OutByEaster?

Keeper was good, the manager did a good job of putting us into a position where we had some sort of chance - Amavi had a poor game I thought, Grealish and Gabby did okay, Bacuna had a really good first half, not so good second, Adomah worked really hard and it was nice to see Davis on. Ho hum. Back to business.

Good half that, playing with four at the back and then Adomah and Bacuna becoming covering full backs when Spurs have the ball is really frustrating them. It's obvious why we're playing Gabby not McCormack, it's aa lone job with pace rather than ability on the ball that's needed up top today. We need to get Grealish on the ball more often in their half, other than that, there's not much to be unhappy about from a Villa point of view. Keeper looks okay.

Strongest team available, be interesting to see the new Keeper - hopefully he doesn't come out of this one as a broken man.

I don't always believe the comments are flippant - and it's in flippancy where we sometimes see the clearest indication of opinion. The website hasn't changed.

Me too Davkaus. I also missed the fella in 4th. 18/25.

There are two that should be in consideration based on their productivity, on what they've given the club; one is 8th on our all time appearance list and the other is 12th on that list and 1 goal from being in the top 20 Villa goalscorers of all time. Both have in a way blown it, both still have a chance of redemption - just. Gareth Barry could still become a Villa legend, I can see him back here at some point with a managers coat on. Without that, he'll be remembered as a very good player who left under a bit of a cloud. By the end of the season, Gabby Agbonlahor could be one of only four Villa men to have played 400 games and scored 85 goals - but the four seasons of dross he's served up has meant that he'll not be remembered for what he's given but instead for what he's not. He's still got a chance because he's still playing - a winning goal in the playoff final would make take him a good step towards improving his legacy. Ultimately though his lack of productivity in the last three seasons in particular have dented his chances significantly - just five goals in each of those seasons would have made him the first Villa player to break a hundred in 55 years. So close yet absolutely miles away. If I was picking one I liked then it would be Olof Mellberg. Never mind the loving the club, never mind the hating the heath, never mind the beard, never mind the buying shirts for the away fans, never mind Olof Mellberg day - we sometimes forget that he was a very, very good centre back, blessed with pace, strength, aerial ability and a stubborn determination. He's the nearest I think we have in recent times.

I know you're saying that in a tongue in cheek way and that you're not a casual racist perpetuating a stereotype copied from The Sun, but the tendency for French workers to be very militant in their actions in comparison to UK workers (and especially now that the current Government have cut the balls off the unions) has actually contributed to gaining UK workers some real protections and benefits over the years through our membership of the EU. The French economy has taken the hit of the effect of industrial action and British workers have benefited from things like Working Time Regulations and the minimum wage as a result - taking instruction from a European court that was influenced by labour from across the continent gave us the ability to impose balanced labour laws without having to go through the painful bit ourselves. The big fear is that we now have no external reference point for our own labour laws, no powers for workers to disagree with those labour laws and a government so avaricious and committed to the ethic of the free market that the balance is overwhelmingly in the favour of employers doing whatever they feel is right. Ultimately that balance between workers and employers is what drives the society we live in - if we allow ourselves to work people for 60 hours a week at £5 an hour, then we'll end up with an extremely unpleasant country. I'd say that as a direct result of our leaving the EU, we might find in a decades time that our workforce are a little more like the French in their attitude to being screwed over.

*Ha! Sweden have this week abandoned plans for their six hour working day, largely just to spite me.

It's interesting that the Swedes are looking at going to a six hour working day. There's almost a perverse pride in the UK at the number of hours we work - I had a friend who worked in Paris for a while; where he worked, if you worked more than 36 hours a week, it was largely assumed that this was down to your incompetence rather than your diligence. I think worker protections was one of the areas where we really benefitted from EU membership and one that worries me most going forwards.

Balls. Preston should have been out of sight.

Arsenal are taking an absolute battering from Preston here. It should be three. I think they'll regret not putting Arsenal away.

That people don't think about the economy and then plan their lives, that the average household doesn't know or care about the debt to income ratio. People acknowledge the effect of these things when they affect things that actually happen in their lives, the conceit of the economist in thinking that people will have looked at the effect of Brexit on the economy, at the changes it causes to the pound, at the figures that matter to the economy and to economists and then decide what they'll buy is wrong in my opinion. People don't consider economic factors in this way, people go and spend the additional £1 on a bottle of Chablis at Asda, they tut and then don't get that Fruit n Nut bar they wanted. They might then when they next read something in the paper think, this downturn is a pain in the arse, but they don't read the financial times and then change their outlook for the day. The original article suggested that spending between the referendum and today was a direct result and measure of people's reaction to Brexit and gave a number of options as to what that told us about the spending. I'd suggest the premise was wrong in the first place. I also feel I'm not explaining this very well.

