Jockey

Manchester United have a 35 year old up front, an 18 year old on the right and that's it. £80m would be money well spent for them if he is as good as they say. 

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

It's fucking annoying. The account has 275 followers. 

So your problem isn't that it is bollocks per se. But that it is bollocks with a poor following? 

Here's a rumour - that isn't a problem surely?

6 minutes ago, clangers said:

That was the only way Spain were going to score.

 

16 teams was a much better competition, none of the last group games have had much of an edge beyond Scotland last night.

Denmark v Russia, Austria v Ukraine, Wales v Italy and Switzerland v Turkey! 

More have than haven't I think. Add in both of these! 

What the fuck is that?

21 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Fuck me! I do know who Guy Fawkes was, thanks, and you'll have to show me where I said he was a hero* or working class saint. I was speaking in the sense that he's seen as a figure of rebellion and famous for trying to end the existing order - and now he's been appropriated by the establishment in the form of the Guido Fawkes site who pretend to be rebellious and of the people against the established order. 

 

He was a hero, of course, to many Catholics of the time and since. Although that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

 

Ah my bad! I just read the headlines. Sorry. 

Although I think he has his natural home now? 

'Appropriated'? He was a fucking Catholic bigot - who wasn't interested in the people, nor was he against the elite ruling - just Protestants ruling. He fought with the Spanish FFS. 

This isn't a hero, nor a working class saint. He was a religious bigot, who was prepared to kill for it. If you want a hero use Wat Tyler, a genuine working class hero. 

18 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Capello couldn't get a tune out of some of the best English players of all time. Proof that England can't hack it in the deep end. 

It isn't really. He had one world cup - Venables, Robson, Hoddle had it - and built good teams. Sven went to Munich and won 5-1. 

It isn't 'the England' team. It is a lot deeper than that - I'd argue that Wenger gets this team into the later stages. There are champions league winners in this team - they can win big games. 

1 hour ago, El Rojo said:

Agree completely, but for whatever combination of reasons England can't beat big sides the way others can despite having some quality players and won't get practice at doing so again until the knock-out stages of the next tournament. They'll tear up San Marino, Latvia, Liechtenstein and Andorra in the qualifiers though.  

As I say, look to the manager! England last beat big teams when they had a manager used to winning big games - Sven! Since then - McClaren, Capello, Hodgson, Allardyce and Gareth. Capello had never managed an International side though. These players play under Pep, Klopp, Simeone, Poch, etc. what the fuck does Gareth understand about that? 

1-1 against Germany in a Quarter final - what do you do next? I reckon, the answer isn't bring to Robbie Mustoe on! 

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

More hilarity. Decent player McGinn but not for anywhere near £50m.

 

This looks like it is being pushed by Villa! Who obviously want to cash in on him. 

I have this theory that a lot of managers like Southgate are no good in international tournaments - they essentially focus upon developing teams that are 'difficult to beat' - which over the course of a season, accumulates enough points to finish anywhere between 14th and 8th. Catch them in a good year and they finish 8th and reach a final - and end up as England manager. But, the tournament needs managers who know how to win games and change tactics during a game - something these type of managers don't know how to do. 

Look at the cup records of Hodgson, Moyes, Allardyce etc. the odd cup run and the odd final but by and large early exits and piss poor records. Because they are not set up to win games. Southgate epitomises that - he would be Crystal Palace's manager - he would finish top 10, and that will be it. I think of Potter, Howe and how they play and it seems obvious that they would be a better option with these players. In the age of Pep, Klopp etc. the fact that the FA thought Allardyce was the coach for players who would be working with those top managers on a day to day basis speaks volumes about the idiocy of the FA. 

3 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

They are. Mook and JV look like they want to kill each other!

Haha - this isn't twitter. KFC is safe!

5 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

What are you talking about? People are fuming!

Haha they're not! I find Scotland annoying - they are England's rivals - that is how it should be. I am ambivalent about England - I want them to do well this time, to piss the booing cunts off - 2016 I was jumping up and down when Iceland scored! I think Southgate is shit, but he is a nice bloke. 

Meh. Liverpool Unite's us. 

1 minute ago, 3 Stacks said:

Oh God, this England-Scotland hatred is about to explode the forum!

