 | Forum
Reply | Transfer rumours 2024
at 18:50 2 Aug 2024
Dundee desperately wanted Beck back, but Liverpool said no, so they loaned Larkeche.
I suppose Liverpool wanted Beck to go to a club that played at a more intense level of football rather than being spanked by both of the 'Scottish Fakes' every week.
Hence, with the wages freed up from Larkeche, we can possibly loan Beck if Watford doesn't buy Paal.
It's a funny old game. |
| Forum
Reply | FA Cup
at 15:08 2 Aug 2024
I presume that because the FA Cup is special, as we are told by the TV commentators, the TV channels will fully air every match, despite Manure not being in these early rounds. |
| Forum
Reply | Fred Wheldon
at 14:25 2 Aug 2024
Does this mean Celtic are the "Scottish Fakes"? |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 18:51 31 Jul 2024
When looking at Corbyn's policies alone without them being attached to Labour, every poll said the majority of people at the time preferred them to the Tory policies.
Also, the lame press view that people hate Corbyn really was biased reporting as well. As recent results show that Starmer was less popular than Corbyn at the GE time. So, that makes no difference to elections anyway even if you think its true.
So, how come Corbyn lost as it's clear more people voted for Boris and the Tories?
Why? What's the reason? It's something we don't talk about much now.
Brexit.
While Corbyn also supported Brexit, more people felt that Boris would do a better job of it than Corbyn. This is a fair enough view at the time, as we can all see how if so many people really wanted a Farage Brexit (which many did), they would for sure go with Boris over Corbyn. And that's what happened at the time.
Now, years later, when it's no longer a big issue and also when we see what Boris really did, we can say that if it was to be re-run with that knowledge, Corbyn would have won. But at the time, no Labour leader, no matter who they were, would have won the election as it was a Brexit Election. And the result shows that.
The real reason Labour won this time and won big was due to the Tories being found out as being total liars, even to their base that their base then split and Reform took many votes off them. That is the Tories who turned up to vote; as we can see, the vote was down in regards to population size. Hence, this is why you see Starmer has fewer votes but has way more seats. The Tory vote did not turn up and when it did, it was split between Reform. Rather than Starmer winning it, in essence, the hard-right shafted itself. They won't make that mistake again.
What it also means is that those right-wing Blairites in Labour who are crowing they won with centrist policies now need to deliver and deliver big. This is because plenty of those seats will swing hard back to the Tories once the Reform mess is sorted out. These Blairites won't deliver big as they are just the usual idiots who talk about how they have to be in the centre to win, and then when they do, nothing really changes as centrist policies are so middle of road they change nothing. They will get found out as they have already with winter allowance and actually decreasing the number of houses being built in London. It's really austerity, and we know that defo never delivers growth.
Already, the Junior Doctors union, despite winning a 20% pay rise (which capitalist press pundits said they would never get), now have said they may come back in a year after the honeymoon period and strike again. Streeting is gonna feel massive pain as he will be forced to take Reeves on or the Unions. He will take on the Unions as he's such a Blairite sellout and then we are off as the left takes lots of bitter chunks out of the right of the party. Streeting will see his rep totally blown apart, its gonna be funny watching that slimy git get his.
Then with some by-elections you will see in those Tory won seats flip back hard and the left of Labour will claim ... "we told you so, best you learn or all you other ex-Blue seat MP's will flip back too".
Then we shall see Blairites in those seats start the real trouble for Starmer and Co as they fear for their seats. The Labour left does not have to worry about most of their seats as being left-wing; the electorate knows what they are getting. This is proven as we can see from how Corbyn still won his seat despite it being a new boundary drawn against him.
The Blairites made such a lame excuse when he won, they said its because voters still though he was Labour. Like who? Who does not know the Blairites kicked Corbyn out of the party? They made such a big deal about it to everyone, so everyone knows. No, more likely it was some people who voted Labour as they always do and did not care who the candidate was. The complete opposite of what the Blairites claimed.
