Holmes_and_Watson

He never seemed to progress or deliver on the potential he was supposed to have. I think JWP being super fit, prevented him getting played regularly in a position he would have preferred. And when opportunities did fall his way, he never really looked like pushing on, or looking effective in any of the tactics (as shambolic as they were). He was particularly unsuited at covering for Romeu's absence. I hope we managed to get a fee for him. But he's one less player filling out a large squad.

Babe

I was watching the first series of The Ark. No problems with the first set up episode. Another episode and a bit in, and I would have been happy if The Ark was hit by an asteroid, taking out at least the most annoying of the characters. Not Wesley Crusher levels of annoyance, in the same post code.

@Sadoldgit said:- “It is perfectly possible to support the Palestinian cause without hating Jewish people.” Well done. That’s two posts in a row since Saturday you’ve grasped this. You will find, if you look back, that no one has called you anti-semitic for holding that view. Try building an argument from that. But even in this post, you just can’t help yourself. “You would expect Jewish people to feel aggrieved if members of a political party were sympathetic towards the Palestinians wouldn’t you?” It’s been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that Jewish people, like any other group, will have a range of views on Israeli policy. But, once again, you’ve just lumped all Jewish people into your stereotyping. In the last post it was your feeling that 87% of people who felt that there was anti-semitism relating to labour, should all have a look at themselves. You’ve even dug out your utterly debunked Abbott views again. Her views, if ever close to getting near policy, would delegitimise the valid concerns of numerous minorities, based on the hierarchy of racism she holds. But, and I’ve quoted you in the last couple of posts about this, you feel that it’s all the fault of Jewish people, who have all done a “better job with the label antisemitic' “If you can’t see the difference between the prejudice shown against Jewish people under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s and people supporting Palestinians now.” I don't think this came out as you intended. Sadly, I think the point you were trying to make was that we should compare the holocaust with the treatment of people in Palestine. Now when the Palestinian president said that Israel had committed “50 holocausts”, his office had to very quickly back peddle stating “stressing that [The Palestinian President’s] answer was not intended to deny the singularity of the Holocaust that occurred in the last century, and condemning it in the strongest terms." So, that's a key member of that Palestian cause not supporting your views there. But I’m sure you probably think the reaction to all that was all down to perception too, and that of course Jewish people would be outraged wouldn’t they? Even if the outrage was definitely not contained to Jewish people. Because you just can’t separate it out, for more than a couple of sentences, before letting us see your real, disturbing, views on it. Keep digging that hole SoG.

Not so much because it’s Farage. But it is interesting to see how financial institutions consider their risks. And the changes of that risk environment. Farage seems to have got the boot due to reputational risk. He’s not a sanctioned individual. Had he ongoing ties with sanctioned individuals, his accounts would have come under scrutiny at the point, either at the point of sanction or as part for ongoing sweeps. Likewise for his PEP status, which would be flagged on a regular basis. Banks continue to do business with non-sanctioned companies with activities that have reputational risks. The banks are often investors in such activities. Likewise with non-sanctioned regimes and wealthy individuals. A number of those are vastly more profitable than Mr Farage. All are managed by risk teams and relationship/ wealth managers. One quote from Farage was “The most extraordinary comments of all are the areas of the report talking about me ‘not aligning with [Coutts’s] views’ So, do Coutts actually employ the same criteria to the rest of their client base? Reputational risk may well have variables such as geographical location, profile etc. A wealthy international client, with a low profile, performing legitimate transactions involving non sanctioned parties might be fine. Regardless of how horrible the human rights violations in the country happen to be. A less wealthy Mr Farage, with a high domestic profile and contentious opinions in a much more liberal country, may simply be more trouble than he’s worth. This one seems to have caught the bank out as lying. It may swing back the other way, if Farage’s evidence is fully released and assessed. It seems that the decision has been “We think Mr Farage is a bit of a tit, does not bring us enough money to keep him on, and we consider his contentious views to be a potential risk to future income streams. We are cutting him loose.” But the bank may have specific reasons. It’s interesting that he couldn’t get an account elsewhere, suggesting legitimate information sharing of some sort going on in the background.

