Sam-AVFC

Completely agree. I have two enduring memories from going as a kid. Approaching the stadium with the twin towers looming overhead and the noise the Brazilian fans made.

I don't see why they would. The Champions League money would become irrelevant and any club in the league could afford to buy whoever they wanted from other leagues.

It's about time they finally work out how to set up a streaming service, which will bring in magnitudes more than current TV deals. Clubs will then be able to reduce ticket prices to whatever is needed to fill stadiums.

I hate this. The cost and 'investment' return shouldn't even cross the mind when talking about improving accessibility.

Good idea. Is it worth hiding the original post too and asking those who quoted it to hide their posts?

They could easily produce a kit in a suitable material for the women's game on the weekend. I appreciate it will be very expensive per shirt, but the total cost is a drop in the ocean, particularly considering we can all see how this will play out over social media. Sorry if you addressed this question in the podcast @NurembergVillan, I've not had a chance to listen yet. Do these companies not go through rigorous testing with people wearing the shirts and subsequently screen tests before they are signed off? Seems a little silly not to when it's the thing representing you as a brand and has already accrued significant costs from day 1 of the deal.

I wouldn't read too much into that. I doubt he went with the 1st team training camp to America and didn't, as far as I recall, feature in any of the games. Lower leagues also start their seasons earlier, so you would expect them to ramp up a week or two before our 1st team.

Building new facilities on site for the purpose of hospitality is great and needed. All of the current plans seem to be to reduce the facilities that have been available to the masses for many years and squeeze them into smaller spaces, with ever worsening facilities at a time ticket prices are going to increase a lot. People had the same 'don't like it, don't use it' opinion on the Terrace View. Which would be great, if they weren't also losing access to basic WC and food/drink facilities.

I'd go for two trays of chicken above 2 trays of chips so the chicken fat drips down and adds flavour. Which I guess defeats the point of an air fryer for a lot of people... Sorry that I can't actually answer your question!

Of course it isn't easy. What big societal issues are easy to fix? I'd be surprised to anyone arguing with hindsight against sorting public healthcare, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, child labour laws & education etc. because they weren't easy to fix. We have so many big issues now because many voters don't care about sorting out problems in the long-term, they will vote for the guy that promises instant gratification. Whether that be a few pence off the pound in taxes. Brexit being offered as an easy fix to many problems. Giving them a bogeyman they can actually see out and about to blame problems on. Etc. I'd still prefer they invested the time and money in considering and processing applications, employment training and creating taxpaying members of society. Right now the effort is being put in to delaying applications, creating long-term detention at a huge cost in hotels and barges that companies will make a fortune from. Rwanda. Even forgetting the long-term cost savings in sorting it, we're probably also spending more in the short-term moving in the current direction. The same with homelessness, but it's the installation of anti sleeping measures and making sure they are removed from areas where they are unsightly. Which more provision of housing and training would also do. Deterrents don't work in the face of desperation or necessity. The same applies to many of the big issues we are facing in this country at the moment. I still think we as a society should be better than 'it's not easy, so I'll look the other way'. I'd also prefer they at least had the courage to withdraw from our international obligations if they don't intend to abide by them, rather than pretending they are but refusing to accept any definition of a refugee as valid.

I really don't think the swearing is the issue, it's that she reacts churlishly a millisecond after believing the conversation is out of the public eye. Plenty of her party, including herself, are happy to berate reporters on camera for trying to do their job and get information from them. The fact she waited until the interview was over in this instance says it all.

Carson is 3rd choice at best though. 4th if Steffen doesn't go on loan again.

Target him with what though? Not that many teams in the league have a big, powerful striker and if they want to do a Big Sam/Chris Samba I'm sure we'll appreciate the space left behind.

I wouldnt read anything into that, the players' shirts have been like it all pre season. Even the friend I watched the game with commented on it. It was notable how dry Newcastle's were when we have the same kit manufacturer/sponsor (I know Fanatics manufacture).

That's addressed in the body of the tweet. Personally, I don't think it's really a loophole. I'd have no issue with a club signing up loads of players to 10 year contracts to reduce amortisation as they would be taking a hell of a risk to do so.

Trust me, I feel the same and wish we had! Particularly as this will probably be the only game I'm not working during for the next few months. We got our tactics a bit wrong. Mings going off removed any pace from our defence. Chasing the game we left ourselves even more open and conceded cheap goals at the end. What I hate is vague talk suggesting we are destined to be losers based on unconnected events in the past.

Why do you think? Do you think the owners are telling everyone to be shit? The players don't care about the first game? Emery has decided to carry on a long running club tradition of starting badly? Or maybe correlation =/= causation and we have had a bad first game for different reasons than we have in the past.

Because there are more posters on the site than you and one other. I do agree though. Between the League Cup and Conference we should be able to give him a few starts.

Huh, maybe this deal is evidence of crooked dealings. I stand corrected @thabucks!

Did you honestly believe sponsors decide how much they are willing to pay based on most recent finishing position? The sad reality is anywhere you go in the world (bar one small Ghanaian village) more people will have heard of Chelsea than Aston Villa.

It is a straight £12m. But what it means is you can effectively spend 5 times that assuming you sign a player on a 5 year deal. Ie £100k/week = £5m. That leaves £7m a year to be amortised over 5 years, so a £35m transfer fee. Obviously it only covers it for the year it comes in, so you would need to find that £12m for each of the next 4 years, whether through increased income or reduced costs. What it gives you is flexibility to play with FFP in that specific year, particularly if you expect players to sign contract extensions reducing their yearly amortisation, or through sales in the future.

Yeah, it's definitely no more than a PR exercise. Just seems strange to explicitly link him to an area in which he has had so much controversy, even though he will be doing naff all in practice.

Reading about his brand I can't help being reminded of Goop. Not the person I would want advising on health and nutrition.

If we still have that sort of money left to spend on an attacking player (which I doubt) we should be seriously considering activating Olise's rumoured £35m release clause.