This is important to note, as it's not about Corbyn or who what, it's about a pattern emerging of their excuses. This time on this issue, as you will see on many future ones, are laughable and lame and weak in their response. There will be more of this, it will be Bealeske in it's lameness. Forgot Corbyn look at this pattern as it comes back again and again.
Remember TFS (Two-Faced Starmer). |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 21:09 30 Jul 2024
No its not. After WW2 we had it worse but did more.
Therefore, we can do at the very least what we did straight after winning the war. Thats not a big ask, especially as we know we can do it and have done it before. It's not even bold to ask for the same as 80 years ago, when we have way better technology and no after affects of War dragging us down. If anything it would be weak and woke to say we could not achieve that and also a slap in the face for all those heroes who fought in the war to make the UK a better place.
BTW:
Corbyn 10,295,907 votes in 2019.
Starmer 9,686,329 votes in 2024.
So, Starmer got 609,578 fewer votes than Corbyn.
Here is the source from that loony leftie paper the Daily Express:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1919369/labour-landslide-less-votes-jere
Also, the population was 66.8m in 2019 and now it's 67.9m. So, Starmer had another possible million people to vote for him than Corbyn did. You know the sort of people on the right who would say are immigrants who just rocked up, got citizenship and then voted to borderless Labour.
Yet he still got less votes. He's lucky Reform turned up and split the Tory vote. |
| Forum
Reply | Transfer rumours 2024
at 20:58 30 Jul 2024
Yeah, that's a good point. Paal may not be all in during the friendly, as who wants to get injured just before a big move?
This Juve player, as you said, is over 6tf, so the tall back line has shown Martri that a team move from conceding headers to scoring them.
Lets hope he has some pace as well, as that's needed. |
| Forum
Reply | Transfer rumours 2024
at 12:43 30 Jul 2024
Armstrong's rumour was it was only 1.5 upfront. This will be spent on Varane. Celar is from the wages of those we have let go already.
Marti has said Santos is a RB who can also play RM. Therefore, this means Cannon is out. And we also need a first-team RW (as Smyth is not that). We need a proper replacement for Willock, and of course, Frey and Dykes are not good enough as we are now.
Even if Celar is the new Austin, what happens if he gets injured? And this is why Marti has already stated he needs more forwards.
What's interesting to me is that they have started the rebuilding from the back: goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders, and so on. I presume this is to see how much they can save so that at the end of the transfer window, they have a large enough set of money to buy the forwards they want, which, as we know, cost the most. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 11:56 30 Jul 2024
Please do not associate this policy with the left, it's firmly with the pro-capitalists.
All this talk of black holes in budgets is based upon the so-called "Fiscal Rules". What are these must not go against rules? They are rules invented by the Tories, and they are utter garbage.
If we changed to new rules away from these, we would no longer need to cut the allowance as we would not need to meet these old Tory rules. Where does the money come from then?
Either you tax the rich, or you borrow it. It's that simple.
Well, you can also stop paying for PPE that's faulty. Stop paying almost £1bn for Rwanda which would never work and if did would only do it for a small percentage. Stop paying gazillions on housing aslyum seekers in private hotels or even on a barge or using up army barracks (which could be give to homeless veterans instead) and actually build proper accommodation for everyone (even our own) to actually ... wait for it ... save money!
There are many other approaches to investing to cut costs and get a return. Dumping PFI, for example, is another, along with NOT bailing out train companies.
But back to the point. Yes, cutting the allowance is totally wrong and is not left-wing. As I have stated before, Starmer and his lot are Blairites and, therefore, pro-capital. This is an austerity policy and we know these don't work. Sure, they get a quick fix of money, but then what? So, you see, this is how we know it's an austerity policy and not even one for growth, as Starmer claims. This is actually a proper pro-capital policy that the Tories would have loved to do but could not, as that would have lost them votes in their base. We know the right pro-capitalists will be vanking themselves silly at this austerity policy and doubly so, as they will be able to try and claim this is left-wing. Everyone knows Starmer is closer to Truss than Corbyn.
