egg

I'm liking Eze. Positive.

Spence's cross was an embarrassment from an international player.

I'm not a fan, but it's madness that he's not in the squad. Chalobah was a daft selection after Tino got injured.

Or maybe not.

We need changes sharpish. Rogers is anonymous. Get him off and put Toney up top alongside Kane. Spence on for Quansah. And someone on for Saka.

A tantrum I think.

Yep. Our movement is shocking. So easy to defend against.

Yep. The movement from the front 4 is terrible. As for Quansah.

Probably wrapping him in cotton wool for the last 32 game as he's our only fit full back. Just imagine Quansah and Burn as the full backs, while A-A and Hall are kicking back in the Caribbean.

Quansah at RB. Jeez. When Tino (predictably) got injured, and knowing that James may (predictably) have got injured, not taking the opportunity to bring in another full back was mental. We've got Lewis Hall, Shaw, Alexander-Arnold, on the beach, but Chalobah, Burn and Henderson on the bench. I'm not A-A fan, but against a team who won't attack much, and will be tough to break down having Quansah in the side ahead of him is ridiculous. Crazy squad selection.

Graphical

Cheers, I didn't realise that.

He's got a year on his contract. £30m in that context is a mugging. As for his ability, I think he'll be a solid lower PL player, in time

Indeed. I'm not sure why people would prefer him to be allowed to run down his contract and walk on a free. We'll want to cash in, and he'll want a crack at the PL. Win/win.

Agreed. The Argies haven't had a work out yet, and Cape Verde isn't far from a bye for them. France only had Norway's B team to give them a game. My money was on France pre tournament, and it's hard to see past them, although I fancy Belgium to do well for some reason.

You horrible gravelist cunt.

It's probably because there isn't a better idea. You haven't come up with one, so you presumably agree it's the least worst option.

The best choice is detention centres. Basic needs provided for. What's obvious though is that people nearby won't like it. And yep, lots of people have an issue with brown people arriving.

We can't stop people (well about half) wanting to leave war zones, or getting on a boat in a foreign country. No party can solve that. What we have to do is make us less attractive to those people, but this discussion is about the narrow point of where those people are accommodated while they're here. It's a blunt choice between Hotels, HMO's, detention centres, fields/woods/streets, shanty towns. People with an opinion on this issue should be able to express a preference, and explain why.

There's no denying that many people look at the men amongst brown asylum seekers and fear/assume rapist. That's an unfortunate fact. Where asylum seekers are accommodated needs discussion. You're complaining about a detention centre, but won't say what's preferred. Where do they get accommodated whilst here pending being processed?

That's exactly the issue. People don't want people arriving. People do and will. This issue is where to accommodate people when they do. What's your suggestion, apart from asking people to let them lodge with them?

Postcode lottery. Hotels, HMO's, detention centres, fields/woods/streets, shanty towns. Take your pick.

Daft options like that aren't options.

Yep. People complained about hotels and asked for detention centres to be used. That'll happen, only to become the next complaint. I get that some people don't want brown people arriving, but they do and will, and have to be housed somewhere. Or be left to camp in the fields/be left to build shanty towns. It's a lesser of evils scenario.

Nobody wants this on their doorstep, but what's the choice? We ain't closing the channel, and the asylum system as it stands, drags out processing claims. Small groups in HMO's in residential areas = complaints, bigger groups in Hotels mostly away from residential areas = complaints, even bigger groups in detention centres away from major towns = complaints. The latter is the least worst option for me.