I have no idea. I'd have to look it up. Most people would.

Ultimately yes - but at this point in terms of household spending in between the referendum and christmas - the idea that householders are thinking "Hmm, I'd like to get the oldest a new bike, but I should probably consider the impact of Brexit on the value of the pound before I do so" is absurd. Of course households are affected by economic conditions, but those effects tend to take place over a really long period of time and because of this, unless they're really extreme, they go to a certain extent unnoticed. There is a separation happening between 'the economy' as its talked about and real life in my opinion. We came through a recession in which consumerism didn't flicker a jot, it's all built on a sandy bubble of debt, but the average householder reads about the economy and then goes out and buys a new phone regardless of whether what we read is good or bad. The assumption in the article is that economic conditions matter in the same way to the householder as the economist, it's ridiculous. Householders won't worry about the effect of the value of the pound, they'll worry about the price of a bottle of Chablis, now those things are absolutely linked, but the thinking doesn't go to the point of inception - that's simply not how the world works in terms of real peoples lives. Of course it has more of an effect on peoples lives, but it has a lot less effect on how people think, what they want and where they spend their money.

Wow! That's an almost bizarre understanding of your basic UK household - are economists so removed from reality that they think your basic citizen thinks in these sort of economic straight lines? The fourth and more plausible theory is that most households don't really see how the larger economic picture really has any great effect on them so carried on doing what they always do. Money has been concentrated in so few hands that the actual effect of larger woes with the economy tends to be felt by banks and by corporations much more than by householders - for most people, the economic effect of brexit will have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on whether the kids got a playstation for christmas or mom bought a new car - "the economy" as described by economists has become a bubble of money that barely relates to households at all. Brexit will have had less effect on the average UK household's spending ideas than the John Lewis christmas advert or the launch of the new Star Wars movie and associated lego toys.

I'm not, but I'm really hopeful we can get a result - the fifth round draw has us at home against the might of FC Broxbourne Borough or Yeovil Town.

It's sad, but their idiotic gun laws have now reached the point where mass shootings are greeted here with a collective shrug and a sort of acknowledgement that this is how they've decided to be.

So, I guess this is the crux of it - and to understand this sentence we'd need to define what US Agencies mean by the following terms: US Democracy The US-led liberal democratic order The Russian regime An international counterterrorism coalition against ISIS For the record, for me, these phrases mean US Global hegemony for US corporate interest US corporate interest Russian corporate interest through oligarchs Enabling a slice of the middle east cash pie for both US corporate interest and Russian business interest The US elections have been rigged by US corporate interest for decades, I guess it was only a matter of time before global interests decided they wanted some say in it to. When you sell your democracy to the market, don't be surprised if the market applies it's regular doctrines to the process. As motivations to do it go, those are good ones - in terms of Trumps protectionist agenda, I'm not clear on how it helps him, but his plans are so confusing, it's not entirely clear what he's up to.

Personally, I don't see Delph as a snake - I'd be delighted to have him back here.

I'd love to see Cleverley here - I think he struggled a bit with expectation when he arrived, people were expecting the new Ian Taylor, a player that could get into the box, support and do things - for me he's not that, he's a running machine, he's all legs, more Boateng than Taylor, I think he's exactly what we need, there's so little energy in our midfield and for me I'd take energy over quality on the ball in terms of what would do us most good right now.

Horrible challenge by Sterling there, for me it could have been red. High, late, no interest in the ball, I guess because he was on his feet and he's small and English he gets away with that one. I'd like to have seen the reaction if it had been Costa.

And would suit exactly what the US intelligence community has been attempting there for a long time - completion of the Ukrainian revolution to the standard CIA pattern. It's be a complicated way to get there, but I wouldn't put it past them - 'the Russians spoiled the election' would be plenty of excuse.

I think its a bit harsh to call Cameron our worst post war prime Minister when we've a war criminal and a woman who sold the country's assets to banks for a pittance in the running.

Lansbury is relatively cheap - the one thing I do like about him is that he suggests that there will be more than one central midfielder - if he's one of three midfield signings in January, I'll be pleased.

BMH is no different to most decent modern training grounds. I'd echo Trent's sentiment above.