Ex Lion Tamer

The BBC leans right because it believes the safest way to avoid accusations of bias is to take its cues from the print media

The way I see it, she wanted to get out and there weren't any great options on the table, but saw Gao as at least a benign owner who would run us within our means. She also retained a stake to ensure she could continue to protect us, and inserted a clause to make sure the next owner was suitable

I'm not convinced Gao was that bad. He didn't invest and there was that terrible sponsorship deal ,but he got rid of the past lot, appointed a good management team and stayed out the way. And ultimately we stayed up, which is more than can be said of Derby, for example. He's definitely preferable to Lowe and Askham

I think she did it in good faith even if it turned out to be bad. And she inserted a clause to make sure he couldn't sell it on to anyone she didn't approve of

This is interesting because surely Semmens has to take responsibility for poor decisions under him as CEO?

For all that she has made mistakes, Kat has really tried to do the best by us I think. We're quite lucky when you look at some of the terrible owners that other clubs have had

I don't think wanting to play first team football has to be either arrogant or insecure, it's just a desire for the excitement and learning experience of real football and a belief that the transfer market will take you to your appropriate level

There's also no reason for Chelsea to sell until the summer. His value will only increase

He does look like he's carrying there

I think it's the chance to be leading football strategy at a multi club group rather than just one. He'll have people working beneath him at each club doing his old role

Inject this into my veins

Gao > Askham > Lowe

Or he knows he's not good enough for our level and just wants to play?

Hopefully Semmens will stay but if he's been tasked by Gao to sell the club, he'll do that and take a nice payoff if he has to leave

This is a plausible explanation for why media aren't reporting on it and why we don't know the identity of the buyers

I thought Salisu was bang to rights but where the inconsistency lies is that Brighton and villa should both have had players sent off against us for double yellows

Yep, definitely got to use the squad here

We also have to unpick how much credit he gets for nurturing these players so that their values have risen to that level. Having that squad value despite spending much less has to some degree to be to his credit

You can easily turn that around and say that whenever anything goes wrong, some will always say it is Ralph's fault. Even if their "solution" may not have worked in practice. It's an easy game from the stands. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle

It's not really a bad line up except Walcott, assuming the Armstrongs and Che aren't fit to start. I'm not sure of the logic of planning for Tues though given the chances of further cases and it being called off

Also, "strong" rumours?

The weird thing is why he signed a new contract if that was the case

These figures are out of the total population rather than just those who have got covid. In reality a higher % of people who get covid would die

It's a solution but I think any government that did it would get voted out by people appalled at the sight of people dying untreated in carparks. And you might even end up with too many vaccinated people going untreated

The vaccine has massively reduced the danger but so many more people are going to get it now, so the load on the NHS could end up the same. Example: these figures are made up but explain the principle: 10,000 cases leads to 1,000 hospitalisations before vaccines. NHS overloaded. 10,000 cases leads to 100 hospitalisations after vaccines. NHS not overloaded. 100,000 cases leads to 1,000 hospitalisations after vaccines. NHS overloaded.