egg

You had a bad day mate?! Yes, I am being that simplistic - it's a very simple point that Ings would have (imo) taken chances that Armstrong hasn't. Responses have gone off at all sorts of tangents, and you've now gone back 5 years. It's no crime to agree with someone, which we've established you do after numerous responses.

Simple point - I think Ings is a loss for us, and that he would have put away chances that Armstrong hasn't, and that we'd have won a couple of games as a consequence. Various points in response.

Of course it's an opinion, 90% of the nonsense posted on here is opinion. I'm not putting the club down. I've said that Ings is better than Armstrong, which he is. If you disagree, you're in a tiny minority. You're being contrary for the sake of it.

I've made a very simple point that I feel we would have won a couple of games if we had Ings (as he's played this season) rather than Armstrong. We've had responses about signing full backs and now querying which version of Ings we'd be comparing to, and speculating that he may have got injured!! It's really simple. Ings is better than Armstrong. I think he'd have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't and we'd have won as a result. Some people will argue for the sake of arguing.

I'm not sure what Valery/Perraud / Livramento have to do with my point that Ings is a better player Than Armstrong.

To an extent, yes, but I've yet to meet anyone who believes Armstrong has done better for us than Ings would have done.

Most people, if they're being honest, would take a job that offers 20% + more pay, especially if it's probably their last job before retiring. In Ings case, that 20% is about £1m a year. He's been good for them, and he's a big loss for us. We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong.

Ditto. Just waiting to hear who we're transferring to and what tariff we get hit with.

Yep. Have for a long time. Not one benefit from it. Absolute pile of shite.

Not someone I'd fancy with a pen.

Straight to pens.

Bollox. My accy that I couldn't place is still on.

Cheers. He doesn't sound good at all.

My paddy Power Account is frozen and I couldn’t get it back. I had an accy in the basket : both teams to score, Broja 2 goals, us more than 4. 5 corners, Lyanco yellow, us to win, more than 2.5 goals, and something else. 400/1 ish.

It sure was. Perraud awful, the other 3 all over the place. Kamara on sky is either pissed or unwell.

Terrible from Gunn. Should have saved that.

Cheers 👍

I was way off, but that's a decent line up. Shame there's no streams, I reckon it'll be a good game.

Good odds. Where's that?

I'd expect to see something like that, although as MLG said, I doubt we'll see Small.

A) who's to say they'd welcome us? B) who's to say that if they do, they won't pull out pants down? C) the public have yet to say that this is what they want its government to do. D) it'd take years when/if they do.

That's not strictly true. We have our deal, warts and all. Sure, there'll be nips, tucks, concessions, turning of blind eyes etc, but not the significant renegotiation that was being suggested.

Here's the thing, we can't just change it. It's not our decision. The EU members have to want us. It's not like phoning up and rejoining the gym on some kind of off peak hours type deal. Regardless, rejoining ain't brexit is it.

Exactly. The discussion about what should have happened is futile. It's like these people still think we're negotiating the terms of our departure deal. It's done. Shit or otherwise, it's what it is.

You're deluded if you think that there's any possibility of any imminent change in our relationship with the EU after the events of teh last few years. It ain't happening. Wanting change, and expecting it, is not "how the world works". The Scottish debate is irrelevant. This is Brexit and the "discussion" with you on my part has ended as I now understand your position. it's unrealistic, but I understand it.