The Woolster

Not sure about finishing a sentence with a comma mate.

I'm a bit of a TV addict, so volume would be a key thing for me. So originally had Game of Thrones and the like, but changed them for trash. Neighbours (haven't watched it for years, but there is over 8k episodes!) Eastenders (Again, don't like it anymore, but a big back catalogue!) Countdown (Nearly 7k episodes! Will keep the brain cells working) Big Brother (Inc Celebrity versions and spin off shows, "David is dead" is still possibly my favourite TV moment ever) Simpsons MOTD TOTP Natural World First Dates Gogglebox (If I can't watch other TV programmes, I can at least watch other people enjoying them!)

Now then, now then...! I didn't like Bruno Brookes either...

And what about Tyrion's boy band hair!?

You kill Grey Worm and the unsullied would still have killed Jon

Jon was being held prisoner, if the they had voted for Jon to be king, I presume Grey Worm would have had him killed

I felt like Jon's accent was different in the last series, even from the one before, but haven't watched any old episodes to really compare. What do you reckon?

They've just signed a kit deal with Puma for £65m a year (That's all the teams in the City Group I think, but City themselves will get most of that) which they will be able to point at and say that commercial deals are in line with the very top end of the market. And I'm not sure that the Premier League has the same rules about inflated commercial income either

Hmm, there are 2 main Premier League FFP rules. There is a rolling £105m maximum losses combined over previous 3 years. City have made a profit the last 2 years, I don't think there is any chance of them breaching this. And wages can only increase by £7m a year out of the increased Premier League distributions. Increased revenues from other sources can be used to to go above the £7m mark. Maybe there is a chance the breached this, I dunno

As far as I know, there is no issue of them having broken the Premier League FFP rules, so I don't think there could be any points deduction in the league.

Strewth, Bob Hawke is cactus. Watch out drongos, The Woolster is on the march!

I would let them spend what they want, and I don't think it is a good look to complain about what they have spent all the time. Essentially (in my view), the FFP rules are where the issue is, and is a form of cheating itself. Brought in to maintain the status quo of the traditional big clubs, of which we are one, and to stop other clubs threatening their position. They saw what happened at Chelsea, they didn't like it, they saw what was happening at City/PSG, they didn't like it, they saw what was happening in some of the Eastern European leagues, and they didn't like it, but wrapped it up in the premise that it is to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulties. If the aim was to really stop clubs getting into problems, then the rules would be based around the source of funds, eg is it debt funded, is it sustainable, a meaningful fit and proper test, things like that. Instead they focus on how much a club can spend, and put a limit on that which makes it difficult for the big clubs to be challenged. If a wealthy owner wants to put their money into a club and buy a load of players, what is the real issue with that? That is essentially how the majority of traditional big clubs became big clubs in the first place long before we can remember. Looking at the bigger picture, Mansour's investment has brought a load of money into the country that wouldn't have been here otherwise, and I would hope (good accountants not withstanding) a load of tax revenues with it. They have invested massively in the infrastructure and the training ground, big investment in both youth and women's football. They pay for a private education for their youth players up until 16, even if they get released before that (although I do have some issues with that). They have created loads of employment, both directly and indirectly. No doubt their community work is now loads bigger as well. These are good things. Obviously, whatever rules are in place, they should be adhered to, and they should be punished if those rules have been broken, but in my opinion the rules themselves are an ass. If that makes it harder for us to be successful, then so be it, we will just have to work harder and smarter.

Now that you have apologised, I am no longer offended :) If you was just joking about and it went over my head, then my bad...

If I was a snowflake I would have taken offence to it when you first used it. I didn't, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to be doubling down on it. But I'm interested to know your views on this 'closeness to black' thing so have some questions. Did you not realise that it could be offensive, and having made such a strong stance on what is racist you feel you can't admit to posting something that could be offensive? Or having found out you don't give a shit that it is offensive? Or do you still not think that it is offensive after me explaining why it could be offensive? I'm going to assume that you didn't already know that it was potentially offensive, I hope I'm not wrong there?

If you are really cool with it after being told that it could cause offence, then I am actually fucking offended by it. Proximity to blackness is a term used to describe when white people are associated with or are integrated with black people/communities, so lets this clear when I say that being mixed race does not mean that I, or any other mixed race person, have a proximity to blackness, thanks.