It isn't. Nobody here cares enough. 

1 minute ago, J-V said:

 

Yeah, but that draw.

Stopped em winning it. Or something like that. 

I've never known England to be dismissed so much this year. The idea they have been lauding it is ridiculous- I've been very keen to point out how shit a number of their players are. 

I'm happy. Moved on from ambivalent to wanting this team to do well. Imagine the booers face if they get to the final! 

Scotland great at drawing. Need to win and they shit it. As they have done for decades. Denmark did it, Wales did it. Scotland shit it. 

25 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

No one should end up at that shit show. 

Haha - Bristol is Massive Attack and Portishead to me, not the milk and bins.

I take it you live in Bristol? This comment is just nonsense if you don't! 

With a load of Geordies- loving the Mackem Maestro coming on! 

Solid from England - I do like Sako, and the Fat Thin man played well. Not understanding why Walker is ahead of Trippier as he isn't. Soucek is class though. 

I was reading something Jamie Bartlett said about online activism - basically the theory behind the Internet is that we all have access to this vast library of information that will ensure informed debate - but actually there is too much information for people to consume so they regress to an emotional decision/opinion - which is always that much harder to shift and change as it becomes who they are.

This isn't about 'pc gone mad' that is just a lazy dismissal, it will be the right who come out on top in this. Debate will be banned. 

5 minutes ago, El Dangerous said:

 

I saw the link to Gravenberch a couple of weeks ago and he looks like a fine footballer but if we were actually considering stealing a march on our rivals by leaving him at Ajax for a year we should consider the same option with Bellingham. 

I'd be up for that - I like them both to be honest. But Bellingham looks really good. I do like Baumgartner as well - he looks a versatile attacking player ideal for us. 

3 minutes ago, JagSquared said:

Bosmans wouldn’t work as clubs are still owed a fee if they are under 23 we had to pay for ings and solanke that way. Granted it’s much lower but prob still too much for Belgian or Dutch clubs.

I forgot about that! Hmm - not sure what someone like Woodburn would ask for but surely not that much? 

I think more should look to move abroad, surely it is better to win leagues in Austria and Belgium? 

25 minutes ago, JagSquared said:

I agree in principle but careers are very short and an injury could end it before it starts So you can understand why.
 

I reckon more players should move abroad, but England would prob overlook them anyway. Look at how mcmanamann he scored in a champions league final, won titles and still couldn’t make the England first 11. A more recent example is tomori who by all accounts has had a great season at Milan but was overlooked in favour of Conor coady.

True, but maybe move on a Bosman - play the system! That is piss poor management though - typical of Southgate who can't think outside the box. 

I look at Ben Woodburn and I can't help think that a move to Holland or Belgium would be great, even France - rather than end up at Bristol City or Birmingham. 

13 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Who is she?

Joan Hickson - she played Miss Marple in the 80s

This is interesting - and highlights the pernicious side of the debate that echoes what a lot of others have said about it being driven by absolutes. 

https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-royal-academys-woman-problem/

It took 250 years for the Royal Academy of Arts to embrace women as something close to equal members. It took eight complaints for the RA to trash a female artist’s reputation and pull her work from its shop last week. The problem was not with the work itself, unless you’re the kind of person who is virulently offended by roses, dahlias and butterfly peas. The problem was with the woman.

Jess De Wahls is an embroiderer, and the RA used to stock a range of her iron-on patches in floral designs, all ready to turn your favourite jeans into a work of art. For De Wahls, this was not a particularly big deal. The RA’s order was small, and as someone who sees herself outside the mainstream art world (“I don’t give a fuck about art institutions — I’m a trained hairdresser,” she says), winning the Academy’s approval held limited cachet.

For the RA, though, it seemed to be a success: it had just reordered her patches when the trouble started. And the trouble started because of a small number of people for whom it was unconscionable that De Wahls should have anything at all. De Wahls, they claimed, was a transphobe, and simply by having her work in its shop, the RA was condoning hatred of trans people. The RA contacted De Wahls, informed her it had received complaints then apparently panicked, and pulled the stock.

