Alanh

Shame that this discussion has gone off on a tangent relating to the very specific language that was used in some grafitti. Some media outlets have described it as racially motivated (The Independent, NY Times, etc), some haven't (The BBC). Some posters on here think it is racially motivated and some struggle with that as even a possibility. They can't all be right, some have made a mistake. Regardless of which media outlet is right and what the 'truth' is, there is no doubting that the three players that missed penalties received racially motivated abuse. Any attempt to deflect from that by analysing the minutiae of the grafitti text is IMO just looking to deminish the bigger issue. Also, @Jimmy_D - you have nailed this whole discussion, and your post on the previous page about making the use of racist language less and less acceptable is just about perfect!!

Agree with some of this post, but disagree with the bits in bold. Firstly, I don't think racists want the attention. They just think that using racist language is an OK way to express themselves. I doubt that many of them are looking for likes on social media after posting monkey emojis. Secondly, hilighting an issue through a confrontational, but peaceful action resulting in it being raised up the agenda of national debate is a perfectly valid democratic way to adress an injustice or societal issue. Taking the knee, calling out racist behaviours, calling out the Home Secretary etc bring the issue to the fore, get it discussed and ultimately reinforce the message that racist behaviour is socially unacceptable. 'Normal' people know that already, but little by little those who currently think it is OK / just a bit of banter etc, will finally get to realise that it's not.

I think what you mean is it would end social media as we know it overnight. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, but the idea of verified accounts for everyone and unverified available but effectively consigned to second class status is worth pursuing if it is feasible.

To anyone on this forum who says that taking the knee and the players stances on sodial media achieve nothing, just think, without it there is little chance that the issue would have been discussed on here across multiple threads during this summer. The subject wouldn't have been a significant consideration going into the new season. Perhaps some people who hadn't ever thought about the issue before have seen some other sides of the argument and if the result of this is that fewer (hopefully zero) racial slurs are thrown at Nathan Tella or Nathan Redmond, or Mo Salisu, or KWP, or any other black players, Saints or opposition then that is an achievement. If that is multiplied across the country then progress will have been made. That will be more prgress IMO than Kick It Out ever achieved.

Are you saying that either enough has been done to combat racist behaviour, or it's impossible to achieve progress against racist behaviour so we might as well just not do anything? Do you think a different action i.e. not taking the knee, or calling out the Home Secretary would be more effective?

Ings has got a contract until June 2022 so he's got a right to stay until then if he wants to. The club have also got the right to accept an offer, but up till now none have come in so there is nowhere for him to 'sod off' to. You appear to have a very poor grasp of how football player contracts and transfers work, but it is very generous of you to pay for a taxi for a multi millionaire who can probably afford it himself.

Makes it a bit of a problem for Grealish given falling over at the slightest touch is one of the major strings to his bow.

My guess is that we have got an agreement him but one or both parties want it done after the end of June. Possibly for accounting purposes, or perhaps he will receive bonuses if he stays at Brest until after the end of June (the typical end of a football contract year).

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/dear-england-gareth-southgate-euros-soccer

I'm always intrigued by the response 'the club treat us like customers rather than fans. Surely the difference is that fans will do arguably irrational things because of devotion whereas customers will shop around to get the best deal possible. By adding padded seats and offering them to existing occupants they are treating them as fans, but with the opportunity to be a customer by moving elsewhere at a cheaper price. Not saying its not inconvenient or distressing. I've been there as I used to have a season ticket in the centre Kingsland but moved a couple of blocks across when it became a premium price location.

My theory is that Ralph knew that Ings couldn't play 90 mins and was very conscious of the second half collapses that we have been prone to this season. He therefore held Ings back for the second half so that he had more firepower on the pitch later in the game. It didn't work out for us, but I can see the logic.

