Mic09

I like those training kits. Portugal is particularly interesting. I'm all in for crazy kits, and since this will be 50% cheaper than the real kit it makes financial sense. I'd wear that with shorts or to football. France is good too. And it seems you can't mess up anything with a Croatia badge on it.

I work in recruitment - I see a 'Delph' situation on daily basis. I am not surprised by it. In fact, I have seen much worse. But there are ways of going about how you leave. In my opinion, Delph hasn't done it well.

This. No hard feelings about going to city. But don't come out and say the above.

Finally some good news, maybe some German coaching will help him out.

Well, it's a good gesture. But if you don't want to be visible, don't supply kits that will be used in Qatar. That would be a real message.

Maguire lol

Why is Germany allowed to play their home colours in England? Well, I guess marketing kit exposure is the answer, but that shouldn't happen. England wear white at Wembley. There should be no exceptions.

Most countries have immigrants working in lower paid jobs to be fair. Go to an airport costa in England or to any given warehouse. Never been to middle east so I can't comment on their 'racism' situation, but countries like the emirates, Qatar etc have a need to build the economy on immigrants. Even at higher levels, they take engineers and bankers from abroad. They are still developing and lack skilled workforce in numerous professions.

apparently the trick is to stay in Dubai, and the flights to Qatar run a few times a day (and are relatively cheap) so you only go for the games and get back right after. Still crazy expensive. Best world cup from a fan perspective would be Spain and Portugal.

Have they given a timescale for the new badge?

I watched the game. The truth is, he was a classic Bednarek. Not too involved, a few tackles/clearances. Poland is absolutely dreadful, it's Bruce ball esque. Bednarek wasn't to be blamed (didn't do well enough for first goal though), but he did not shine either. 2.5/10. Everyone talked about lack of minutes for him which isnt a big issue as he only had one chance to play so far against city. He is a fine back up. Nothing more.

I remember the last most momentous day, the day we signed Coutinho.

I don't think any solution will make it 'fair'. The big boys are too far ahead. I wouldn't mind seeing a free for all. Villa would be able to buy players for £50-60m and give them £150k in wages. So would West Ham etc. I don't see an instance (yet!) where Man City spend a billion on transfers each season and they will not offer £1m a week to half the team. That would not make commercial sense, and as deep as their pockets are, it still costs the owners money. But I might be very wrong, it might be a bad idea.

Yup. First he thought he could break his leg, but he thought an Achilles rapture would do the trick.

Saying "No disprespect" is a build up to saying something disrespectful, but I would blame Jack's limited dictionary rather than anything malicious. He simply appreciates he joined the big boys league.

He is right though. It's de Bruyne Vs Mcginn, Fernandinho vs Nakamba, Haaland vs Watkins. He just called a spade a spade.

Great, what team do you support?

No way are we sacking him on the back of a solid draw and a win with a clean sheet. If he is to go, we need to lose the next 3 which I hope does not happen. But maybe you need to break some eggs to make an omlet.

Maybe it can if you want to make a spaghetti or an apple cake. It is an essential part of a proper full English.

That's a nice breakfast, but we are talking about a full English here. Black pudding or GTFO.

It's the effect the news have on people - if I told you the pope died, you might say ok, whatever. People would have turned the TV on at 7pm and found out the news. If I pushed the pope's death on you 24/7 for almost 2 weeks you might be more engaged in that information, have Heathrow cancel peoples flights, football cancelling, tesco closing, you might think about the event differently. The pope is a bigger deal than the British Monarch, at the very least based on the number of 'subjects' they rule over. But the monarchy is more 'tweetable'. Diana, Andrew doing his thing, Margareth doing her thing, Phillip throwing jokes around. Now we have Meghan and Harry to carry on the circus. There is much less melodrama about the Vatican. Not as cool as doing an interview with Oprah.

The Pope died in 2005 after 20+ years of reign. No/little social media back at the time. Few people had phones. The queen died after 70 years in the time where you wake up to a sound of a tweet. I think you are underestimating just how Catholic much of the world is. It's not a quirky old lady on the throne with a Paddington Bear - many catholics actually see the Pope as the direct line to St Peter. He is an actual monarch with actual political and worldwide influence. The reason the queen was so popular is because she was there for 70 years and because Americans find the whole thing intriguing. Anyway, I think that the pope would beat the queen in a fight.

The Pope is more popular with a larger audience than the Queen was. The death of a pope is a more frequent, yet bigger event. Outside the commonwealth (and as we can read on this forum) even inside of it, the monarch is nothing more than a fun interesting thing. The pope is an actual monarch in a real authoritarian sense and has people who actually subscribe to his Catholic domain. If you are ever looking for a real monarch, look at Vatican.

I have a feeling, just a nudge, that football might be slightly different in 2026 when we actually open it.

Anyone got a video of the attack on the coffin?