Jump to content


Established Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Panto_Villan

  1. Potentially not as a foreigner though. I'm not sure if they've openly said it but a lot of analysts seem to think the government would be happy to let the losses fall disproportionately on overseas investors where the opportunity exists.
  2. I agree with you that he shouldn't treat Grealish any differently to Barry or Benteke. But really, you should have net positive memories of those two players as well - I've certainly got a lot of good memories of watching Benteke play. I don't idolise him but I also don't act like him leaving has personally wronged me and burned away everything good he ever did for our club. You don't have to care about him now he plays for City but expunging his history here and the memories you have of him is another step further than that. Not saying that's what you're doing, but that's what most of the Grealish defenders on here are arguing against (rather than demanding all Villa fans continue to idolise a City player).
  3. I'd certainly be disappointed if Jack celebrated against us (unless he'd been really heavily booed prior).
  4. Do you always show absolutely no empathy towards anyone that refuses to do exactly what you want them to? Are you typing your messages from the inside of a high-security prison?
  5. Sounds like her son has the final say either way though? Just tell him his mum is wrong on this one.
  6. Yeah, gotta say I also appreciate all your little updates on the youth players. Thanks!
  7. My point is that it's not as simple as saying "our second string should still be able to beat relegation candidates" (even if that were true, which is in itself debatable). Players being unfit or not having settled means that they may not be performing as well as they will once the season gets going, but you're advocating replacing them anyway because the team isn't good enough. Targett looks unfit. I refuse to believe Buendia has hit his ceiling already. Chukwuemeka was making his first competitive start, so I'd expect him to improve significantly. Young has only been at club for three games, as has Ings. You don't think they'll improve in the future as they get more familiar with their teammates? Clearly they will. So why not see what they're capable of before demanding we replace them?
  8. And if we did buy new players, would they have a chance to get familiar with the team and their role in it? Or would they also need replacing if they didn't perform literally immediately? Its game three of a season that barely had a pre-season. If this was midway through the season I might agree with you but you always get weird results in the early games, particularly if you've bought or sold a lot of players. I mean, I seem to remember Man City had a bad start to the season last year but it didn't hold them back too much.
  9. If you genuinely think we were aiming to improve on last season's haul of 9 points from the first 3 games then I think you're the one that's lost the plot. There's 38 games in a season.
  10. Yeah, I could believe that interpretation too. Although I don't think it's that far fetched to think that he just didn't care as much about the Everton player because that player happens to be white. It's not a good look in either case.
  11. I'm very aware of this as well. I think there's a huge difference between a player that looks promising during their cameos and a player who can fight their way into a starting role in the best XI for their club. And then there's another step up to being one of the best players on the pitch, and another one again to do all that while just a teenager or in your early twenties. That said, we've done everything possible to give ourselves the best chance to have a great crop of youngsters coming through, so maybe we'll be lucky and have a golden generation. I'd just be cautious about hyping them up too much; the Academy would more than have justified the investment if it can unearth even one Grealish from the current bunch!
  12. No, it proves the reasons why Laurence Fox disagrees with taking the knee. It has literally nothing to do with my reasons for disliking taking the knee, and I suspect many other people could say the same. If your point is "racists exist and dislike taking the knee" then you're just attacking a straw man. I don't think anyone on this forum has ever claimed that there aren't racists who dislike taking the knee for obvious reasons. The scope of the debate on here has always been whether everyone who disagrees with taking the knee is a racist or not. Anyway, no sense rehashing arguments we've already had. I've explained my point and I'll leave it there.
  13. Laurence Fox is actually making the same point as you, but in inverse. He's saying people who support taking the knee are keeping company with a literal rapist, and trying to tarnish the anti-racism movement by association - i.e. "who are you to moralise at me when you've got rapists in your ranks?" It's a stupid argument, of course. But it's equally stupid in reverse. The existence of Laurence Fox doesn't invalidate the opinions of anyone disagreeing with taking the knee any more than the existence of Benjamin Mendy invalidates the views of anyone who agrees with it.
  14. You laugh, but I believe Chukwuemeke is indeed the correct plural! It's from the Latin.
  15. It it's worth 10 points a year from set pieces then he'll have been the best acquisition in the history of the club!
  16. Long form article on Politico up here, which was quite interesting: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/20/biden-afghanistan-kabul-chaos-taliban-evacuation-505600 The Economist put out a long article on the pullout today as well that was also interesting. None of it reflected well on Biden; it basically said that while his decision to pull out made sense there seems to have been very little proper contingency planning done. So yeah, I think I'll be jumping on board the "Biden screwed this up royally" bandwagon!
