egg

Opposites

I wouldn't want to see us take our chances with him.We've been hopeless for ages, and as others have said above, he's taken us as far as he can. Time for a change.

That's impressive. Our second placed was in the first 3600 ish, and all the top 5 in the top 20,000. That's a very strong league. You did very well. I had a mare, about 470k.

Record

New

Life

For kudos/cash and a chance of Champions League in the future, Man Utd it's a no brainer. I understand he and the family are settled in Otterbourne though, hence my feeling it'll be London. Chelsea would be ideal for him from a geographical point of view.

Indeed...he'd improve Man Utd, but I don't think he'll go north. A London club for me.

A Armstrong has potential but isn't quite good enough imo. If Broja goes and we don't sign another starter I think he'll stay because we'll only have him and Adams. If we get someone else, I can see him going. As to Broja, the kid has been feeding off scraps. Unless he's expected to drop deep and create for himself, I'm not sure what more he can do. The team have been woeful with no creativity, and it's no surprise he's not done anything. JWP. You may be bored with the rumour mill, but it won't stop it. From what I understand, he's off this summer. Not sure where, but going. I've come to really like him as a player and him going will be a huge loss. I'm with you on free transfers but JWP will yield us a massive transfer kitty, so him going is probably the only way we can overhaul our squad. With the above in mind, Romeu probably going, Bednarek in demand, the keeper situation, it's going to be a busy summer. We need to somehow get a lot of quality into the squad if we're to have a chance next season.

Deadlines

Planning

Beer

That makes sense actually. Can't think who it was against, but Tella played as a kind of auxillary RWB with the right CB shifting over to RB a lot. It worked as well.

It's not that good.

Because he's here this season and is the best we have.

Ditto. Perhaps Redmond LWB? Could also be Stephens at LB. Odd nonetheless.

Blimey SOG, the OJ reference is desperate. I deal with court findings and domestic abuse cases for a living. I know the burden of proof. I know the mental gymnastics performed by the Judge to arrive at a verdict. We have a really strong court system. I've yet to meet a High Court Judge who doesn't have a brain the size of a small city. Sure, the Depp decision could have been wrong, but it hasn't been appealed, thus it stands and must be respected. On one hand you say that it shouldn't be ignored, but on the other hand you are saying exactly that. You're all over the place in your desperation to support Depp and condemn Heard, and frankly I have no time for anyone who tries hard to argue the case for someone who's been found to have abused a woman. There's been talk of Heard lying and/or exaggerating. I can't speak for the USA court, but over hear that doesn't necessarily matter. I'll give you a bit of actual English law and after that I'll leave it. Lying - It is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). Exaggeration - The court must be vigilant to the possibility that one or other party may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication (Re W (Children)(Abuse: Oral Evidence) [2010] UKSC 12). I could go on but this is boring AF and I know that you'll come back and defend Depp, for whatever reason.

Chestnut

It's pointless asking me hypothetical questions about evidence I've not heard. In any event, I've said that i have no interest in dipping my toe and playing judge in this trial. I'll leave that to you and Hypo. Who is right or wrong here I don't care. All I know is that there's been one trial and Depp lost. Bizarrely you and Hypo seem to think that a High Court verdict, after hearing all the evidence should be ignored. Odd imo, unless you don't respect our judicial system. Here's a good article on the issue. People throwing flowers at the bloke after he was found to have headbutted the woman ffs. Perhaps consider some of the findings that have actually been made against Depp, then explain why you're so keen on defending him. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amber-heard-johnny-depp-fans-memes-reddit-b2076329.html

No wind up mate. Genuinely non plussed with blokes who feel qualified to say that a high court judge must be wrong and that Amber Heard must be wrong and Johnny Depp correct. Anyway, you get back to playing judge, I'll go walk the dog.

That's exactly what you are suggesting. You said "I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge". That's you saying that your judgement is the right one rather than a judge who heard the evidence. No misinterpretation from me. Just backtracking from you.

Blimey. Can't imagine how it must have felt to have been driving, hearing that siren, and then seeing and seeing and hearing that. All of a sudden your nightmare becomes a reality, and you probably realise that life will never be the same again. Awful.

This discussion began on a thread about Rooney/Vardy. That's being heard in the High Court by a single judge. That judge is hearing the evidence and will determine it by the civil standard. I suspect most people will respect the judgement, bar the loser. The Depp libel case was also heard in the High Court by a single judge, yet your view is that we should forget that judges finding. Instead you prefer your own analysis from watching on the telly. No disrespect, but you've got a bloody high opinion of your judgement. I have no need to watch it. I'm no amateur judge, and an experienced High Court judge has done the job already. It's you that wants to judge these two, not me. American lawyers coach their clients. They're allowed to and do so. English lawyers can't and don't. It's pretty obvious that an actor / actress will play to the audience in a TV trial. I'll stick to accepting the analysis of the evidence of a high court judge rather than a bloke on a football forum.

There's nothing close minded about respecting the considered judgement of a high court judge who sat through the evidence. Frankly, it beggars belief that you feel that your opinion from watching some of the USA media circus trial should count for more than that of the high court judge. As to the legal processes, in the USA witnesses are coached and, in this case, literally play to the cameras. In our high court there can be no coaching and people don't play to the cameras. Thus, I'd take the evidence in our court much more at face value than what is being shown on the telly.

So you think that your judgement from watching a bit on the telly is more credible than a high court judge who sat through the evidence?!? I know who I have more respect for. I'll leave the discussion there mate.