egg

It's more than that. Greenland have said that the US can access all the minerals they want. If Trump was committed to NATO, and complying with Article 5, he'd leave Greenland alone.

Yep, although they already have bases there, but have chosen not to use them. They can also dig whatever they want out of the ground. It's imperialism.

Personally I'd prefer us to have a nuclear deterrent than not. They serve a purpose - Ukraine would never have been invaded if they still had theirs.

Why does he need them? They're relevant to help us (or worse), but assuming he remains an ally and committed to to NATO, we need him to have them.

Of course not, but, without a nuclear deterrent, and US support as part of NATO or otherwise, we're vulnerable. Are you comfortable seeing us without an effective nuclear deterrent?

The issue we have is we don't have a sustainable nuclear deterrent without the US being on our side. It'll be interesting to see which direction we go here. The French are better placed to tell him to fuck off. Would be nice if China did a press release to say that he he's talking bollox and that they have zero interest in it.

How come we haven't stormed into the lead if 4231, with these players, isn't the answer to our prayers? I repeat, the issue isn't the shape. It's everything.

Yep. We're badly coached, badly motivated, have inadequate players who are not fit enough, and people just bang on about a back 3 as if swapping Jelert for a CB and pushing Fellowes higher up will turn us into a decent team.

It had the back 4 that people are screaming for. People can't say let's have a back 4 with Jelert and Wellington and ignore how shit we were with a back 4 with Jelert and Wellington. You can't pick a lane, then choose another one when the facts don't suit.

Daft post, and ridiculously simplistic. I'm saying that I want 2 decent full backs, alongside 2 decent CB's, properly coached, and a team ahead of them that can work with a back 4. Watch the Doncaster game, and then come back and tell me that you want those 2 in a back 4.

We'd be worse with a 4 imo. Your suggested line up ^^^ is the same back 4 as we played at Doncaster, but with Wood in place of Quarshie. It's a shocking back 4, and if it didn't work at Doncaster, it won't work against anyone in the league. Anyways, it's been done to death.

The other side of the coin, is how bloody frustrating it is to read the same whining, constantly. I'd love to see us playing 4231, but we haven't got good enough full backs to make it work. Jelert and Wellington were full backs against Doncaster and were shite. People aren't thinking it through calling for the same in the league. Upgrade the full backs, then 4231 is the way to go.

Because he's the best we've got. Sadly. Charlie Taylor shouldn't have left. Crazy decision.

Indeed. Which makes your comment a bit odd - the message doesn't have to be the one you agree with.

It has, but it doesn't stop the same comments being made every single time.

I largely agree with that. The issue for me is more about how we play, not the shape. We need to play with more urgency, and get the ball into the midfielders or the channels. I also don't think we have a decent full back on either side, so don't have the personnel for a solid back 4.

Indeed. We'll score goals today though, although we'll concede at least as many. 2-2.

No idea, and it's daft asking when neither of us know the facts/evidence. I didn't ask a question if you as I'm not interested in a discussion with you on this.

Holland & Barrett capsules. I'll try the Antidotes stuff next for comparison as their products are decent.

I have capsules.

This one now https://www.british-supplements.net/products/lions-mane-triterpenoids-supplement?variant=28740829511754&country=GB&currency=GBP&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&tw_source=google&tw_adid=790872820986&tw_campaign=23419570280&tw_kwdid=pla-2295585601400&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23419570280&gbraid=0AAAAADfRhoxFKrSDjZrQi9ZKFzXdAatvY&gclid=Cj0KCQiAg63LBhDtARIsAJygHZ7ngqOTtyzc9Z0XrJNXZ8N7zGS3STLe_1MN1pyjuQ0-wZPkBLT-5i8aAsMBEALw_wcB

Re supplements. I've added Shilajit, and changed my Lions Mane to one with an uptake formula, and increased the dose. Not the limitless reaction that your mate describes, but there's a difference for sure. If you're not feeling it, maybe look at dosage.

I'm not sure about your last point. Whether to play a 4 or 5 is a tactical thing, but whatever system you play, the right players are needed. If Manning must play, he's far more suited to being in a 5. His strength (ha) is going forward, not defending. Where he's not helped is having a midfielder covering behind if he's caught up field, or the left CB coming across. On balance, I'd prefer us to play a 4, but I'm not convinced we have the LB to do it, or the right blend in midfield. Back to the point though - I'm glad Bree is coming back, and he'll improve us imo,particularly if we play a 4.

Completely different situation, and force. The Ceno's owners ruined a decent establishment, paid the price, then laid the blame. The police challenged what they said, and it'd be ballsy in the extreme to be dishonest about that at the public level. I prefer the police account here.

Agreed, although I take the point you're replying to as well. Bree is a decent RB and would help us play a 4, and release Fellowes to play where he should be. The issue is that we don't have a LB good enough for a 4.