hypochondriac

I think we can all agree that a DM and any sort of attacking midfielder or winger would be a satisfactory window.

We've been desperate for competition for redmond for ages. Anything that provides that will fill a large hole in the squad.

We haven't yet shifted carillo, forster, hoedt, Boufal etc so I'm happy with a loan and hopefully we will be in a better position next year.

Surely not another cb?

Not yet but I'll say if I do.

Speaking of which, we are dumping under armor in case anyone was wondering.

Maybe we agreed the fee before we hit a snag with the work permit and weren't prepared to pay a significant extra amount? I don't know.

Or maybe they agreed to sell him to us cheaper and we didn't want to pay a ton more just for the work permit?

Is there any discretionary element involved or an appeals process?

I know we were interested but it's just speculation on my part at the moment.

I still think we will get Ntcham as well. Woild be a pretty good window if we pull that off.

I still think we could assist league one and below. Not many of them are stinking rich.

To be honest we never replaced Tadic.

Call it what you want but it's still positive (and will hopefully lead to others.) I think you're missing my point somewhat by picking up on semantics of one minor point in my post. It's true to say that the trump regime has done some positive things that I would agree with.

Getting middle Eastern countries to recognise Israel is pretty positive and likely to lead to more peace. Agreed?

And we won away at turf Moor!

I agree it is value for money. My issue is with the propaganda and the fact that it's effectively a TV tax. I resent keeping it going when I see the obscene waste, when I see presenters rewarded for abject failure and I see all the nonsense about diversity quotas and sacking people like sue barker for no reason so they can replace her with someone with a darker skin colour. I like some of the things the new director general has said about diversity of opinion and about reflecting opinions outside of the Westminster bubble. If they sorted some of that, reduced salaries, made people accountable for failure, removed the obsession with gender pay rates and concentrated on making unique and interesting content then I coild almost see myself not minding about paying it despite myself. Certainly if you'd asked me around the turn of the century there'd be no question at all about me wanting it to stay which rather shows how drastically things have fallen apart in about the last decade. I'd probably pay for it though if it becomes a subscription service and they keep the websites.

If they separated the website stuff from the rest of it then I'd pay for that. I don't really watch the BBC anymore like I used to a decade or two ago so I can't say it would bother me. I quite like radio solent now and again for the sport but that's about it. Now Andrew Neil has seen the light there really isn't any reason for me to watch any of the current affairs stuff, the comedy went down the pan years ago pretty much since the office, I'm Alan partridge and extras. I watched the bodyguard which I enjoyed a few years ago and my wife enjoyed fleabag even if it wasn't my thing but I genuinely can't recall anything else worth paying for.

It's not the value of the fee that's the issue for me, it's the principle that I have to pay for something which to me is clearly biased and I have no option other than to pay it if I want to watch live TV but I don't wish to have woke propaganda thrown at me.

I also can't stand the idea of dynasties that has infected American politics for some reason. The very fact that America has has a succession of presidents or candidates aspiring to be presidents all from the same handful of families is insane. They do things oddly over there.

The main issue for me is not just the figurehead but what other crazy policies you are letting in. Both sides have their fair share in that regard but I am supportive of some of the steps the trump administration has done such as the middle East peace deals and removing critical race theory from schools. I don't have confidence that that will continue under Biden. I also detest a lot of the identity politics stuff and the anti white racism and I can only see that getting worse under the Democrats although admittedly kamala Harris seems marginally better in that regard than actual nutters like some of the other potential vp picks like Elizabeth Warren. Presumably you'd only get 4 year out of Biden anyway and then the republics may appoint a more moderate candidate with more of an idea of what he's doing.

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. I'm wary of some of the agenda coming from the likes of AOC but if they'd chosen someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang then I'd have said the American public would be mad not to elect them over Trump. Both of them had some odd policies but they wrre so clearly superior to Trump in a way that Biden just isn't. I still think Biden will win by the way but it wouldn't be a surprise if Trump did it again would it.

We had a decent first half against spurs and then a terrible second half.

There's partisan stuff on both sides but it's not really the point I was making. Absolutely no idea why the Democrats chose someone like Joe Biden regardless of what the opponent is like. Absolutely crazy.

In terms of being impaired by age.