egg

We were discussing this the other day and came to the same conclusion. If only fools ended after series 1, would it have had the same impact as fawlty towers? I doubt it.

We've had to endure unsolicited overreaction and thread spamming from you, so I'll post as I wish. Genuinely though, you're getting a tad hot under the collar.

It's a darn sight more logical than the masses wanting reform because everyone else is shit.

I'd recommend a lie down @hypochondriac.

I'm not sure who you're debating with here. Starmer has fucked up. Accept that people accept that. And trying to convince people how other people may, hypothetically, have reacted is absolutely pointless.

Yep. I can't see where he can go from here. If he'd done reasonable due diligence and nothing was disclosed, fine, but having done so only to ignore something highly relevant, his judgement cannot be at the level needed of a PM.

Adderley's approach, and others, is that the Russian links is the line being fed, seemingly based on one pic of him wearing a cossack hat, but not the reality. There's a lot of conjecture, but I do find it very odd that a nobody burst into the scene as this fella did, became unfathomably rich without any clear source of wealth, and became so well connected. Let's see what comes out.

Whilst correct, people who devour all or mostly MSM, are dangerously ill informed.

Kevin Bridges nailed it in 2018 https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1JAWZL1qXX/

Indeed. The bloke somehow built a network like nobody else, the money to seduce and influence, and enough dirt to assert pressure. He came from nowhere to do that. It'll be interesting to see what's in the yet unseen files, although I suspect we'll never know.

This. I voted Lib Dem, but labour were considered as the Tories simply had to go after their destruction. Labour had very little to work with, but the dithering is not the sign of a decent government, and putting faith in Mandelson knowing the Epstein link was naive at the very best. But yep, Tories still ain't the answer, Reform would be an epic disaster, Labour are failing, the Libs aren't making many credible noises, and the Greens are madder than a box of frogs.

Pop him in ignore mate, makes thread feeds much better. Until someone quotes him.

There's still a lack of open media discussion about who this bloke was. Mark Adderley (hardly neutral I appreciate) is pushing the line about him being a mossad agent, and essentially being a honey trap, them compromising people. I've no idea what the truth is, but the only commentary is about him being a dead nonce, not what he actually was.

Completely different situations, approaches, and methods. Obama's policies turned most people back from or near the border, whereas we're now seeing people dragged out of cars, chased down the street, etc. Google AI mode will give a better answer than I can - just punch in "what's the difference between ice under trump and obama" and take it from there, ie follow up with "did Obama's approach mostly turn people back from the border" or whatever". The approaches and motivation are so far apart they're incomparable.

Great post, and a welcome injection of common sense. He's been signed to give cover, and when he does play, to annoy defenders, give us an outlet, hold the ball up, bring others into play, and score the odd goal. He ain't going to be a poor man's Drogba, but given where we are in the league, we wouldn't have had many (if any) better players beating our door down. Let's see how he gets on, but I'd imagine (hope) he'll be a significant upgrade on DD.

I think the plan was always to play this way, but DD was so dire, and Stewart crocked, so we couldn't. Playing AA up top and trying to play as if he were a big man has been tried countless times this season, and failed. Understandably so. Playing with a little man up top, coming short for the ball, laying it off, running channels, etc, is a million miles away from playing a big man who can hold it up, and give an outlet The simple point is that if we're playing 4231 with a big man up top, AA just doesn't fit. Who the alternative to Stewart should be is a separate issue - people are conflating those 2 points.

I think he's the wing option in place of AA.

We're "short" in the physical sense up front if we play AA. The starting point is whether AA should be our man up top. We all seem to agree it shouldn't be, and that it should be a big man. Yes? AA doesn't suddenly become that big man if he stays. What's needed is someone else to do the Stewart job - bullying, holding up, etc - if there's no Stewart. Your focus is a naive focus on AA or a replacement for him, not Stewart cover. We're playing a new way and need to be able to continue that when Stewart comes off/is crocked. AA coming in to replace Stewart changes how we play. Another big man doesn't. It's not difficult, if you stop flapping and think about what they're trying to do.

I've put him on ignore. Don't feed him and he'll get the point.

Yep, that's massive. We have AA mourners who have been calling for a clear out of the players who've been here before and been part of the failure. I'm not sure how you can want a clean sweep of those players, want a big man up front, and be devastated that AA is leaving.

Ha. I haven't identified anyone - I'm not the armchair expert saying he's a dud. I'm also not one of the people simultaneously saying we're better with a big man up top, that AA isn't the answer, but moaning because we're getting rid of AA. There's a slight lack of logic there.

I'm not sure you get the point that he wants to play 4231 with a big man up front, and the wide men plus Azaz in behind. AA is not that big man. I think it's nuts to sell AA, but I get why they'd cash in and bring in a Stewart alternative to bully CB's and hold the ball up - AA is not that player. You can't moan about AA going without recognising how he won't fit into how we want to play - the Stoke game made the point loud and clear.

Quite. It's easy to say "we can do better than him", but not so easy to say who. The January window is not a great time to be in the window for a CF when you're mid table, and have been through more managers than we care to remember. Clubs will want to offload shite to shift wages - that's the pond we're fishing in.

Wnat physical centre forward are you suggesting we could/should have got in the January window? Please don't talk about what we could/should have done on previous windows - right here, right now, who's the alternative?

Yep. Most of us would have have been up in arms if we'd signed 33 year old Kiefer Moore in the summer. With hindsight he'd have been what we needed.