Fridge

@sadoldgit said “As I keep saying, it is entirely possible to strongly disagree with a nation’s foreign policy without hating the people of that country.” Nice of you to join the rest of us, SoG. Why it seems just like Saturday, despite the “As I keep saying” that you couldn’t tell Jewish people apart from Israel. SoG on Saturday: “but I assume when talking about Israeli policies or Jewish policies that they are the same thing.” Oh, it was just Saturday. But well done for being able to separate them, at least for the present. It’s been mentioned a few times, most recently by myself on Sunday and earlier today by SotonianWill, that you just can’t seem to help reverting to type. Whether it’s veering off into whatboutery or, in this case, persisting with anti-semitic tropes. The latest example: “Perhaps look further into the reasons why 87% of Jewish people in the UK support that view.” That’s in response to “You are supporting the views that made Labour appear anti-Semitic. That isn’t determined by Corbyn or Abbot’s denials but 87% of Uk Jews perception” So it’s actually the fault of Jewish people (87% of them) that they feel that there was anti-semitism. The same party that got dragged, including Jeremy, into making more and more apologies. So, any feelings of persecution felt by Jewish people is really their own fault? I’ll just add that one to “Jewish people have done a better job with the label “antisemitic” as that, arguably, now carries more of a pejorative punch than “racist”.” And “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice” And “…but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish, travellers or redheads.” For all the talk of people ganging up on you, I’ve seen a number of posters just flagging this sort of behaviour. It’s surprising to see someone who considers themselves a bastion of fighting oppression holding such views. It’s disappointing that you just don’t seem able to ever learn from what others are telling you. And it’s now at a stage where even the people you are trying to defend, would back away in horror from your views. Once again, please consider the impact of your words, and the implications of what you are typing. Journey to the Centre of the Earth, starring SoG, digging a deeper hole, one anti-semitic post at a time.

Constant

Landscape

Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

All part of the window fun. Speculation of interest in press. A club sends in low offer. We reject it. Speculation that we are unrealistic. We stand firm. Other club pursue other targets. We stand firm on further press speculation. Towards end of window, other club comes back in. We stand firm on second offer. Late negotiation with them hoping we're desperate to sell and hopefully us saying we'd be quite happy to keep our stars and get the amount we were after. With variations on contract length, better players we'd like to bring in ourselves and if we consider that player to be well down the pecking order, where we've been telling them to look elsewhere.

Since we just the same reheated tactic and outcome, last season, anything would be an improvement. 🙂

Shame you feel that way, as after your "now he's given her his washing, he's a merciless bastard" line the other day, you were top. No trophy for you now. 🙂

Is baking in the championship better than cooking in it? Is igniting the championship better than both or either or none? If someone is to rip up the championship, is that better than any kind of championship combustion? Does ripping it up, stop the available combustable material left to ignite/cook/bake, making it a bad thing? I finding it difficult to rate our players or links, without having a scale to work with. 🙂

I'd have given an extra like for that post. Was he at his best at the end of that season? No, he was not. Was anyone else in the team, regardless of their age? No, they were not. But apparently, his legs had gone, and it was all over. Plus returning from injury and contract issues in the background too. A big miss for us, and chuffed to bits for him.

