January Transfers 2023

[Thug]

2 hours ago, El Zen said:

You know what, just f*** right off with your thinly veiled accusations of racism. It’s absolutely ridiculous. 

I don’t think you ever asked me about US marriage laws, btw. You’re getting people mixed up. 

And where have I ever defended American foreign policy on this site. Like, ever? I’m a European liberal socialist - why do you have me confused for some kind of right-wing USA apologist? 

Lol, you’re the one stalking me, chappy.

Every time I defend any country from the Middle East, you seem to pop up like magic, like you’ve got some notification enabled for certain words - if that’s even possible.

Actually I have never suggested that you’re a US sympathiser.  Indeed the only post of yours that I recall mentioning the US is one where you criticise Texas for their treatment of transgender people.  My only issue with you has been that you will stop short of treating two wrongs with the same punishment.  I can’t understand why.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario

There are two children smashing windows.  One is black, and one is white.  You decide to reprimand the black child only, or indeed the white child only.  And tell him he is grounded.

Someone then highlights that the other child was equally wrong, and needs to face the SAME punishment.  You ignore it.  

Maybe it had nothing to do with the race of the child, but it looks pretty bad, no?

Saying one child was throwing ‘blood’ rocks implies that somehow the other child’s rocks were not as bad.  You don’t need to say it, but your selective criticism implies it.

Now of course it would be impossible to preface every post with disclaimers.  But in my view there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification - so I did.

So if OP says ‘Saudi blood money’, and I ask for clarification, and OP agrees that other countries also have blood money, then that’s fine, and hopefully end of discussion, and maybe even one less person referencing the money as such. Or maybe OP does have some opinions that need to be challenged.  Or maybe there’s something for me to learn.

History will teach you that language is very important in planting ideations.  If you allow ideas like all Saudi (and indeed Arab) money is blood money to pass unchecked, then people reading it will assume it is true, or ok to believe  it as such.  

It has almost become second nature to reference any Arab money as blood money on this board - and although 99% of the time it has no underlying intentional malice to it - it is damaging to a certain people none-the-less.  The more you hear/read something - the more ‘true’ it becomes in the readers/listeners mind.  Saudi money is no bloodier than US money.  So let’s stop making out that it somehow is.

I would expect you, more that most, to understand this, but you seem to take exception whenever I take exception.

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, The_Steve said:

LOL

 

Dunno about his attitude, but he always looks alright against us. Maybe he just needs to find the right club (not us). 

[El Zen]

2 hours ago, Thug said:

Lol, you’re the one stalking me, chappy.

Every time I defend any country from the Middle East, you seem to pop up like magic, like you’ve got some notification enabled for certain words - if that’s even possible.

Actually I have never suggested that you’re a US sympathiser.  Indeed the only post of yours that I recall mentioning the US is one where you criticise Texas for their treatment of transgender people.  My only issue with you has been that you will stop short of treating two wrongs with the same punishment.  I can’t understand why.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario

There are two children smashing windows.  One is black, and one is white.  You decide to reprimand the black child only, or indeed the white child only.  And tell him he is grounded.

Someone then highlights that the other child was equally wrong, and needs to face the SAME punishment.  You ignore it.  

Maybe it had nothing to do with the race of the child, but it looks pretty bad, no?

Saying one child was throwing ‘blood’ rocks implies that somehow the other child’s rocks were not as bad.  You don’t need to say it, but your selective criticism implies it.

Now of course it would be impossible to preface every post with disclaimers.  But in my view there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification - so I did.

So if OP says ‘Saudi blood money’, and I ask for clarification, and OP agrees that other countries also have blood money, then that’s fine, and hopefully end of discussion, and maybe even one less person referencing the money as such. Or maybe OP does have some opinions that need to be challenged.  Or maybe there’s something for me to learn.

History will teach you that language is very important in planting ideations.  If you allow ideas like all Saudi (and indeed Arab) money is blood money to pass unchecked, then people reading it will assume it is true, or ok to believe  it as such.  

It has almost become second nature to reference any Arab money as blood money on this board - and although 99% of the time it has no underlying intentional malice to it - it is damaging to a certain people none-the-less.  The more you hear/read something - the more ‘true’ it becomes in the readers/listeners mind.  Saudi money is no bloodier than US money.  So let’s stop making out that it somehow is.

I would expect you, more that most, to understand this, but you seem to take exception whenever I take exception.

Dude, I am not stalking you. This is literally only our second interaction. Don’t flatter yourself. You do, however, seem to have an irresistable need to defend autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies, which seems strange. Why does all criticism of these regimes have to be met with silly whataboutism? It hardly seems relevant to talk about how bad certain other countries are when someone criticises Ronaldo for taking Saudi money? Especially to bring up a country Ronaldo was never ever going to play in anyway? 

And, again, stop with the preposterous implications of racism. If you for a second think I have some kind of anti-Arab bias, you can honestly p*** off. Go check out my views on Palestine and Israel if you want. Race has absolutely nothing to do with my criticism of autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies. I mean, in criticising these regimes, I am really advocating for the rights of Arab people am I not? 

As critical as I can be of the US and its policies, I will stop short of putting it in the same bracket as especially Saudi Arabia. And it’s not even close. But that’s a discussion for another time and another place. Now, you’re entitled to a different opinion, but don’t for a second try to explain my opinion with racism on my part. That is just intellectully dishonest and way off the mark.

[Thug]

1 hour ago, El Zen said:

Dude, I am not stalking you. This is literally only our second interaction. Don’t flatter yourself. You do, however, seem to have an irresistable need to defend autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies, which seems strange. Why does all criticism of these regimes have to be met with silly whataboutism? It hardly seems relevant to talk about how bad certain other countries are when someone criticises Ronaldo for taking Saudi money? Especially to bring up a country Ronaldo was never ever going to play in anyway? 

