48 goals in 90 games for,ever since he saw him play for Schalke) I just don't think you need to begrudge the club (Webber and co) some credit for some really good judgement regarding the acquisition of certain players.

Good to hear Smith talking of "signings (plural)" in the press conference.

Put him up in a bungalow.

Well you're actual words were: "Pretty much every player signed in those first two seasons was a "punt"". The point is they weren't just "punts"; Farke, Webber, and the scouts selected their acquisitions very carefully. Otherwise you may as well describe every acquisition as a "punt" and the word loses any sort of worthwhile meaning. Pukki was signed from the Superligaen with a record of 45 goals and 14 assists in 111 games, Buendia excelled in poor team, and Farke was well aware of Zimmerman's talents from working with him. They weren't just punts in the ordinary pejorative sense of that word. However, I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that, "we have to trust the set up as it has brought some very good success in recent years".

Yes! We all know that's what you think. Meanwhile in the real world the experts (Farke, Webber, and various scouts) had a choice of very many footballers available at the bottom end of the market. The very future of their careers depended upon the choices they made, and you want us to believe they just "stumbled" upon some random picks. Funny how they are considered completely responsible when an acquisition goes wrong, but not remotely responsible when one goes right.

A positive story about what can be achieved with a will to change: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rewilding-before-and-after-photos-reveal-stunning-transformation-of-scottish-glen/ar-AA1043BR?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d838c404351d41aead6bf803a787998a

All I know is that Delia stole all the season ticket money (before the notoriously corrupt Walpole could get his hands on it).

Indeed! The idea that there wasn't an awful lot of thought that went into each acquisition just defies reality. They weren't just lucky "punts", nor did we just "stumble" into them. When you're shopping around at the lower end of the transfer market it becomes even more important to think very carefully who you bring in to transform the team into genuine promotion contenders. People need to remind themselves that Farke's and Webber's future careers depended very much on getting these calls right.

Seems Johnson's corrupt influence is already on the wane: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-ally-out-of-running-for-top-nca-job-amid-cronyism-row/ar-AA105bt1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d838c404351d41aead6bf803a787998a I have little doubt, however, that Hogan-Howe will find himself ennobled in Johnson's "I owe you one" sewer list of new lords. Perhaps he can take the title, "Lord Bernard of Ar*se Licking".