  17. I think the club should grow a pair and tell them our owners aren't for sale.
  18. Well, I share the view that Afghanistan was going to collapse as soon as the West pulled out. Given that, I can see why the plug was pulled now - no point prolonging things, really. I don't put any of this on the UK government really. Johnson had absolutely no say in the matter and I don't think Britain would have been consulted no matter who we had in charge. On the face of it, it does certainly look like Boden mishandled things. I'm surprised that he didn't cancel the pullout or delay it another 6/12 months given there was no peace deal imminent. Seems mad to let two decades of work go up in smoke just like that. I see two possible explanations for it. One is that he just wants the US out if Afghanistan, and damn the consequences. If so, I understand his reasons for doing so but then he has indeed badly mishandled matters. The second explanation is that the Taliban and the Afghan government weren't going to be able to negotiate an agreement. In that case delaying the pullout wouldn't have achieved anything. I've heard suggestions that there's at least some truth in this - and in which case I'm not sure there's that much that could have been done differently. I need to read a bit more to get a better idea of what the considerations were once the dust has settled a bit.
  19. Yeah - Bush, Blair, Obama, Biden, Cameron etc were all competent politicians. You can disagree with the decisions they made and the ideologies they held, but the distinction being drawn is between Trump (who simply wasn't capable of understanding the foreign policy issues, and was actively working to undermine his own national security apparatus) and them. They're clearly worlds apart.
  20. I think blaming this all on incompetent policy in the West is a pretty simplistic view. We've been in Afghanistan for almost twenty years and sensible and competent people were in power for sixteen of them. Only Trump wasn't a serious politician, and Biden could easily have ripped up the Taliban deal when he came to power if he wanted. Of course Afghanistan is a relatively peaceful place if it has a substantial Western military force propping up their army, and pumping enormous amounts of money into the country. But we can't expect that situation to last forever. Remember the only reason the US wanted to negotiate with the Taliban is because the Afghan state and army wasn't strong enough to cope with them by itself, despite overwhelming numbers and firepower and two decades of security guarantees. The Doha deal Trump made was a precondition for the Taliban to start negotiating with the Afghan government, and from what I'm hearing the Afghan government did very little to try to advance the peace talks after that (nor before it). Sure, the current pullout seems like a total disaster if you assume the Afghan government were competent leaders who could have saved their country if only they'd had a little more time. But after 20 years I'm not sure there's many people left who actually think that? What would maintaining the current state of stalemate for another five years or whatever actually have achieved?
  21. I think I'm going to wait a few more days for the dust to settle before take too strong a stance on this but while it's horrifying seeing the country fall to the Taliban almost overnight, I'm not sure there's many good options. Obviously I think any pullout that leaves such a vacuum that the government collapses overnight is a disaster, but from what I was hearing (admittedly secondhand) there wasn't much push from the Afghan government side to negotiate with the Taliban because they thought they were too weak to pose a threat. So the choice was either to continue spending vast amounts of money and risking Western lives in the hope the corrupt and incompetent Afghan government could build a stable state capable of protecting itself - something it had utterly failed to do in the last 20 years, and was unlikely to any time soon - or pull out and potentially let the country fall into anarchy. It doesn't seem like Afghanistan was on the cusp of becoming a peaceful place and they had the rug pulled from under them, anyway. So I don't really know what the correct course of action should have been.
  22. Rip it up and start again. One lion might have been good enough in 1874 but England have three of them on their jersey now. Ditch them and go for something cooler, like a dinosaur. Boom. Commercial revenue doubled.
  23. I'm not convinced this is true. And you've also got to remember that his release clause is £100m, not something like £50m. There's not many clubs that can afford that, so for all the talk that Man City will still be around in a year's time - will they still want to pay £100m for Jack in a year's time? What if he gets a bad injury, or spends half the season out with shin splints? What if he has a bad season? And didn't his release clause expire this year anyway? I'd have liked him to stay for another year too but it totally makes sense for him to leave now if CL is his amibition. Believing in the project is one thing but the chances of us cracking the top 4 this season are minimal, and he might not have another path into the CL if he didn't accept the offer now. I don't think it's a contradiction to say you believe in the Villa project but also be willing to move to one of the very best teams in the world in one of the biggest transfer deals of all time. It's not like he's heading off to Arsenal for £50m. Honestly, I feel like if you're not willing to accept him leaving now then you wouldn't be willing to accept it next year either, given we'd almost certainly have progressed and a Europa League place would quite possibly have been on the cards. His transfer would feel even less justified. "Leaving for Man City? Now we're in Europa League? For only £100m? He could have at least stayed here another year - he can't ever have had any attachment to this club! What a snake!"
  24. Yeah. I guess it depends what you mean by "genuinely dislike" then. As I said before, I'm totally fine with the pantomime aspect of booing etc. But that to me implies that deep down you know that your booing is unfounded, and that the person you're targetting hasn't actually done anything wrong. You don't actually need a reason to boo beyond "I don't like his club" or "he left my club" at that point because it is harmless theatre. The problem is that it seems like some people seem to lack the understanding that it is all actually theatre. It all stops being entertaining very quickly if you discover that people genuinely hate Jack because they're incapable of separating the theatrical "he's a bad man because he left our club" from the reality that leaving was a reasonable enough choice given our current position and the offer on the table, and that he didn't actually conduct himself particularly badly during the process either. I understand people might feel a bit betrayed their poster boy has left the club but that in itself isn't an excuse for a complete loss of perspective. So if people want to boo him and bring along inflatable snakes, I'm cool with that - provided the people doing that deep down know that it's probably not warranted. Then it's just harmless entertainment.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.