MessiWillSignForVilla

Pfft, everyone know there's no women on VT, closest we've got is men pretending to be obscure female winter olympians.

It was a shaky start, but once we grew into the game I thought we were pretty comfotable and played some good stuff at times. Ramsey easily MOTM for me, he's really grown in to a first team player over the summer whilst last year he still played like a kid at times (which, to be fair, he was/is). Really impressed me, and I hope he can start adding the goals and assists to his game. Don't think there was a bad performance out there today, but I do think Martinez was slightly lucky to stay on the pitch, even if the pen was overturned for offside, it was a pretty dangerous and reckless challenge from him.

And if he isn't a member, it should be fairly easy to appeal against, but it's not exactly a stretch to think someone is a member of LIE if they attended an event called "LIEN's first fightback meeting", especially when they had a speaking slot. Pam Bromley, named as an example of unlawful harassment in the EHRC report, and Tina Werkmann, vice chair of Labour Against the Witchhunt, who told people not to report holocaust deniers to the party. I suppose there isn't anything particularly wrong with that, but I found it odd he spoke about a rival conference, which wouldn't even include left wing MPs, exclusively for suspended members. Personally I don't see how giving a platform to everyone with an axe to grind against the party would help the Labour party at all. But then to claim you're being expelled just because you attended the meeting even though you were an active participant is straight up lying about it, which was more the point I was getting at. One is claiming the party committed a crime to expel you, the other is suggesting the party reviewed information you freely allowed in to the public eye. Also, from what I've seen about these letters (I could be wrong, admittedly), you're typically given a chance to explain yourself, and even from his post, he's not been expelled yet. What seems to have happened is that this guy has been accused of being a member of a proscribed group, based on the publically available evidence of him speaking at their first meeting, and has been told that if he is a member, he'll be expelled. So it seems all he has to do is tell Labour he isn't a member and he can avoid expulsion. But instead he's accused Labour of spying on it's members and misrepresented the reasoning behind the possible expulsion. In fact, I think it's a brilliant example of why you should wait to hear both sides of an argument before making a conclusion. Another interesting thing is that he claimed in the meeting that he was suspended in January 2020 for "Daring to stand as a Socialist candidate for the NEC", which seems surprising since the Chair of Equalities on the NEC is the NEC member for Socialist Societies, so quite how someone could be suspended just for being a socialist (whilst Corbyn was still leader), unless he's misrepresenting what happened again... I dislike a lot about how Labour have gone about things under Starmer, but this just seems like someone with an axe to grind against the leadership trying to stir up trouble.

As much as I disliked the way Labour went about the whole proscribing issue, that guy seems to be massively misrepresenting what actually happened. Said meeting was uploaded to YouTube by LIE about two days later, a meeting which had quite a few anti-semites in it, and in which he spoke for a few minutes and mentioned that the Labour Left should set up a rival Conference to the official Labour Conference, so not just attending it. Although the video barely has any views, it's not unreasonable to think that someone at Labour HQ went through all their videos when they were going through the proscribing process and got a screenshot from there. To use his analogy, it would be like getting annoyed that someone thought you were a Leyton Orient fan just because you celebrated them scoring.

Because if the player isn't filling a desperate need, you can then essentially give them a 7 month preseason allowing them to slowly integrate in to the squad whilst getting them at a price you may not get in the summer/avoid missing out to another club.

That's because FBRef count crosses and set pieces in their pass completion %, stats where a completion stat of 25%+ is very good, and JWP has the most dead ball passes in the league, so naturally his total % is going to be dragged down a bit. His short and medium pass % are both around 90.3% which is pretty good. Even if we take that stat at face value, it's still better than McGinn's 77%.

Time to bring him home?

My guess is he'll be 9, but we need to loan out Wesley first. Unless Chukwuemeka is changing, but he'd already been announced as 31 and was wearing it in pre season.

I think that would look ok if they just had their normal badge on it and either yellow or blue stripes instead of pink which just ruins it completely. Edit - actaully black stripes would be much better than another colour. They look like video game characters where some of the assets have failed to load properly.

Probably one for the Guilbert thread, but I feel this comment confirms Guilbert was only sent on loan to get game time whilst we waited until Elmo's contract expired, and that Guilbert was still 2nd choice.

Ok then, if Nassef only has 6%, why would all the other billionaires on the Adidas board go along with it when it doesn't benefit their business interests?

I seem to remember him giving an interview where he mentioned the doctor telling him the injury was potentially fatal, which is what I always put his turnaround down to.

I just went looking for an article on that as I'd forgotten about it, and there was an article about the guy we were looking at to replace him if the Rhodes deal went through, Exeter's Ollie Watkins! It's a funny old world at times.

Forced out of club due to League financial rules and country's wage laws vs having your bothood club over a barrel and forcing them to sell you

No-one has the armband, but Konsa led the team out and exchanged the pennant with the Salernitana captain.

Unless they're planning on moving on Lindelof or Bailly (Both have contracts til 2024, Bailly's signed just 4 months ago), there's no chance of that actually happening. But he's a popular youth product with Utd fans, so they're not exactly gonna say "We're putting him in the shop window because he never plays for us".

Because top teams never sign cheap back up players to fill out the bench

You can take the boy out of Villa, but you can't take the Villa out of the boy!

My solution would be go the Rugby route, and just play EFL Cup games during International periods. The teams with loads of internationals tend to rotate heavily anyway so it's not like they'd be adversely affected and teams outside the Premier League tend to not have International players, so I feel it would give a decently level playing field. Keep the final and 1st Round where they are, but then have the 2nd/3rd Rnds in the September Internationals, 4th Rnd and Quarters in October and the Semis in November, all games played the Thursday and Tuesday around those windows.

Think we'll see a lot of articles like this now. We're a team willing to spend that just received £100m for an exciting wide player, expect every journo writing clickbait and every agent to throw our name in to speculation to add weight to it.

They're all here on VT

Definitely wasn't just 17 year old me intending to troll

Wait a second, our last Trophy was in 1995-96, the season Jack was born, and we've not won anything since... He's the reason we've not won anything since! and he's taking one for the team and giving City the curse instead, genius!

To be honest, I wanted the reverse one from the MON days, but I couldn't find a picture of it. Or did I just imagine the "We do like you, we're just fickle" banner?

Would be pretty hilarious if he ended up doing an Unsworth.