And, again, stop with the preposterous implications of racism. If you for a second think I have some kind of anti-Arab bias, you can honestly p*** off. Go check out my views on Palestine and Israel if you want. Race has absolutely nothing to do with my criticism of autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies. I mean, in criticising these regimes, I am really advocating for the rights of Arab people am I not? 

As critical as I can be of the US and its policies, I will stop short of putting it in the same bracket as especially Saudi Arabia. And it’s not even close. But that’s a discussion for another time and another place. Now, you’re entitled to a different opinion, but don’t for a second try to explain my opinion with racism on my part. That is just intellectully dishonest and way off the mark.

There it is again, ‘whataboutism’.  An idea invented by the prejudiced and peddled by the intellectually challenged.  

You’re absolutely right, this discussion is for a different place, and I’m happy to take it there as we are way off topic now.

 

[TheAuthority]

5 hours ago, Thug said:

Lol, you’re the one stalking me, chappy.

Every time I defend any country from the Middle East, you seem to pop up like magic, like you’ve got some notification enabled for certain words - if that’s even possible.

Actually I have never suggested that you’re a US sympathiser.  Indeed the only post of yours that I recall mentioning the US is one where you criticise Texas for their treatment of transgender people.  My only issue with you has been that you will stop short of treating two wrongs with the same punishment.  I can’t understand why.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario

There are two children smashing windows.  One is black, and one is white.  You decide to reprimand the black child only, or indeed the white child only.  And tell him he is grounded.

Someone then highlights that the other child was equally wrong, and needs to face the SAME punishment.  You ignore it.  

Maybe it had nothing to do with the race of the child, but it looks pretty bad, no?

Saying one child was throwing ‘blood’ rocks implies that somehow the other child’s rocks were not as bad.  You don’t need to say it, but your selective criticism implies it.

Now of course it would be impossible to preface every post with disclaimers.  But in my view there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification - so I did.

So if OP says ‘Saudi blood money’, and I ask for clarification, and OP agrees that other countries also have blood money, then that’s fine, and hopefully end of discussion, and maybe even one less person referencing the money as such. Or maybe OP does have some opinions that need to be challenged.  Or maybe there’s something for me to learn.

History will teach you that language is very important in planting ideations.  If you allow ideas like all Saudi (and indeed Arab) money is blood money to pass unchecked, then people reading it will assume it is true, or ok to believe  it as such.  

It has almost become second nature to reference any Arab money as blood money on this board - and although 99% of the time it has no underlying intentional malice to it - it is damaging to a certain people none-the-less.  The more you hear/read something - the more ‘true’ it becomes in the readers/listeners mind.  Saudi money is no bloodier than US money.  So let’s stop making out that it somehow is.

I would expect you, more that most, to understand this, but you seem to take exception whenever I take exception.

You ok hun? xoxo

[Thug]

31 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

You ok hun? xoxo

No, got a ball ache.

wanna come give em a rub, baby?

[Rds1983]

5 hours ago, Thug said:

There it is again, ‘whataboutism’.  An idea invented by the prejudiced and peddled by the intellectually challenged.  

You’re absolutely right, this discussion is for a different place, and I’m happy to take it there as we are way off topic now.

 

Out of curiosity, and without spinning it into something else could you please answer a yes or no question?

Do you think that Qatar should have hosted the World Cup and that Saudi Arabia should be awarded the upcoming one?

[Thug]

29 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Out of curiosity, and without spinning it into something else could you please answer a yes or no question?

Do you think that Qatar should have hosted the World Cup and that Saudi Arabia should be awarded the upcoming one?

Yes.  No.

 

[VillaChris]

Jack Butland joining Man. United.

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Jack Butland joining Man. United.

The life of the backup goalkeeper. Lots of money, maybe some medals and get to stay fit while travelling Europe

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Jack Butland joining Man. United.

Genuinely couldn't tell you where from, not a clue where he's been for the last 5 odd years or how old he is (33?)

One for the forgotten footballers thread

[VillaChris]

Just now, villa4europe said:

Genuinely couldn't tell you where from, not a clue where he's been for the last 5 odd years or how old he is (33?)

One for the forgotten footballers thread

Been backup at Palace since early 2020.

[PieFacE]

Chelsea apparently also in for Mykhailo Mudryk.

[KAZZAM]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

Chelsea apparently also in for Mykhailo Mudryk.

There gonna bump the price up big time and Arsenal will either have to be ripped off or walk away. 

[Zatman]

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Genuinely couldn't tell you where from, not a clue where he's been for the last 5 odd years or how old he is (33?)

One for the forgotten footballers thread

29

[duke313]

Sounds like an exciting talent. Wish we had some scouts in South America.

[duke313]

Looks like Scjelderup is off to Benfica.

What’s the point in Lange if we can’t even attract the best Scandinavian talent, surely he should be a step ahead of the rest on this?

[Zatman]

39 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Looks like Scjelderup is off to Benfica.

What’s the point in Lange if we can’t even attract the best Scandinavian talent, surely he should be a step ahead of the rest on this?

Apparently he wouldnt qualify for a work permit

[The_Steve]

1 hour ago, duke313 said:

Looks like Scjelderup is off to Benfica.

What’s the point in Lange if we can’t even attract the best Scandinavian talent, surely he should be a step ahead of the rest on this?

What’s Lange got to do with this? That’s demonstrably unfair 

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

What’s Lange got to do with this? That’s demonstrably unfair 

And also fairly standard...

100 reasons why a player might not join villa but the automatic response is that its a failing of someone at the club

It is unfair