egg

The conspiracy theorists are at work on this - saw this nonsense this morning. Posted by a successful/academically intelligent bloke.

You're overthinking this big time.

There's apparently a buyback which normally means that they could buy him back for x amount when the trigger date arrives. Others on here seem to believe that the buyback can be outbid by other clubs. No idea what's correct.

That assumes that the buyback clause isn't a straight buyback

Yes, £40m from City = £32m to us. £48m from someone else = £40m to us. Etc. What's baffling is the suggestion that any club knowing that city need only give us £40m (£32m after sell on) would come in and offer £60m or whatever. All anyone has to do is outbid the buy back clause and they know it's more attractive to us. On the buy back, the assumption is that City can be outbid, rather than they can have him back for £40m less 20% regardless of any other interest or bid. What the correct position is, I don't think has been reported or confirmed.

There's no misunderstanding - I said £38m in our pockets, ie after any sell on so £6m more than we'd see if we sold him to City next year for £40m so £32m in our pockets. Why wouldn't we take that if that was the best offer? As Fabrice has said, why would anyone bid mega money knowing the likely reality that we'll only net £32m next year? Too much fantasy football thinking on here.

City have a buy back that they may choose to invoke next year. If they do, we get £32m. If we can get a chunk more than that now (say £38m in our pockets) why wouldn't we take it rather than £32m next year? Is that £6m worth it for another year of Lavia?

Policy

If city want him next season it's £32m that we get. If we work on the assumption that city will want him back next year, our only hope of getting more is to sell him to the highest bidder now. If £40m is the best offer this year, would the club forego £8m for another year of Lavia?

I see it the same as you. He's a kid who's played 1 season. Yes he's very good, but he's been a tad overhyped imo. Any buyers will know that he'll probably want the bright lights and money one of the big boys will pay, and that anything over £32m is more than we'll get next year. Out only hope for a massive fee is a bidding war.

Setting him up to be the fall guy is a stretch, but in his position there'll obviously be accountability of his decisions aren't good ones. Personally, I'm delighted that football related decisions are now in the hands of a football man, not a stats geek who talks a good game.

Quality

We're not on the premier league. We're in the championship. He'll be very good on the championship imo - I'd rather him than Lyanco, and we'll be low on numbers assuming ABK and Salisu go. If we go up, then we can discuss whether he can do a job anymore.

We had/have no other credible spin option, but Bairstow's performance with the gloves shows why your best keeper is needed at this level. Foakes would offer no less with the vat than Duckett imo so I'd slide Bairstow up to open as a dedicated batsman, and bring Foakes in at 7.

Yep. Makes no sense whatsoever - unless he's got a better offer.

Pocket

Because I like a simple striped Saints shirt. They look good. Hope that helps.

The behaviour of the Israeli government is going from appalling to worse. Air strikes and army raid resulting in 5 deaths (including a kid), and 91 injured today. All to arrest 2 people. On no assessment is that proportionate or necessary. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/6/19/deaths-injuries-as-israeli-forces-raid-jenin-2 They've also given the nod to built almost another 5000 settlement homes. Is there any prospect of western governments taking a stand on this?

I'm a simple stripes purist, and although the shoulders on the new shirt look a bit crap compared to the original, it's a decent looking kit I reckon.

To be fair, it doesn't sound like them being dicks. We approached them when we were in the premier league but seem to be whining about paying the compensation to be paid if he was approached by a premier league club. If we really wanted him, we should have paid the proper money.

Key

In this context there isn't an answer Whitey, it's all conspiracy nonsense. The only answer I hear is "big pharma". Bless the people who believe that collective world governments have conspired to wreck economies to boost pharma companies.

So you were satisfied that in the first lockdown that the NHS was ok and able to cope, and that those vulnerable to COVID (at that time, based on what we knew then) would be ok if we carried on regardless?

I always like the lack of answers to these questions. Never get told who "they" are or what they hoped to achieve. The conspiracy guys have moved on from this mate, it's all 5 minute cities and chemtrails now.

Is that a long-winded yes I was against lockdown, or a no I wasn't?