egg

Kelleher is a weird one. Plainly too good to be a number 2. I'd be delighted with him.

I'm not even convinced Chelsea want him...I'm confident he'll end up at Liverpool.

He seems to be a cracking player. We'll miss JWP's free kicks, but I'm not sure that Downes will offer any less in general play at this level.

Eh? He'd be a 1 point a week man.

We owe a fortune in instalments for players we've signed previously, and I suspect have had to cut our losses on some we've moved on. This idea that we've got all the money from sales to spend on new players is unrealistic. We've already splashed out on Charles. I suspect we'll buy one or two more, but I'm not surprised to see loans coming in.

Correct. He was told during the season that he could go in the summer. In the end I suspect that the lad didn't the move he wanted, and we didn't get the fee we wanted. Anyways, good look to him, he's been a loyal servant.

He needs to play to impress and get his next big move. He'll be a bit part player at Chelsea.

Personally I'd like to us get as much as cash as possible, and see the kid make progress... potentially very helpful to us if we agree a sell on clause.

I just don't get why he'd go to Chelsea apart from money. There midfield is Caceido and Fernandez, plus an attacking CM or two 10's in behind a striker. He'd play every week at Liverpool who don't have a CDM, and had to resort to playing Gakpo in midfield.

Indeed. When Manning came in it was obvious that he'd played for Martin before. I'd imagine that coming in and sitting in front of the back 4 won't be a difficultly for him.

Dodger

Over

Cure

Circle

I'd agree with your top 3, but we'll be supplementing wages to get him gone. This won't be a case of someone giving us a chunk of cash and taking his wages off our books.

The article is based on one person's opinion. That opinion includes this: "It is about making sure you have the community centre which has all of those essential needs, the bottle of milk, pharmacy, GP, schools." What's wrong with that as a concept? Seems logical. I agree though that the suggestion that people can only travel a certain number of times from area to area is unnecessary.

That's got nothing to do with 15 minute cities. It's a completely different thing, from 2024. This article covers both your issues. https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/the-small-english-city-at-the-centre-of-the-global-15-minute-city-storm-022023

What makes you think that's going to be a thing?

However you re-package your argument SoG, it's a tax, and the responsibility lies with governments and councils to sort public transport and the environment. Another stealth tax is not needed.

I was with you until the last part. 15 minute cities is nothing more than sensible town planning ensuring that key facilities are all within a short distance of all people. The conspiracy theories around it are daft.

Yep. All this "when the fun stops, stop" rather overlooks that a gambling addict can't stop.

And the contra argument is that less access to cars equals less customers for all traders. As an asthmatic I love the fact that air is cleaner, but society needs a balance and business and commerce is definitely impacted by the attempt to price out drivers.

Very good point...I can't imagine that there's a report which tells us how much of the reduction is down to adblue, and any changes to vehicles.

Here's a summary of the report, with a link to the full report at the bottom. The big drop is the big reduction in nitrogen oxide levels, but I don't think that they were at a level that was dangerous to begin with, but stand to be corrected. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report#air-pollutant-emissions-165734-title

Tongue in cheek mate...it's a great city in truth.