Cizzler

53 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

No. He has a taste for conquest regardless of the human cost. 

He's not going to go into a NATO country. He's not gone insane, he's not going to invade the USA. They'd get absolutely battered.

It's a terrible tragedy and a humanitarian disaster - but ultimately, we can't risk nuclear war on the sovereignty of Ukraine. I think they need to accept Putin's demands. The loss of innocent life is going to become even more depressing otherwise.  

52 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

 

Things like this have definitely aged badly.

 

But there isn't a bottom-less pit of money. At some point you have to decide if you're willing to spend on Defence at the sacrifice of the NHS, pensions, education, etc.

Ultimately, it's fruitless anyway. A war with anyone would be absolutely devastating. All we can do is keep ticking our box by investing 2% of our GDP and pray the USA stays in NATO. We're not beating anyone, let alone Russia, by our own - whether we had 30 more Challenger tanks or not. 

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

Brexit, pandemic and a war. I bet Boris wishes he sat this one out.

 

This war has been the best thing to happen to him.

Completely taken the heat off back home. Him and Rishi were interviewed by the police under caution re: C-19 parties last week - barely heard a peep from the media. 

He idolises Churchill, I bet he’s loving this.

14 minutes ago, Genie said:

Big PR exercise from Roman going on here. I think somebody wants to carry on living in London.

He's selling his entire London property portfolio. Strange way to go about staying in London...

17 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Ukraine will end up split, either with a demilitarized zone separating the "independent states" from the rest of Ukraine, or even with a wall ala Germany after WWII.

I expect this was Putin’s goal all along. He can’t have expected to subjugate the entirety of a country that big. 

Putin will get the huge natural gas reserves in the East of the country and control the access to the Black Sea in the South. He’ll also have the “buffer” between the NATO states.

I think he underestimated the West’s co-ordinated response/ sanctions and under-estimated Zelenskyy too.

I imagine we’ll get a ceasefire relatively shortly (hopefully), fingers crossed it doesn’t take the Russians shelling the shit out of Kharkiv and Kiev (but I’m worried it might).

The Western sanctions will probably end there. European energy strategy and Ukraine’s borders will change, and little else.

12 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I think with the exception of Stephen Hammond, these all have an army background?

David Davis pretty loosely (TA's before he went to uni) - but the rest, yes

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Iraq is not US’s neighbour. It’s not even close to the same thing.

I mean, the USA spent months amassing their forces in Kuwait and were facing a much weaker military opposition. It's not incomparable. 

Ukraine doesn't have a chance here. They can drag it out with guerilla fighting for a while. Modern armies are not well-equipped for urban warfare and it will take the Russians months to clear the big cities if there is strong resistance. 

33 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

That speech by Putin earlier just shows a man who’s realised he’s overplayed his hand. His stronk army has been stopped in Kharkiv, lost many of his most trusted airborne units and gotten pummelled by UK/American shoulder launched stingers.

The fact that they’re not already parading back in Moscow is a failure. The fact that people in Russia are protesting is a massive failure. He’s describing the Ukrainian democratically elected government as drug users and neo nazis. What on earth is his government then?

It took the combined USA and U.K. forces well over a month to take Iraq. There's literally no way Putin thought it would be over already.

Also the protests were by a few thousand people out of a population of 144 million. 

I imagine it's going pretty much as he expected.

He’s been utterly utterly dreadful 

24 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

You won't, but it might catch up with him sooner rather than later. This is floating around on Twitter - 

 

Looking more and more like the right decision to flog him for £100m…

Sadly unlikely to be just alcohol for our Jack, gurning away on that lollipop.

I’m slowly moving from hoping he’d fail miserably to hoping he’s okay. Doesn’t look like he’s got the right people around him at the moment. 

1 minute ago, Xela said:

A tad melodramatic don't you think mate?  

Young can cover if need be.

There is no chance Young is a PL level left back. He played LWB in a 3-5-2 in Serie A a year ago. He’s 36 and barely played LB in his life.

If Digne gets injured, this move will look even more moronic than it currently does.

Looks like Forest are going to sign Sam Surridge today. 

A striker in a similar mould to Keinan - so could limit his minutes going forward.

12 minutes ago, Xela said:

In terms of 'helping' Newcastle, we probably need to stop worrying about what other teams do. Worry about ourselves. 