View

Second?! What a bunch of bottlers! Martin Out! 🙂

Windows

Word

At first, I really didn't think there was an awful lot he could have done for some of the goals. But I didn't appreciate that his positioning was off to the extent it was, until it was pointed out. With diagrams, as I recall. 🙂 Once I'd seen that a few times, you could see the same things happening over and over. SR used the same approach to that position as they tried to with others. I guess if you get a Lavia or a Tino type of return then great. Both of those would get injured and/or need rested, so McCarthy and Willy could step in. But we didn't get a goalkeeper at that level. Considering how rare it is to get a player there, at that level, at his age, that's not a massive surprise. I know McCarthy was injured, but when fit, as the season went on, was easily able to be better. Willy would have been too. But possibly due to trying to get McCarthy out the door to reduce the wage bill, or sheer bloody mindedness, they kept him in there far too long. Where SR also got caught out with their approach, was the number of ready made, experienced and capable goalkeepers that became availalbe during that window (as hypochondriac mentioned). But with Bazunu on his way in, and likely guaranteed a good run in the first team, SR had made their call. Like so many of them, it turned out to be the wrong one. I think they are going to stick with him again. He made a cracking save, but also that error in pre-season so far. If he is first choice, I hope that Martin has more sense than to stick with him, if it's more of the same. The window is gently closed, so as not to wake the neighbours, after a few games, so that should give SR plenty of time to either go with McCarthy, or get someone much like the options availalbe last summer in.

I think, even when it comes to bringing in experience, SR are looking to have some sort of sell on potential. Aribo, despite how that turned out, for example (a terrible example. Why didn't my brain cell come up with better there. 🙂 ). I think some of our departed figures like Redmond had more of a voice., if not leadership. Others who questioned the automatisms of Ralph's style left as well (which there are arguments for as well). I thought Romeu's absence was missed all round. Not leadership enough to prevent an abject run with him in the team though. In the end some of the squad we have, have to look to themselves to becoem leaders of the group. If we have absolutely none like that, then Martin's going to ahve to bring them in. That's not an easy fit, in an already bloated, cliquey squad. So, hopefully as amny of those who don't have the will for it, will be the ones moved on.

Automobile

@sadoldgit “I know you get all MLG about these things, but I assume when talking about Israeli policies or Jewish policies that they are the same thing.” I was shaking my head after two sentences. It’s been pointed out on numerous posts about deflecting, personal digs at posters. As you’re someone who is very quick to label others for such behaviour, remember to play the post, not the poster. @badgerx16 covered the distinction between Jewish people and Israeli policies, in the post right above your response. Right above it. You couldn’t have missed it. Other posters, including @egg, further down, have also covered this as clearly as possible for you across multiple posts. I quote you, to make sure that I’m not misrepresenting your comments on a sensitive topic. It also allows others to make up their own minds on your views, as you share and reinforce them, across threads. Another recurring feature is the habit of nearly recognising some of the flaws in Abbott’s statements, but not being able to help yourself agreeing with them. Again, her long held comments (which she’s had to apologise for previously) set out a hierarchy of racism, automatically excluding many minorities from legitimacy, a voice, equality and justice. There is no “but” to be added to that, in any attempt to minimise the impact of her comments. She’s let them known before, so it’s not a case of misinterpretation. The latest example is:- “Racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia etc. are all just types of discrimination and are, as I see it.” And you support that with Abbott’s hierarchy of racism argument being wrong with, “Abbot’s mistake was… to try and differentiate between prejudice.” But then, it’s back on the minimisation of the concerns of those groups, reinforcing that hierarchy. “Jewish people have done a better job with the label “antisemitic” as that, arguably, now carries more of a pejorative punch than “racist”.” That just continues your “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice” and “…but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish, travellers or redheads.” So, Jewish people are just getting better optics when it comes to persecution and discrimination, are they? They’re doing a “better job” to make it carry more of a punch than it should? It’s been pointed out on a number of posts just what an anti-semitic path that was. It’s very offensive. Once again, consider the impact and meaning of your words. Tring to hand wave that offensiveness away with “semantics” and me being “hung up on our use of language” on a text-based forum, is laughable. That you don’t seem to learn from it is disappointing at best, confirmation of your actual position on the subject at worst. Apologies to Mods and @whelk for another off-thread post on this one.

Mirage

Off they go... Escape...From Relegation Room! Escape...From The Championship Room! Thorougly demoralised, they return to training... 🙂