CB Fry

I see Boris and Rishi saying they are pushing ahead with the Tax rise. I am in absolutely no doubt they want to push it through entirely so they can lop it off again in the budget of 2024 just conveniently in time for the election that summer and ride in on a "look at us lowering taxes" message. And it will work.

I think the important thing is to look at every single event in football through the lens of how terrible it is going to be for Southampton Football Club.

The "nobody can name anyone better" routine is absolute bullshit being that pretty much no one here had heard of Ralph Hasenhuttl until a day or so before he was appointed.

Absolute pie in the sky. This is even more insane that the old "here's the English team for the world cup in ten years time" that you'd see in the papers, when they would get maybe one or two players right. Danny Cadamartari and Matt Jansen becoming England legends etc.

Looks like it is reported everywhere now. Can't see it working myself: he's going to make Mike Walker look like Bill Shankly.

I thought the format of the winter break was to split the fixtures across two weeks (five games one weekend and five the next) so that all clubs get a break but there are still games both weekends. When did it turn into this bullshit?

They are going tobe like a shit version of Manchester United. Splurging money around on big names but not actually winning anything and with no particular strategy. Manchester City already exist (as do United, Liverpool, Real Madrid etc). They can't all be the biggest club in the world, they can't all have all the best players. They are going to be a long way away from emulating them.

Stanley Matthews would be f**king shit today with those clunky old boots on.

To many people got carried away with Toby. It's not a hostage situation: first refusal does not mean a player has to sign for you if they don't want to. Ultimately a player can decide who he wants to play for. Toby was never ours. But I'm also very comfortable in thinking this is also a reason why Broja is not going to sign for Newcastle this January. They can offer £50m to Chelsea and I still don't think he'd want to go there now. And he won't.

Thank you for liking my posts further up the thread when I tried to explain this 👍 Sorry to everyone else for the diversions.

Sounds ridiculous to me. Broja doesn't need to sign for Newcastle, he is already a Chelsea player. Chelsea don't need to sell to Newcastle, they can sit tight and see how he develops for the rest of the season with us. Feels like a combination of Newcastle last minute hysteria and journos just randomly linking anyone who's had a good game recently with Newcastle. So it's either untrue or if it is true it's ridiculous and doomed to fail.

Ah, we're getting somewhere. Well done.

What he did was work out the total points available and then apply a percentage, giving a total. Which at 17-and-a-bit cannot be achieved by wins alone (multiples of three) and across the various clusters of game calculated points totals (1.5,4.5) that also cannot be achieved by wins alone. Getting 40% of a 5 game, 15 point cluster can be achieved by wins and draws. Much like the 25 points we've got thus far this season, or the 14 points we got in the second half of last season. A combination of wins and draws. You know, like football. As I say, I understood it at one glance from the first post.

I'm as disappointed as you that this particular debate hasn't been (split) by the mods into its own separate thread with a comedy name. That's all I wanted and I feel let down.

I feel this signing is implausible because I believe we have an expected chance of signing him of 10%.

Stop posting these stupid examples. I don't give a shit. Total expected points x percentage expected to achieve = points for the second half of the season. 5 tough games, 10% of the 15 points available. Other clusters of games its forty or thirty percent. The points add up to a total which can then be achieved through wins or draws. I got it at first glance. Its a bit pessimistic but its a perfectly fine way of looking at it. You don't like it but that doesn't make it wrong.

You can't get one and a half points from five games without drawing (at least) one. Literally (numerically) a prediction of a couple of draws. Its a simple model taking a percentage of the available points to get to a total for the season. You don't like it, but its a perfectly fine way of looking at it. Doesn't make it, or me, "wrong" in any way. It's a bit of prediction fun on a forum and I thank Spyinthesky for posting it up. It's comfortably pessimistic so is a great confidence builder.

Feels completely implausible but if it genuinely in the Telegraph then maybe.....

Well we got significantly fewer points in the second half of last season than the first, so God only knows how that makes any model wrong. Its a perfectly appropriate stance to take. 1.5 points from 5 tough games equals two draws at best, one draw at worst. Again a realistic, pragmatic prediction. You can, if you like, do this weird routine where you pretend I am denying the existence of draws but it's there in the first post and I have referenced it multiple times. 1.5 points from 5 tough games = one or two draws. Pretty accurate prediction in my mind. How many points have we got from the last five games against those teams? Shall I tell you? Two. From draws. As in the model shown. Easy, aint it. You might not like it but a % of available points is a perfectly sensible approach. The available points for five games = 15 points. The available points for five games with draws added in, draws draws draws draws is....still 15 points. We a get 10% of those points for some games, or we can get 40%. Pretty easy to understand. Try it.

Hahaha you f**king retard. 1.5 points from 5 tough games: assumes draws. 9 points from 5 easier games, assumes draws. 17 points or so from 17 games, assumes draws. Every prediction thing in the history of this forum that entails "we'll get 11 points/4 points/ 9 points from the next 4/5/7 games" assumes draws. It doesn't need spelling out. That first post is a rudimentary prediction model that you are wanking on about like it is Newton's Law. Clumps of clubs lumped together as 10% chance of winning, 30% chance of winning etc. Just fag packet stuff plucked out of the sky and your issue is that there isn't a "predicted draws" equation bolted onto it. Absolute joke you plank. I'll repeat I got it straight away. First reading, first look. Some points there, more points there, 17 points more or less. Bit pessimistic but I like it. At first viewing I knew it assumed draws and I know it still does. Draws are in there from post one. In the points total, in every sub section. You can crack on creating your own model if you like with your jolly exciting "expected draws" because that's all they talk about down the pub. Expected draws. f**k me.

Absolutely no doubt there are photos if required.

That's your best shot now? Thank you and good night.

Drip, drip, drip, drip.

"Chance of drawing" isn't a thing you absolute f**king plank. 15 available points from five tough games, a prediction we'll get 10% of those points, so a point and a half therefore a draw at worst, two draws at best. You don't need a "chance of drawing" calculator on top. Points gained from draws are just intrinsic in the model. It's there. Absolutely laughable that you are rage typing in bold and underlined about something so basic. You're also making things up from the opening post now: the phrase "five long shots at a win" is not there. Honestly give it up. Embarrassing.

You can't get 1.5 points from winning a game. There's a five game cluster with 1.5 points attached to it, which clearly shows a prediction that we will draw one or two of those games and win none. You basically become massively hung up on the phrase "chance of winning". All it actually is a proxy to get to an assumption that we will pick up a % of points from groups of games - 10% from hard games, 60% from easier games - so 1.5 points here, 9 points there. We won't win all games, we won't lose all the ones we won't win, we will draw some. Hence 1.5 points in some cases, hence 17 points as a working assumption which is impossible to achieve by just wins. Over thinking it, massively, and then writing tantrums in bold UNDERLINED IN CAPITALS....absolutely laughable I got it in post one, in seconds. You are still raging and raging and raging. You continue to embarrass yourself. Personally I am looking forward to the mods splitting this off into its own thread.