peterw

He was a bit part player when we went up - albeit with more performances - so there's absolutely no way he'd ask, or at the very least given, anywhere near the 70k-80k mark. I doubt he's a starter for many Premier League clubs either but a good and able understudy. Championship may be his level but his previous performances have warranted him a start - I'm just not sure Tottenham is the game to start him, although its likely he will.

I doubt it would be as restrictive as only 6 loans.

Also Buendia was injured, McGinn had covid, Ramsey had covid, Tuanzebe was injured, Davis has expected is injured, Carney picked up and injury as did Philogene-Bidace. I mean, I haven't seen such a riddled with injury start to any season, not sure how the original poster could see it otherwise.

I can see the business logic behind it, and on a smaller scale for us it would work as it would allow the Academy to pay for itself. On a football level I don't like it as it makes it harder for any youth players to break through (the Chelsea model) as they spend big on the starting 11 and there is no pathway unless you're already elite level.

Difference is we wouldn't be following the Chelsea model where at any given time they have 30-40+ out on loan.

Good idea, tell them what you want as they'd have no opinion on the matter.

I loved his goal celebration after the corner.

Hughton has got plaudits in the top flight, Wilder was the next great thing, Potter is oft mentioned, and then you've have the gravy train barely out of a job merchants despite repeated failure (Hughes, Allardyce, Bruce, Pardew, Coleman etc) and then you have Dean Smith. What he has done with Villa is incredible to date and yet the media barely mention it (when we improved defensively after lockdown it was because of John terry - when we were scoring 7 past Liverpool and demolishing Arsenal it was Jack Grealish), and even more strange that some of our own fans are so deluded that they think we have a given right to be where we are without having to put the hard work in. The whole club was rotten in 2015/6 then Lerner sold to a chancer and we nearly went to the wall. Smith come in and we - again - were midtable Championship. He took that team up and with players coming t the end of their contracts, loan players going back, and others deemed just not good enough we had to spend a packet to just try and compete. We started brightly but without covid we would probably have gone - but Dean Smith used that time and changed us. We suddenly had become very difficult to beat and stayed up. On top of that we get to a major Cup final where we gave a Man City a good game after making it 2-1. Last season was a success in terms of making some statements but where we lacked was our squad. Once Grealish was out then the squad wasn't deep enough to cover that loss. So Smith identified the areas that we needed cover and when and got those players. Not just any players but due diligence done and we bring in the 'right' type of players. For two summers on the trot we have been lauded as have having the best transfer windows regarding our in-comings. That is also Smith. Yes, there are others involved but he has the final yes or no say on who is coming in. Yes Smith has money and he and we are lucky in that regard. But that in itself brings its own pressure, as does manging a big club that demands success. We have no rights to demand it as we've won next to nothing since 1982, yet we demand it. He goes about what he does very well and speaks well when interviewed. Never too high after a win, and never too low after a defeat. It seems to be a happy camp and he is in charge of it. The longer the better and if he can lift a trophy he could down as being one of our very best. That is the big pressure he is on, because he will not get a bigger job, or chance, than this one.

Its very unlikely he won't start against Spurs and he has earned the shirt, but I can see an argument for not starting him. Tottenham play with one up front (Kane) who also likes to drop deep. That would mean one of the defenders stepping out into midfield more often which would question the 4-3-3. Nuno may himself switch to a back 3 but I'd doubt he'd risk it knowing that if they were to lose he'd have to switch back again after one game and have his credentials questioned. So Tottenham are likely to stay the same and with the way they play I don't see 3 centre-halves being needed. If we do go for two in the middle neither Konsa nor Mings get dropped which leaves Hause.

On top of that - imagine his confidence levels if he plays and keeps Kane quiet, after Lukaku and Ronaldo? You're right it really could be the start of something for him.

He's lining up next to Luc Nilis in the 'What Might Have Been' team.

In 2019? It was 10 million. Still sizeable enough - but not when you consider it was only around 30% of the vote. Or that Labour lost 60 seats - many in traditional Labour supporting areas. Clearly not total bollocks but something very worrying for Labour that needs to be addressed.

But its not most people in Labour he has to appeal to. Its the so-called middle-England brigade that switched to Labour in 97. You want power? Then you have to play the to a different tune than the one Labour currently has. Its about mass appeal, and being Presidential. Its long stopped being about principle. Labour needs to re-learn the lesson.

Just because someone on social media says it doesn't make it either true or have any weight. If Starmer were to say that he's trying to fix the social system would Labour supporters be right to be up in arms that Starmer is attempting politics from the 1880s? Whether Starmer is a political featherwieght is a different argument and he could turn out to be so - but I'm not sure in what context he could be anything other than he is now.

