Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

It really doesn't matter at all since the current squad is going to change dramatically. We will most likely be signing a captain, because well, that's exactly what we need to do.

Worked out last season for us didn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
25 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

I quite like Hutton. He seems to get a lot of abuse and hate, which is odd considering how much worse in both ability and attitude the majority of the squad is.

That may be because he happens to be "around" a lot when we get scored on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

Just because we signed a load of useless shite last season it doesn't mean we will this season.

there are more deserving players to be at the front of the queue to be replaced than Clark (getting back OT)

Who knows if the incoming players (whoever they may be) are going to good or not - all transfers are a gamble.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Just because we signed a load of useless shite last season it doesn't mean we will this season.

Thing is, last seasons shite will probably do well in the championship, look at Gestede as an example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zatman said:

even if we got 2 good centre backs I would prefer Clark and Baker as back up than Lescott and Richards

No Championship club could afford to have 2 such expensive, "high profile" players on the bench, probably not even in the team as they both contribute very little.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

If we're going to get bought, and we've got a significant amount to spend, and we've identified two good central defenders who can realistically come in and improve the defence, I have no problem selling Clark. But if we're going to sell him and then end up having to play Lescott or Richards every week, then I won't be happy. 

Same here, I'd keep Clark and Baker in the squad and add a new first choice CB pairing, if we can find the suitable players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it isn't hard enough to remember how to spell Ciaran Clark(e)'s name, UEFA has put out a guide how to pronounce the names of every player in the upcoming Euros.

Apparently Ciaran is pronounced Key-ranace :D

Can honestly say i did not know this

"As you can see, UEFA have also taken time to provide diacritic assistance for those struggling to sort their umlauts from their inverted breves, which is jolly nice of them.

However, before it was amended, they did make a bit of a hash of the largely straightforward Republic of Ireland section…"

ireland-names-uefa-guide

ireland-names-uefa-guide

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/euro-2016/238799/uefa-produce-handy-guide-to-pronouncing-every-euro-2016-players-name-correctly.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they tried, at least. There's still some visible HTML code left in the article directly after the Ireland section - and the next section starts with 'A c'.

I find it a bit odd, though, that it's fairly obvious that they've tried to use the original spellings, including various umlauts, accents and any other diacritics - and then substituted the Icelandic eth (ð) with a plain old 'd' in Haukur Heiðar Hauksson - and the suggested pronunciation makes me think of the unvoiced thorn (þ).

Oh, and @sne and any other Swedes on here: Källström – Shell-strome? Really?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ciaran would do a job in the Championship and that we might as well save money for buying an upgrade if/when we get promoted.

No use paying out now for someone who would not be of required standard in a years time and having to buy again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TB said:

Well, they tried, at least. There's still some visible HTML code left in the article directly after the Ireland section - and the next section starts with 'A c'.

I find it a bit odd, though, that it's fairly obvious that they've tried to use the original spellings, including various umlauts, accents and any other diacritics - and then substituted the Icelandic eth (ð) with a plain old 'd' in Haukur Heiðar Hauksson - and the suggested pronunciation makes me think of the unvoiced thorn (þ).

Oh, and @sne and any other Swedes on here: Källström – Shell-strome? Really?

really ;) #hopefulswede

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, osmark86 said:

really ;) #hopefulswede

Then I stand corrected (even though I'm not wearing orthopaedic shoes...)

Very, very OT: Being Norwegian, I'm obviously no expert on Swedish pronunciation (and the finer aspects of the various dialects), but I've always thought that the first part of 'Källstrom' would be pronounced in the same way as 'källa', 'kär' and 'käpp'. No 's' sibilant (skär, skälla?) involved whatsoever, as the 'shell' would suggest.

Hopefully, you won't be afflicted with the current Norwegian youth fad - not bothering to differentiate between the 'sj/skj' and 'kj' sounds.

There's a vast difference between going to the jeweller's in order to buy a silver 'kjede' (chain) for your girlfriend, and then asking for a silver 'skjede' (sheath / vagina). And then just imagine her asking asking all and sundry to have a look at it?

And to all non-Scandinavians on here: I apologize once again for going wildly off topic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â