As I have also stated, Starmer is a liar and he will do this as will his cronies, again and again. Mark my words, call him TFS. Two-Faced Starmer. You cannot trust this guy and the real left has been warning about him since day 1.
They have been clever, they have resolved some of the strike issues, but this is a one-off, when the Unions come back for parity in a few years, the answer will be no and then we shall have strikes. They have identified that new homes must be built as this will get many votes if they do it. They won't. It will fail to deliver the 1.5m homes as it relies on the private sector, which has failed to do that time and again, regardless of planning rules (which is just a lame excuse).
They will claim it's impossible, but here is how to do it, as it has already been done before, and it worked.
After WW2, the Labour govt had no money whatsoever a way worse economy than we have now. But they still created the NHS from nothing, they nationalised the railways fully (as it was a disaster during the war and had to be run by central govt or we would have lost the war) and they built 1m homes in the first year of power. Not over five years, but the very first year. They did it by borrowing in a broken economy and through the councils implementing it (not the private sector). Thatcher killed all that and then let the councils sell them off, with no way to replace the stock.
The point is all this talk of there being no money is a complete lie, as a REAL Labour govt after WW2 managed to do all this and way way way more. In addition, it was way harder to do it back then as there was zero infrastructure to baseline on as the country was wrecked due to the war. Then there was the problem of lack of skills due to people dying in the war and so on. There were massive amounts of veterans to look after and all sorts of way more challenging issues than today. We can see with Ukraine how bad a war damages a country. Yet that Labour govt got us out of it and set the standard for the UK for many decades after.
When they say there is no money, they are liars, when they say it cannot be done, they are liars.
We know this as it was done before in way harder times.
TFS (Two-Faced Starmer). |
| Forum
Reply | Transfer rumours 2024
at 10:42 30 Jul 2024
Varane is the Hayden replacement, and Colback is no spring chicken.
I knew we would not sign Hayden, he's too old for the money he's on. No resale value despite his skills. That would have been like a JoJo signing, good for one, maybe two seasons and then worth nothing.
We need players to sell on, as we do not know which will be a selling success (Eze, Armstrong) or a failure (Dozzell, Dickie, Richards). We need to buy several of them cheap and hope some of them come off.
If we only have a few, and they fail (injured, not as good as we thought), then we are screwed with no sales and will drop down the divisions.
With Varane I suspect he's closer to Hayden (or we would not buy him for all that money) and for sure better than Hodge who we had a good look at.
So, now we need forwards as the manager has stated. I am hoping a RW and No. 9. This might be loans though, we shall see. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 18:37 29 Jul 2024
I see there the right whingers in auto-deflection mode again.
Deflect, deflect, deflect with their line of ...
"Yob started it and broke the law, so this means police can forget the law and end it by also breaking the law".
Err nope.
What should happen is both of them go down due to both of them breaking the law.
As I said before on another thread ...
"Lock THEM UP!"
"Lock THEM UP!"
"Lock THEM UP!"
But we do notice how the whinging right go all wussy woke for their agenda when it suits them and do not double down on their previous talk of being hard on crime.
Let's see how many years the yobs get for attacking the police and breaking their bones and how many years the police get for attempted manslaughter versus how many years the stupid Stop the Oli protestors got (BTW, these lots are way more anti-establishment than the right, who are sell-outs and go to jail to prove it). And then tell me about arhhh poor diddums of the right whingers getting downtrodden by all the newt-breeding lentil-eating leftie workies.
Diddums. |
| Forum
Reply | Jimmy Dunne
at 18:11 29 Jul 2024
We used to do this with Darren Peacock in the prem, and it worked!
So, if we are chasing the game, the idea is sane, in my opinion. |
| Forum
Reply | Are we weak at left back??
at 21:52 28 Jul 2024
If they loan him out, it's usually to free up wages and bring in someone who they feel is better suited for the same position.
