BigFish

What a novel thread, true genius to come up with this idea that no one has thought of before

We lost this one because we couldn't defend. Other games we lost for other reasons. It is patently ridiculous to say the team is made up of average championship, they are good championship players. Thats the problem.

None of those would get in our current side, the world and the game has moved on. But all credit to Worthington, he didn't have the choice, but he fashioned a limited 442 side that achieved the absolute maximum that was possible.....for a while.

And when you do you fit right in

Oh, do give it a rest. You are making yourself look rather silly now.

There are hold outs, @ricardo my friend but I suspect it is you rather than @Herman. Sovereignity requires power, both soft and hard. As Ukraine is currently finding out. When the UK left the EU it was diminished in both aspects. Time was the UK would be leading the diplomatic effort. Instead we now have to suffer the sight of the Russian Foreign Minister royally ripping the **** out of ours. They know the country is a busted flush on the world stage, when are you going to catch up. Still we can now put a crown on a your pint glass (breaking news for you - we always could).

⛱️⛱️ always thought that was the case @PurpleCanary, obviously I was being dopey

It still goes on because there are posters, like yourself, who are unable to comprehend that to avoid relegation you need to finish about the team in 18th place, not the team in 17th. The actual minimum was 29.

The minimum number of points for the 17th placed team to stay up was 29, that they got more is irrelevent.

Thats a big ask

It is not strange, and it is logic. If Burnley finished on 29 points they would have stayed up, so 29 points was enough to get 17th. This year I think the answer is 32, but not for us with our terrible GD. So 33 for us, 32 for everyone else.

@PurpleCanary, you seem to take personal umbrage when age/generation is raised in this debate, where no personal offence is intended. It is undoubtably true that the boomers had a number of favourable factors supporting their lifestyles if they worked hard, were lucky or cleaver to pick the right profession and economic sector to make their way. It is also true that the two major indicators for voting preference are now age and education (or lack thereof). Those former factors have now unwound so a retired ex-miner living in a "left behind" Red Wall seat is now wealthier than a hard working graduate in the "establishment" South East.

Epic blunder by our Foreign Minister......

The state of our government......

Having a written constituition with checks and balances that constrain the actions of those involved is writing it down, so we know what it means and how it works.

Congratulations to him, securing the only job created by Brexit

We do indeed, which rather cements our academy's place in the food chain as well. It is unlikely that if we discovered a Messi or a Ronaldo that we would keep them long enough to actually play for the First Team.

This conflates once having been a politician with being political. Not the same thing at all. Within a developed constituition, there are checks and balances that constrain post holders in what they can or cannot do. These posts have limited, but important authority that means they cannot work for Party advantage. These Presidenets keep the executive on the straight and narrow and are ceremonial but do not have executive power themselves.

OT, but this unfounded assetion is errant nonsense. The BBC is working furiously the develop public services that fit future landscape. Whether is is enough, and whether it will be successful is abother matter. Like print media, linear television is in terminal decline. What is true that unless we want our media dominated by unelected (and often foreign) oligarch pushing their personal agendas we should hope the BBC is successful and survives.

Probably illustrates a different point, that the vast majority of boys in the system don't make it, even really gifted ones. Most are just making up the numbers. It may have been better for Kiwomya's mental health if he had stayed in Sheffield but his football career needed him to give it a go and when he did it turned out that he wasn't good enough.

I appreciate where you are coming from but it worth reflecting on why we are here, how we got here and then whether there is an alternative. The Elite Player Performance Plan was designed to raise the standards in the English game and particularly the national team. The increase in technical ability amongst English players is an indicator of the success of the system, and on the improvement on the system we had before. It provides for fixed level of compensation for the clubs who lose players, but perhaps not the mega windfall that would encourage investment in academies outside the Elite. It does create a hierarchy that we are more than happy to take advantage of via our Cat 1 status when it suits, but as you point out less so when a bigger club does it to us. It is now inconceivable that any player might develop to the highest level without spending all, or at least some, of that time in the system.

Why should the process stop, the alternative is that once a kid joins a club he can never leave?

Not really sure this is a true reflection? It is true that player farming provides a profit, but that is a by-product for clubs that are already rich, not a way to get rich. As a system it works for all concerned. Big clubs get a wider pool of players to develop from. Young players get better coaching and the kudos of being "on the books" of a big club. Small clubs get low risk, low committment better players than they would normally be able to afford. Agents make money.

Those waiting for the 54 MPs needed to trigger a VONC are ignoring just how much the Conservative Party has changed over the last decade. Old style Conservatives considered the needs of the country aligned perfectly with that of the Conservative Party. In that way they could easily give outright loyalty to the Party. The leader was dispensible, any time they could be seen to be damaging the party they could be defenestrated and another leader rolled in. Now there has always been outbreaks of right wing popularism such as the National Front, BNP, Referendum Party, UKIP and Brexit Party. These are much more ideological with primary loyakties to other ideas be it racism, xenophobia or Brexit. This was a minority interest amongst Tories, limited to what John Major called the "bastards". The bastards would make common cause with anyone to get what they wanted e.g. Brexit. To "Get Brexit Done" following the referendum they needed to suck in new members and voters from amongst the right wing popularists. Johnson used this as a power base to get him the leadership that he was totally unsuitable for. He then expelled the old style Conservatives and promoted both bastards and supplicant MPs. What this means is that Johnson has a symbiotic relationship with his MPs and the wider Party. He is not dispensible, they stand together or fall together. Even if there was a VONC he would probably win it. Things would need to get much worse before he was at risk. He is not going anywhere, anytime soon.