Farmer Saint

God Brexit fucked us in the ass with this shit. And it's just hilarious that it was those who voted Brexit have the biggest problem with it.

We had a lot of players to move on, and as we all know, we signed a lot of our players for this season, last Summer.

We signed the majority of our perceived starters last season, as we all know. What we do need is balance out wide and creativity.

I get that a lot of you want to be annoyed, but the Long transfer is not the one to get annoyed about. The lack of attacking mid and wingers are the ones. However, we may be announcing a new signing soon after Dibling is confirmed...

We were never getting anyone to replace Bazunu - that has been made clear all Summer. If you're disappointed about that, that's on you.

3rd keeper, meh. Who gives a fuck?

Hopefully not Pelle judging by the above opinions on Pelle...

So we potentially get left with 3 x 1st choice keepers? We're not Chelsea, players won't stand for that. We couldn't even sell our number one keeper this Summer, let alone trying to sell a couple more next season.

Honestly, I couldn't give a fuck - the chance is he won't play. What kind of keeper do you class as competent? We had Lumley last year and he was derided by every clubs fans who had him so I assume he wouldn't be classed as competent.

But they aren't coming to be 3rd string???

We had Lumley last season and he was rated as shit by every team that had him. He was fine.

Because we may have Ramsdale back next season as our Number 1. Someone competent is not coming here as our third choice keeper.

But why, it's a loan for a 3rd keeper?

Numbers. That why it's a loan. The thought is we'll never have to use him. Not sure why all the tears about what is clearly a very cheap loan.

How is it part of long term planning if it's a loan and we have Baz and McCarthy? We just need a 3rd keeper.

They aren't illegal until they have been denied asylum I believe. Until then they are asylum seekers, irrespective of how they arrived: "There is no such thing as an "illegal" or "bogus" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim."

Nice hotels - behave. This is where some were housed in Eastbourne until last year. And given money - £9.95 per week if they are fed. £49 if not.

But you can't do that with genuine asylum seekers, hence you have to try and deal with it in partnership. How do you lock them up, we already have too many prisoners? You're not reducing costs that way. As said, you're never going to solve it without economic equality, so you need proper partnerships. If each country in the EU took 0.2% of their population each year in asylum claims, you're creating 900k asylum claims. If they come across in a boat they get sent back to the country of exit. It needs proper joined up agreements with other European countries, but if the asylum claimants know they cannot get into the UK other than by official means then they have no choice. They have some money (as they pay to get over on boats), so they have the means and ability to claim asylum from overseas.

They get returned to a European country that has the space to take and process their claims. If we have space remaining we do it. We're looking to reduce it, you're never going to solve it. 80/20 rule.

You're never going to cut them full stop, it just won't happen. It is a global issue of haves and have nots, and unless we sort out global equality it will always happen. All you can do is have a more joined up approach to dealing with it, and dealing with it as a block. If people knew that by travelling in boats they will not have their asylum claims heard, then they wouldn't travel. When the Tories cut the ability to apply from abroad it's what they wanted, to increase hatred within the country of them pesky foreigners.

Essentially you would have limits by country in the EU and Britain, and if they are exceeded those that do have asylum claims will be offered other safe countries that haven't had their limits breached to be returned to have their asylum claims heard.

But Afghans and Syrians will be able to apply from abroad anyway, as they have real asylum claims, hence they won't be on the boats.

No, I mean to origin. We're always told that the vast majority on boats are economic migrants in which they can be returned.

But they have legal routes - the main issue I thought (and this is what we keep being told by Reform and the ilk) is that 90% coming over on boats are economic migrants...

I know, hence the change in process.