Like we did with Dozy for Hayden. I thought we should have given Larks more starts as he looked okay to me, but others disagree and maybe they know better as I have not watched him that closely. Also, Marti clearly thinks there is no point so, hence the loan.
Marti is, in one way, quite ruthless; in another, he gives players such as LLyod and Tuck chances. And then, if they cannot, loan them out so they can at least get minutes elsewhere.
He even did it with Richards.
I quite like this approach, you know, playing players to find out if they could get in the team, maybe in a diff position such as he did with Dunne and Fox last season.
It's a shocking concept, I know. |
| Forum
Reply | Are we weak at left back??
at 18:34 28 Jul 2024
Paal is a very talented player, I don't agree he's not good in the air, I think he is.
His challenge is that he is not quick enough for the ever faster Championship, and as a result, he gets beaten for pace by players who skill-wise alone would never beat him.
For example, if Smyth were up against him, he would beat Paal many times just on pace alone. Teams are now wise to this and he gets targeted a lot now. Chair, in the latter third of the season, actually did run back and help out a lot, which really helped Paal out.
We also have Fox, who can play that position and did well in it when required. Ideally, we need a new LB who is pacy and a decent crosser (as that's the Champ for you), but we have more significant priorities, which the manager has now made public.
We need more forwards. As I guess read Marti, we need a first-team RW to replace Willock (as Smyth is not a first-teamer and can also play LW as backup if needed). And, of course, we need a number 9 as Frey is not up to it (I would put Kohli ahead of him now as he can play there too), and Dykes is injured and also not up to it. Possibly also a creative player like Andersen who cannot last a full 90, let alone 3 games per week.
So, three players ahead of a LB. And then it seems Varane as DMC is incoming so, that makes 4. Unless, of course, we flog Paal to Watford, which we should do. And then go out and get a real young quick replacement. I doubt we will get an LB without selling Paal first, so that's that, then. |
| Forum
Reply | Match Thread - A Royal Preseason
at 18:25 28 Jul 2024
After reading, Marti has confirmed we need more options upfront. So, we know the manager thinks our forward options are not enough. |
| Forum
Reply | Squad
at 18:23 28 Jul 2024
I believe Mahoney changed his surname to Cooper, but I am probably wrong.
I was thinking of doing the same except changing it to Lord Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but I learned that's the name of some family with Nazi sympathisers in them. Shame that, never mind. |
| Forum
Reply | Cifuentes post-Fakes
at 16:26 28 Jul 2024
He is quoted as saying it's his fault he played Morrison out of position. Yep it is, as he could have brought Tuck and played him there and let a young un have another run out. Maybe Tuck plays well and we can loan him to the fakes for monies and experience.
I would also like to see Cannon as a 6, as I feel he might be able to do a job there. But I doubt Cannon wants to play there and as we can see Marti said in the press conference that Santos was brought in as a RB. So, that means Cannon is defo out now as he's behind Dunne and Santos. |
| Forum
Reply | Match Thread - A Royal Preseason
at 21:01 27 Jul 2024
Nardi = Played okay and his distribution was okay.
Dunne = Played well and his usual solid self
Cook = Was decent
Clarke-Salter = Was okay but should have avoided getting a yellow at the end. Did a nice pass to Smyth in the first half that put him clean through.
Paal = Very poor, hes been found out now, while he has the skills he lacks pace. It's the reason he gave the goal away as he was unable to get back in time and then lamely chested it. And it's the reason he plays in the Champ, not quick enough.
Colback = Was very poor, looked unfit and was unable to get up and down the pitch.
Field = Was poor and did little even in the tackle.
Andersen = Was okay, but he doesn't look fit. Looked spent at half time.
Smyth = Was our main threat and best player. But even he was just decent.
Frey = Was poor, really he's a L1 player as he's just not mobile enough.
Lloyd = He got found out here. Yeah, he can beat his man, but then he loses the ball, and it's swept up. He's more of a striker than a winger, I would say. He should go out on loan now that we know his limits.
(Celar 58') = Made some decent runs but never really got into the game, though.