I didn't assert that you believed anything and I'm sure you'll see that from the Post that I made. I made no reference to you or your beliefs as I know neither what they are nor were they particular relevant in pointing out printed words do not always mean a great deal. I think you've then fallen into the nicely packaged trap of assumptions - what exactly are "progressive policies"? Not sure that the Labour Party of 4 years ago were better than is on offer now, although I'm looking more at opinion polls than just personal opinion. Last polls (or last I saw) had Labour ahead - they weren't 4 years ago, or at any time under Corbyn's tenure. This total capitulation (although I have absolutely no idea what this means) is indeed the fault of the left, as well as the right-wing media that allowed the left to be too easily persuaded, but in times of economic depression its easier to blame the immigrants for the world's ills. It happened in European politics in the 200s and 30s and saw the rise of fascism. Disappointingly then, as with now with many Brexit votes (not to mention voting Conservative in the last GE), the right-wing agenda garnered a lot of support from those left leaning working-classes that you mention. The world has changed and the Tories always recognise opportunism is better than bedrocked principles when it comes to power. The left can bang their righteous drum as loudly, morally, and ethically as they want, but with power it means nothing. But, as you say, it's, me peter w, that is a major part of the problem.

A rant? Hardly. not sure what you're getting at but I'll try and follow. Starmer's reign slipping away? Yes, quite possibly it will. I do not think he'll be PM and I think he'll be needed more to try and make Labour electable for those that follow. It could be an Andy Burnham (although I doubt it), or even a David Miliband (a bit late now), or Angela Rayner who would be an excellent leader. I also like Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips and Labour could lead with women in the top job. As for the Labour leadership - yes they voted for him - but mainly as a reaction to Corbyn so the left-wing vote was going to get drowned out on this occasion. It was also worth noting that there were very few what could be called 'serious' candidates in terms of who would look acceptable to the electorate. What's happened since then? A pandemic.

Well I'll leave out your puzzling definition of gaslighting...there is only one party that is centre-right. The other major party is centre-left. Unless you can point otherwise. I'll also point to some policies from the centre-right Party that look broadly left if it helps redress your balance. Anyway, which policies from the centre-left major Party are you referring to?

And North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Just because an entity has some words, it doesn't make them accurate.

The biggest problem for Labour is the sniping coming from those that believe Labour should look like the Party it was 100 years ago. As said above Labour has had two left-centric leaders leading to being trounced at General Elections. Clearly, the populace do not want socialism in the soft form presented by the Labour Party and those within the movement should get to grips with that and find a way to make Labour electable whilst still retaining its core tenets of equality and the richest few shouldering the burden for the poorest in society. It's how Labour do it that is key. I always smile at the sniping too that Labour is losing its heartland, and it isn't representing the working-classes under Starmer (similar has been said about Kinnock/Blair/Miliband) and because they are either called 'Sir' or from private educated backgrounds they simply won't 'get it' and are Tory-Lite. Why? There seems to be a confusion at best as to what working-class means or who the working-classes are. Again, its not those that were short of representation when the Labour Party was formed, but working-classes may be more upwardly mobile now than in any time in history - do they not get a voice in Labour's direction? There has always seemed to be a reverse snobbishness that you can only be a Labour person if you understand struggling at the wrong end economically and socially. Again, why? Surely things would be better the more Sirs and privately educated people that want a fairer society than is currently on offer. Even Lenin argued for a vanguard system. But too many Labour supporters, or traditional supporters shall we say, want to have their ball and say 'no, you don't look or sound like us, so we don't want you'. Its almost like wanting to wallow in your own down trodden misery in order to prove your hard earned put-upon credentials. It doesn't wash and is what is holding the Labour Party back. If I had 50p and someone asked me to swap it for £5 I'd take it. If I had a 1 bedroom flat and someone offered me a four bedroom house, I'd take it. If I had a week in Weston-Super-Mare and someone offered me 2 weeks in the Bahamas, I'd take it. If I just had my run of the mill life and someone offered me privilege and potential, I'd take it, knowing that with it I'd do as much as I could to make things better. Starmer has been dealt a hand where the most fake of PMs is currently sitting in Parliament with a huge majority on the back of getting Brexit done. He was repeatedly beasting Johnson at PMQs and in the polls when the Pandemic over took events and the vaccination roll out has deafened all ears to this incompetent Government and PM. Starmer needs to take control of the Labour Party in order to make it electable again. Which is why the rank and file shouldn't necessarily vote for leaders and if they don't like it they can avoid voting for Labour representatives at any election as a way of making their voices heard.

well a cheekbone fracture could lead to a concussion - as could a heavy fall that impacts the neck/head area (whiplash like). Football needs to get better at these types of things and be more like rugby where a player automatically has to go off to do the the concussion protocol tests before being allowed back on - not the physio having a look in the heat of the battle as it were, and letting a player carry on.

Has had a couple of decent games now but this has been the problem previously, he follows up a run in the team with an anonymous at best or disappointing at worst, game - especially on the ball - which in his position we can ill-afford. He'll start against Man U you'd expect which will be a great test for him.

If it was that easy Nigel Reo-Coker would have been playing for England.

Sort of - played very well against Everton definitely. I wouldn't rely on him too long term though as his passing is usually of the Bryan Small variety.

As said above I think we definitely need a central midfielder. trying to pick a team for tonight's game is difficult because of the embarrassment of riches all over the pitch except for central midfield. You'd want to rest Luiz, and with McGinn injured we are then very limited. A lot will depend between now and December 31st on Sanson. The same period that will probably also decide his Villa career.

Pass to the Dutchie? On the left hand side?