The Woolster

24 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Probably, yeah. But I honesty couldn’t remember the name of that fucking fullback, and I’m way lazier than I used to be mate, my attention span is shorter and I just care less. I’m becoming more... normal. It’s quite distressing. 

Considering I was takiking the oiss out of myself with the original post, prob not worth it anyway!

Hmm, full back... the only one I can remember going balls deep on, other than those from our academy (Robindon and McLaughlin, yikes!), is Rodruiguez.

I have no idea how he is doing,  but just noticed he's on my telebox!

48 minutes ago, The Woolster said:

How long ago was I talking about Albrighton? That was probably before I was fully enlightened by data...

Seems I mentioned him as a potential signing once, in April 2012, on a thread called Leftfield Moneyball Transfer Signings. 'Kinell...

I'm sure you can find a better example of a bad transfer suggestion from me than a leftfield option who went on to win the league in a better team than we had at that time NV!

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Oh Lordy. I’m sure both of his goals that season were tremendous. We missed a trick there. How’s champion’s league winner Djimi Traore doing? 

 

 

 

 

Think he's retired mate, but he won more silverware over in Seatle. Legend.

39 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Not seen him too often but the impression I get from Lozano is that he's a bit of a pace merchant with not all that much ability. Does he have more to his game?

Presses like Suarez

How long ago was I talking about Albrighton? That was probably before I was fully enlightened by data...

41 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’ve been banging on about him for a while too. And De Ligt. That said, if we get him hopefully he’s a bit better than some of the other ‘out there’ calls you’ve made. How is Albrighton doing, anyway? 

Think Premier League winning Albrighton has done ok for himself!

I've said it before, but Hirving Lozano would be ideal for us. His nickname being Chucky is reason enough.

2 years ago I was touting Robertson, and if the club has listened to me this time last year, de Ligt would have just ended the 1st year of his 2-year loan back to Ajax after signing for us, and we would be lauding the foresight of the transfer committee, so I am a bit disappointed my calls for Lozano haven't gained more traction round here...

Anyone else in Barcelona this evening?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/?redirect=1

Main changes were Daenerys and Catelyn Stark.

The original Catelyn was Jennifer Ehle, who I had a bit of a teenage crush on

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Pilot_episode

On 21/05/2019 at 13:14, Juniper said:

Started rewatching it from the beginning last night.

 

Only two episodes in but already a massive difference.

 

First episode Cersei states that they had travelled from Kingslanding to Winterfell and it had taken them a month!

 

Completely forgot about the distances as they pretty much invented warping between locations in the final seasons.

 

The theme tune is in a higher pitch, as are everyone’s voices. 

 

Weird stuff

Found out today that they reshot the majority of the pilot, with some characters being recast, and it was filmed a year later. But they included some of the first pilot, which had been shot on film instead of digital, which may add to the strangeness (and changing hairstyles!)

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

FFS, 

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!)

On 14/05/2019 at 14:39, Tony Moanero said:

I considered including Top of the Pops and The Tube. Decided against TOTP as so many of the episodes are unwatchable due to a certain presenter.

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

1 hour ago, Juniper said:

No massive changes for Jon I’ve noticed. He mostly just sounds younger mostly. 

 

Jamie, Tyrion and Littlefingers English accents are way over the top so far! 

 

Quite funny watching this back now. 

And what about Tyrion's boy band hair!?

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

On 21/05/2019 at 08:57, Brownie said:

It makes no sense to me. All of them there would have wanted Jon to be King. He was the King in the North and the rightful heir. He killed the mad queen to save lives. So what if it meant they had to fight the Unsullied, this is Game of Thrones not local council elections.

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

22 hours ago, Juniper said:

Started rewatching it from the beginning last night.

 

Only two episodes in but already a massive difference.

 

First episode Cersei states that they had travelled from Kingslanding to Winterfell and it had taken them a month!

 

Completely forgot about the distances as they pretty much invented warping between locations in the final seasons.

 

The theme tune is in a higher pitch, as are everyone’s voices. 

 

Weird stuff

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

2 hours ago, DaveT said:

The PL are supposed to be investigating City..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47501423 .......but it's all gone suspiciously quiet. 

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

On 16/05/2019 at 10:44, Ronnie Whelan said:

If the Fa had given them a points deduction earlier in the season, then it would have made it magnificent. Us winning the league retrospectively would feel a bit hollow. 

 

Rightly or wrongly we were beaten by the better team this season. Their club, owners and clearly a lot of their players are a bunch of knobheads but they won the league by being a cracking side.

 

Still it would be funny as fuck I suppose.

 

They may get a points deduction next season though which could work out okay for us. Should UEFA give them a significant ban, then watch all these elite players fuck off.

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!

22 hours ago, chrisbonnie said:

I have to be honest, I couldn't give a shit what they do. 

 

To me, you either enforce the rules, or change them. 

 

If they want to have real ffp, grand, enforce real sanctions, ones that actually hinder the team breaking the rules. 

 

However if they're only going to give some mickey mouse ban, then why bother, just let them spend what they want. 

 

And as painful as it is to admit. If the shoe was on the other foot, we wouldn't care how much we spent. And that's a fact

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.

On 10/05/2019 at 18:45, moof said:

I apologise for offending you. I’m not that kind of player 

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...

9 minutes ago, moof said:

What are you, a snowflake?

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?