Holmes_and_Watson

I'm sure they are all fully funded, as they said so frequently. Just as I'm sure they are a party of trust, as that was something they said they stood for. No doubt their will be a news announcement putting our minds at rest. That, up until a couple of days ago, will be controlled by Sue Gray, a trusted (and very fully funded) person within they party.

There were proponents of it in Canada who also said that of course, it would follow the strictest of controls. That it was there only to show compassion to those clearly at end of life. Then that any expansion would follow the strictest of requirements. And here we are, with the real life examples given. It's naive to think we would somehow avoid all of the issues Canada, and other countries have. Plenty of headlines talking about care, physical and mental health crises. No shortage of scenarios where people mistakenly feel they are being a burden, or are beyond help or being cared for. No shortage of abuses and negligence.

That's the scariest thing I've read here in a while. I'm not as up on it as hypo, but it's widened even further since I last read about it. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/ Considering all the health and social errors and scandals, would you really trust them with a widened assisted dying programme? "Posing as a woman named Joann, she told the doctor that she wanted to die by Christmas. Reciting basic MAID criteria, the doctor told her that she needed to be over 18, have an insurance card, and be experiencing “suffering that cannot be remediated or treated in some way that’s acceptable to you.” I'll miss you when they widen it to Mods going through a rough patch.

It's odd that our highlight reel for a player isn't the one the club look at. Rasmus: Look at that pass back! Russ: If he does that a other dozen times in this move, we've got to get him!

It will be exactly that. The logic being that having him race forward, when the rest of the team is not set up for that sort of run, means there's greater risk when we concede possession. And that systemic approach is what RM is looking for. While we get excited seeing a player start an attack, or show some momentum, RM just sees the gaps and the risk. We've had at least one player comment that they have to relearn basic football instincts under RM.

We like to make sure incoming players reach the level of the rest. 🙂

Just watched highlights. Very nice Archer goal. Especially as he was looking for some support before realising it was very slow in getting there. First goal was a needless giveaway by Downes which caught us moving forward. Punished. The second was tactical. We often don't defend that kind of delivery, as it takes much more to get it in. Welcome to the PL where players are good enough to exploit that. Third was a howler from Suga.

Loom

From his quotes, his data is telling him we're creating enough chances, but just not converting them. That supports his possession based game, and is why he's rotating through his strikers. When he did that, and to try and focus on exploiting Bournemouth weaknesses, he came up with Monday's team. They worked on it for over a week. He felt that making changes early would look bad. I'm reading his intention as bad for the players, rather than his tactics with that quote. But, he says he's learned from that. Some worrying things in there, to say the least.

A speculative Ramsdale clearance is awkwardly cleared hitting a defender's arm. No Saints player within 20 yards of it. 🙂

Welcome to another episode of Wish Upon a Star... 🙂

I happen to know that Doris prefers a compact 4-2-3-1 with an inverted attacking role for KWP! No way does the blame lie there! Hopefully, any succession planning begins with a section looking at the criteria they've used to make previous poor decisions, why they thought they were right in the first place, and if they should be involved in further decision making.

Eve

Yeah. Very much a "don't change a thing, Russ. You be you." quote. Just to make it easier for them. 🙂

It could well be the timing of that break clause that determines how long he's here.

For all those who ask who can come in and improve us, and there's two right there. The tea lady and Mickey Mouse. 🙂

How he got voted in, after such a rubbish job repelling the Romans, I'll never know. But this.

More clearly defined boundaries, set up by an organisation/group that is a leader in establishing transparency and best practice in preventing even the suggestion of corruption would be nice. One that guts all the existing rules they hide behind. Better than fudging a few sections of the current rules, just adjusting the depth of troughing.

Hamlet:To pass, or not to pass. That is the question. Horatio: Well, it's to pass isn't it? Hamlet: Always. I know a hawk from a handsaw. Horatio: Sadly not a striker from a midfielder up front, m'lord.

Wow. Loving the literature version of the Circle of Trust. Moyes it is then. 🙂

From Beeb front page "Off air with Laura K Get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you." Off air indeed 🙂

He'll be the major shareholder, and decision maker. "Wealthy individual seeks new, innovative team to use riches to bring multi club success" might not bring in the right sort of person. Even with the best of intentions, SR have made a number of rubbish calls. I've no idea why he'd want to go through it more than once.

Today's news has brave Sir Keir pioneering a new scheme, because it was just so darned awkward to know what the right thing to do was. 'The prime minister said his government would bring forward new principles for donations "as until now politicians have used their best individual judgement to decide".' Considering every major company has a straightforward gifts and hospitality procedure, and MPs went through an expenses scandal, this is laughable. They all wanted to keep as many troughing entitlements as possible. They thought that simply registering them, avoiding the worst red flags, would be enough. After all, those were the new troughing rules. So, they must be fine. No contrition, no accountability. Starmer is very selective on what's being paid back. The quote is that he is "right" to pay it back, never that he was "wrong" to be claiming it in the first place. I saw Rayner's paid for Ibiza trip appearing again. That went quiet after Labour turned it into a class argument.

"And today on Newscast, Laura will be sharing the results of her latest deep dive into the political world. Laura, what are you...oh wait, we already know, thanks to you sending us it all last week." The BBC decided not to proceed, despite Boris saying he never read the notes, honest, cross his heart. A BBC spokesman said that, since the Conservatives are no longer in power, there was no underhand deal they could enter to let it go ahead in exchange for a favourable licence fee outcome.

Yeah. I feel a bit sorry he's the latest to lose lots of money, having been convinced by people scrabbling around with less of a clue than those their master plan was going to overtake. If he doesn't sell up this season, then we may get one more shot next season. It would be brave to try yet more SR revolutionary plans beyond that. Perhaps SR will look to develop smaller clubs, requiring smaller financial risks than trying to keep a side in the PL.