Even if we were loaning him to Burnley, it’s a strange decision.

Doesn’t seem to be a loan fee? Or obligation to buy?

It’s not like he needs game time to develop, he’s 26. All it does is make our squad depth worse. 

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Obviously management feel different, or might have something else lined up.

We just have to trust their judgement.

FYI, I didn't want him to go either. But I reckon he wanted to go.

EDIT: Ming's used to be a Left Back

And there’s a reason he’s not any more.

Regardless, if we have to pull our captain and best CB out of the centre of defence to cover the fact we pointlessly loaned out Matt Targett - it’s even more idiotic than I thought. 

2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

OR we can play 

Young, Hause, Chambers, Ming's there?

None of which are actually left backs and all of which are massive step down on Targett.

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

With him out for another couple of months and Sanson looking bright, I'd have to say that unless we have injuries or suspensions, it's going to be very difficult to see him getting back into the side. He had two or three excellent games before his injury, but I don't think he's better than any of the four we have competing for places at the moment. If we bring in a defensive midfielder of quality in the summer, I think there's a chance he might not play much more football for us, there's a chance he may already have played his last game for the club.

 

He'd start ahead of Luiz in the '6' role. Gerrard has alluded to the fact that Luiz is "filling in" in Nakamba's absence and doing "okay".

Whether Luiz would then push Ramsey out of the first XI remains to be seen.

Gerrard said he wants two players for each position. McGinn, Ramsey, Luiz and Sanson would compete for the two '8' roles. Nakamba would then hopefully become depth to a new DM signing.

Chukwuemeka is a notable omission - whether Gerrard sees him as a '10' or whether he'll be frozen out due to his contract remains to be seen.  

Just now, Aston_Villan4 said:

How will they be most preferred when they’re even further from European football? 

Because they will be able to offer considerably more wages and higher transfer fees to the selling club.

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

The fear of Toon is funny. Toon tried to sign Digne and failed as he came to Villa as an upgrade to Targett and Toon then go and pay us for our cast offs. Well done Lange 

Because they are at risk of relegation. If they stay up, they will be a better option than us in the summer. That's not "fear", that's a reality.

It's not like we can offer European football or any recent success. They will be most players preferred option. 

1 minute ago, villalad21 said:

Ash can  cover both sides and we brought back Kesler.

KKH looks set to go to MK Dons (and is a right back anyway).

Ashley Young has mostly played left back in a 3-5-2 - and is miles worse than Targett anyway. 

It's more frustrating that we are helping them stay up. We get nothing back from loaning a 26 year old out. It should be a sale or nothing. 

Utterly moronic to loan him to the Barcodes.

The option to buy is irrelevant. If they stay up, they will obviously just sign someone a lot better. Why on Earth would we want to help that mob stay up.

Getting relegated would set them back a couple of years. If they stay up, they’ll be signing the players we want.

If we sold him for an inflated fee I could just about understand. A season-long loan is just incompetence. 

A loan would be really disappointing - helps them and doesn't help us at all. 

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Wasn't Matt Doherty an Arsenal fan or something? (I know Kane was aswell but he's been at Spurs over a decade so gets forgotten for what he's generally done for the club).

Talking about Doherty apparently Spurs offered him back to Wolves as part of Adama deal but Lage wasn't interested. And Doherty's been starting ahead of Emerson and Reguillion recently in the team!

Feels like they're going to waste Conte's team there with odd calls from the top.

Only because the latter two have been injured/have knocks. 

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

It was more than that. The tweets regarding Kane and his speech was abhorrent...even for a teenager.

It’s a gif of spongebob squarepants… hardly “abhorrent”.

5 hours ago, rosenthal said:

Player pulled out because he got abuse from Spurs fans on social media. He's an Arsenal fan who had among other Spurs negativity posted derogatory tweets about Kane. Just show how childish tweets can come back and haunt you. 

Pathetic reaction from Spurs fans hammering him for tweets he made whilst being a 15 year old Arsenal fan.

Although I have no doubt Villa’s Twitter following would be just as low in similar circumstances. Twitter can be a cesspit.

3 hours ago, ender4 said:

Yep, I’d say 2nd choice for the next 4 months.

I'd rather Chambers against a decent team and KKH against a poor team, if Cash couldn't play.