And what had De Wahls actually done to make herself untouchable? In 2019, she published a long, considered essay laying out her thoughts on gender identity. “My hope is that this will help you, the reader, the viewer, to understand my conclusions about this subject,” she wrote. “And I will tell you them candidly so no mistake can be made in misunderstanding or misrepresenting me.” As anyone who has ever ventured an opinion on gender could tell you, this was always a vain hope given the torrents of bad faith that run through this subject.

So it didn’t matter how precise De Wahls was when she wrote: “I have no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex (or in whatever way they please for that matter).” It didn’t matter that she described her own close and supportive relationship with her father, who lives a gloriously gender-nonconforming life in heels and lipstick. It didn’t matter that De Wahls, who was a child in pre-unification East Germany, drew parallels between the chilling propriety of gender-identity dogma and the constant self-censorship demanded by life under the stasi.

What mattered was that she had said no, and no amount of thoughtfulness or articulacy can make female refusal inoffensive. “I can not accept people’s unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such,” De Wahls stated, and in doing so she asserted both an internal and an external boundary: a boundary that said she would not automatically treat male people as though they were female, and a boundary that said she would not think of male people as though they were female.

Perhaps not all the horror this elicited was genuine. Some, surely, came from fellow artists who were glad of a way to hobble a competitor in a fierce market. But the taboo she broke was so profound, the RA found it inarguable once it was brought to its attention. “The RA is committed to equality, diversity and inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values,” it said in a statement. Although you can still buy a book about child-rape enthusiast Gauguin and prolific mistress-abuser Picasso.

Or maybe “equality, diversity and inclusion” simply aren’t on offer for a Tahitian teenager who ends up at the wrong end of an artist’s syphilitic penis. There’s an argument which used to be made (and thankfully isn’t so much anymore) than an artist’s special role in society sets him (always a him, in this argument) beyond the norms of bourgeois decency: if it cost Picasso “the blood of those who loved him” (in the words of his granddaughter Marina) to produce that tasteful cubist nude so you can hang a print of it in your living room, then so be it.

All of this is much more disturbing than De Wahls’ beautifully detailed flowers. There was genuine outrage, not just a few huffy messages: protesters vandalised the Hindley portrait. But the RA stood by it. When challenged about the distress caused to the families of Hindley’s victims, the then-chief of exhibitions said the portrait “raises interesting questions… about the exploitation of children in our society”.  A quarter of a century later, it seems the RA would now be more likely to take the side of those throwing eggs at Harvey’s work than to defend artististic expression.

But then, De Wahls is a woman, and historically the RA has always found decency a useful weapon for excluding women: it deemed women too delicate to take part in life drawing classes except as models, and so denied them a complete artistic education, which in turn justified keeping them out of any significant role in running the Academy. (As artist-activists the Guerilla Girls demanded in 1989: do women have to be naked to get into a gallery?) Not until 2011 did any woman achieve the rank of Professor in the RA, and it took another five years before Sonia Boyce became the first black female Academician.

In the past it was offensive for a woman to see a human body; now it’s offensive for her to name it. Decorum has always had a handy way of falling more heavily on women. The genius of gender identity doctrine has been to reinvent etiquette as politics. To assert the inarguable fact that humans are born with a sex and have that sex for life — regardless of how they dress, act or feel about themselves — is the most scandalous thing De Wahls could have done in 2021.

No one is really offended because they believe her statement to be untrue. Everybody knows, functionally, that sex is real and significant: even the most assertive of gender identity ideologues finds that genitals do not exist on an unknowable spectrum when they’re actually in bed, and they can all somehow figure out which kind of person should be called a bigot and denied an income. They are offended because a woman is not supposed to say the things De Wahls did. A woman today is not even supposed to acknowledge that she’s a woman, unless it’s to prostrate herself with guilt for her supposed “cis privilege”.

But for every woman able to stare down her bullies with the resilience of De Wahls, there are dozens for whom the ostracism and the financial penalties are too much to bear. Gender identity doctrine is a kind of sexism that, by making sex unnamable, places itself cleverly beyond criticism. It’s the same old misogyny, refined and perfected, conveniently emerging just as feminism succeeded in making direct sex discrimination untenable. The Royal Academicians of the past, with their frantic contortions to resist the “female invasion”, would surely have nothing but admiration for this new way to keep women down.