Ralph sees the younger players in training and most of those you mention have had minutes on the pitch without doing anything remarkably good. Tella has been the academy breakthrough this season and one a season is fine. In the Fulham match all of 4 days ago, two subs scored to give us the win. The can't do it every match, but to say they do nothing is wrong. All teams will go into next season with the majority of the 'old guard' from this season (with the possible exception of Palace who have loads out of contract). We will still likely be fighting with the three promoted teams, Palace, Burnely, Newcastle, Brighton and anyone else who had a bad season for a lower mid table finish.

Salisu is playing as one of three centre backs, not as a full back. We have played 3 at the back for at least the last three games. Redmond is essentially playing as a wing back, as is KWP.

It's been mentioned on the Palace match thread, but I think RH deserves a lot of credit for playing 3 at the back while we are in possession (more traditional back 4 shape when defending). I think we have tried it in at least the last couple of games, maybe more. It's released KWP for more attacking work, mitigated the loss of Bertrand, and allowed Salisu more playing time. Redmond seems to be OK in the left wing back position as well. We know he wants to play 4-2-2-2 but without the personnel he has been creative and flexible and against Palace particularly it worked well.

Wembley is hosting the Championship playoff final on the same day as the Champions League final so that probably won't work. Villa Park would make sense given it will be reduced capacity wherever it is played, but I guess UEFA will want a prestigious venue if possible.

Completely agree on the concept of recruiting an experienced CB if JV goes. Someone who is a cool head who reads the game well like Evans at Leicester would mean we had a great range of complimentary skills across the CB group.

The appeal was successful.

It's not really more money. The CL already generates the sort of money that they are quoting for the new ESL through TV rights and sponsorship, but the big teams don't think that they get a big enough share of the pot. The big issue is the closed shop idea which means that they secure that income regardless of league form and bring that increased spending power back to their national leagues thus distorting the finances of the haves and have nots still further.

So the 12 founders want more and importantly, secured income from a European competition, but also to play in their own national leagues so that they can continue to win trophies and have enough games to play. In the Uk the PL need them to participate so that they have as strong a product as possible to sell to TV around the world. The big issue is that the guaranteed revenue that they get from the ESL can then be spent on their squad for the PL which brings even more financial distortion than exists at present. I think the best solution is: 1. Let them go and create this new league. 2. Let them remain in the PL 3. Implement a wage / spending cap in the PL for all teams which their PL squad has to ahere to. They can then decide which players they want to include in their PL squad. 4. Work with UEFA to create a European competition which rivals the ESL and is open (to qualification through national league or cup success) to any club which is not part of the ESL. That competition would still be attractive as it would include the big German teams, PSG, Napoli, Porto Galatasary, etc as well as the non big 6 UK teams. This will allow their owners to make loads of money, which they seem to want, but they won't be able to use it to distort competition in the PL, and the winners of the PL (now on a more level financial playing field) get European competition in the next season.

The betting companies don't care about whether the gambler is an addict or a casual punter, as you know the purpose of their advertising is to get the punters to bet with them rather than a competitor. Addiction is several steps down the line, but there has to be an entry point and the 'normalisation' of betting culture through adverts / sponsorships / etc has the potential to make gamling seem like a normal part of life. No one will become a gambling addict only because of a football sponsorship but there is an argument that the sponsorship helps normalise something which has the potential to devastate lives.

If he were to be sold I'd like to see us find a more experienced ball playing centre back to replace him. Perhaps we could do something like Leicester did when they picked up Johnny Evans at the age of 30 from WBA following relegation in 2018. I think calm older pro would give us a great balance of youthful energy and exprience at CB.

Agree with the principle of keeping it simple and that's what the current rule does. If that was the sole criteria then leave it as it is.

I don't think you can get rid of offside completely, but if it is going to be measured by VAR I think they could make a change which would improve things. If the attacker is deemed offside due to one part of his body being in front of the last defender, then the offside decision is only upheld if that part of the body is used in the subesquent passage of play. I.e if the shoulder is offside, but he doesn't subesquently play the ball with his shoulder, then the decision is revoked. If the right foot is offside, and he plays the ball with his right foot, then the decision is upheld.

I would have thought it would be 20% of profit on any deal, not 20% of the total fee. I think that's the general way that sell on clauses work.