(Dykes 68') = Looked better than Frey, but not by much, then, of course, went off injured.
(Kolli 68') = He was better than Lloyd and linked well with EDB when he moved to the LW.
(Dixon-Bonner 80') = Played better than Field or Colback, linked well with Kolli.
(Santos 80') = Looked okay.
(Morrison 80') = Looked okay
(Larkeche 86') = Too little time to judge, but at least was ready when called upon.
We have a big problem: without Chair or Willock, our creativity only comes through Andersen, who looks unfit, and Smyth, who is one-dimensional. Our forwards couldn't score in a brothel (unless Celar comes good), so we have the very QPR problem of failing to score. Worse, with Paal's mistake, we can see the return of Charity Park Rangers in effect.
We need to sign at least two more players, a creative player and, of course, the mythical forward. Of course, Dykes gets injured again when we want to sell him. We have the funds to do this if we are cautious with them.
Jay Stansfield comes to mind, and then there is that analytics on forwards we have read about here. Remember, Leeds was in for Chair before, so we should assume he could go at any time. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 14:38 26 Jul 2024
Even if what you say is true, it isn't, but let's just say it is untreatable.
Then we shall need all those many mental health hospitals that Thatcher closed down and was told not to even more than before. Congrats, you have made the case for the return of these.
We need these hospitals back so these people can at least be looked after and protected (if, as you say, they are untreatable), and the country can be protected as well (although, remember, for Thatcherites, there is no such thing as a British society even though we need protecting).
Otherwise, as we see, their mental state gets worse, and then evil things happen. We shall defo need more NHS Mental health hospitals as you claim it is all untreatable. We cannot rely on the private sector as they have failed for decades since they took over what was left of Thatcher's mess and did nothing with it, if they did anything at all.
Now, it is the police, social services, standard NHS services and the community (apparently, according to Thatcherites, this is different from society) who pick up the pieces, who are all of them are totally overworked and have to suffer the consequences. What's more, this shite show costs not only people their lives but also way more money than putting the original services back in place. This is why we had them in the first place, as the Victorian asylums failed to work, which also cost more btw.
So, much for the party of law and order and good fiscal policies. As we can see, it's made the country way more dangerous and cost way more. We need to stop this nonsense of a "short sharp shock" that we had from Thatcher in the 80s that we see today, which totally failed as it did back then. It was dropped in 82 as being a total failure; yes, that's a failure of law and order under Thatchers govt, proven and admitted to by the Tories. It cost us lots of money as well, taxpayers' money. You cannot trust right whingers with the economy. See Truss.
It's not about being soft on crime and being too nice, it's about what works. What we do know is that the right-wing policies on Law and Order NEVER work ... unless you want to dogwhistle some votes up from people who think they know better but have never actually researched the data with a proper scientific approach and worked in the system end-to-end (not just in one extreme area) for 10+ years or more.
Yet somehow, it's the woke lot who made all this happen. Lets see who these woke lot from the Tories are, Braverman, Patel, Mogg, Kemi, yep it must be all those wokists who went all soft in when they were in power. Too busy doing DEI claims about how many female PM's they have had rather than cleaning up the mess Thatcher created that we still live with today. Woke the lot of em! |
| Forum
Reply | Spotting of talent at a very young age
at 14:15 26 Jul 2024
That's why an Academy and now we have them the top-notch facilities are a must.
When little Kevin gets kicked out by the Scum but is still a top talent (Eze), and their parents look around, we show them we are just down the road and have all the support they got from Premshites.
More than that, our players get a chance to play. We can show off Armstrong, Kohli, EDB, Walsh, BoS, Eze and more. If your kid improves, they will get their chance. And then it's up to them to want it. Llyod clearly wanted in the friendly against the spuds. He should be given another go. |
| Forum
Reply | Armstrong
at 03:05 26 Jul 2024
I am sorry, but you are wrong.
This would mean he got into positions to miss sitters; Dozy hardly ever did that. |
| | LazyFan
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 904 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 904 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.