egg

Cheers, that is very encouraging.

Hope you're right.

Not sure how you lurch to that Benjii. An allegory which a person can't make sense of because they aren't open minded does not make the parable "purely subjective fantasy". It makes it unrecognisable to an individual because of their closed beliefs. Nobody has argued on here that there is any ontological evidence in support of a God. Or indeed any any evidence to verify the parables in the bible. I do not agree with MLG. He has shown himself time and again to fail to understand the subject. Your comments suggests you may not be far behind.

JV never lifted himself off the ground, was slow and had the turning circle of a barge. He never looked suitable to me, although my judgement is questionable - I'm embarrassed to say that I thought Hoedt looked a great prospect!

Pavilion

I've only read about McKennie but I can't help but think we'll use Reed, with Jankewitz and Smallbone to come in from time to time. I've seen Jankewitz and he looks a player. Personally I'd rather bring someone in with a bit of creativity but I can't see it happening.

Because the stories are allegory. Not factual. The fiction is added to give context. It's a simple notion, but alas it gets lost on the simple. This thread has got more ridiculous. Non believers in God getting bogged down by the text of a book that they a) don't understand, b) don't recognise and c) seemingly think was written by the God that they don't recognise! You couldn't make it up. That's all whist losing sight of the fact that millions of people believe in a God but have no interest in the bible and/or do not recognise the existence of Jesus or any foot soldier of God - organised religion, the Bible and God do not have to go hand in hand.

Yep, you can't have an unspecified and ambiguous line. Often in movies non black people are addressed by the n word. Is that OK though cos it's "in context" as it's his black mate who uses the term?

Indeed. And this is where claiming "context" can make the use acceptable (based on the comments above, by black people to black people is apparently ok) and/or a seemingly moveable moral line is dangerous. Either a word is acceptable or it isn't.

Cheeks

We're well run in the sense we're all but self sustaining. We've been badly run in terms of much of our recent ish transfer business.

Agreed. The sad thing is we're stuck with them, and we can't spend the money twice.

What other clubs can and do doesn't alter that when you look at our accounts, it's quite clear that we have to sell to buy. The only way that'll change is if a money no object sugar daddy comes along and "invests" in the way you describe.

Alive

Exactly. I've been slaughtered for making the same point. Throwing in money that'll never get back isn't investment.

Excellent post and pretty much my thoughts. There's zero point moaning bout the lack of money not being pumped in by someone who either can't or won't do it. Until Gao goes and someone with deep pockets and long arms comes in, we need to accept that what we have is all we have, and that it'll mean scraping by.

Back to the original point, the n word was used as a factual reference in a news report. Context wise, you can't get more appropriate than that imo. On your point, I get that, but I'm not sure that if a word is so unacceptable, that it's acceptable that there's an invisible line for its use, and seemingly only by black people.

Sad

Didn't he arrive as a RB but was converted to CB? As to playing DM, as CB he receives the ball in front of him and then uses it. Picking it up in the middle of the park is altogether different. Whether he has enough in his locker to play that role, I'm not sure.

I've not read one person say Hesketh and Sims have a part to play. The only comments about them is that Les Reed thought they'd make it big, and one or two thought they'd do well. As to Valery, I agree with you. He has weaknesses, but he has a chance and shouldn't be written off.

That's my understanding too. If a word is offensive, it's offensive, and it seems obvious to me that people most offended by the term should set the example of not using the word rather than just condoning the use.

I don't see the issue with reporting something factual, especially in the context of a racially motivated incident when the word was used. What is the argument for omitting a relevant fact from a news report? What is offensive about using the word in the context it was used? And then there's the gratuitous use of the word by black people in music and movies. Does the term cease to be offensive when black people use it to describe or address other black people?

Orange

Yes, they can also increase during the year - eg £30k pw but if 10 appearances it becomes £40k, and for 20+ it becomes £50k. He came in as a relative unknown and something incremental would have been sensible. That said, I have no idea what contract Bednarek is on, and as he only has 2 years left if we want to keep him, he'll likely need a new one.

If the Hoj fee is say £20m, and KWP is £12m, there's a theoretical £8m profit. If the loan fee, agents fees, loyalty bonuses, signing on fee etc totals £8m, there is no profit. Sure, other clubs have those outgoings, but that doesn't alter that what looks like a profit often isn't.