egg

Ah, the old "entitlement" cos other owners seem to do it line. The bottom line is that throwing money at a club like ours in the hope that it leads to a return for the "investor" is not attractive. There is little or no chance of a positive return so no prudent business man would do it. I want our club to be successful but this sense of entitlement is ridiculous. In any event, the truth is that spending on players over the last few years has been there, the issue has been ****e recruitment but the owner is the easy scapegoat.

What "asset stripping" is Gao guilty of?

Why do you/others feel that an owner must inject capital? Why would he? What's in it for him? What return does her get on his "investment" and when / how?

Qualified how?You don't need any qualification as such to see that out u23 are playing badly and that his successor did well with Watford, and has played a lot of games at the highest level. If we were employing a school pe teacher or whatever then there's cause to worry, but this guy has a good record and it doesn't matter who has influenced and managed this necessary change.

What does it matter? If you've watched our u23 team you'll see that the lads are poorly coached and that change is needed. As long as somebody has identified the issue and takes action to change that's all that matters imo - getting worked up about the personality behind it is bizarre.

Sandwich

How do you know that? People say he's a poor coach, but based on what? Cos he was a keeper? He may be great for all we know.

I suspect its more than that. The results are to be expected, he's working with kids - that team is packed with several 18 year olds and younger. The way they play is the issue for me, slow to use the ball and poor movement - they don't look well coached.

Aid

City 89% possession in first 12 mins. Jeez.

He hasn't featured for the u23's so must be injured.

Armstrong I reckon.

Unless he travelled with 1st team but didn't make the 18 I'd imagine he'll play for u23's. Hopefully Obafemi too.

Cheers. Didn't realise they were playing tonight. Be interesting to see what teams are put out in both games.

Agree with that, but definitely this is not all on Ralph. The left back/Bertrand situation, for example, perhaps highlights where we're at. Everything I've read and heard tells me RH has had issues with Bertrand and wanted to leave him out did so. Problem is Targett has now gone and he doesn't fancy Vokins. He's therefore had to play square pegs in round holes and been slaughtered for it. Poor fella has had hobsons choice and ultimately has had to recall Bertrand for the good of team balance, but doing so will not have been easy from a management / respect perspective.

Spot on. He's flattered to deceive. More to the point, after a quarter of the season we are in the bottom two, we play an awful brand of football, he appears to have lost at least parts of the dressing room (or there's some other issues attributal to him or his management) and he's just overseen the worse performance and result in living memory. Any of the above warrant the sack, all of them make his position untenable. I'd normally be one for saying sort a replacement first but after last night's humiliation he needs to go now. We're going down anyway, but let's get a manager in who'll at least get the players trying. Last night was pathetic - 3 fouls against a team who had the ball for more than an hour of the game, and one of them was for the 92nd min penalty. They made 12 - that's cos they were more motivated and wanted it more.

If Ralf can't get these players to play, Nigel has no chance.

Feck me. Beyond shocking.

Strictly

I'd rather that they moved it to PM. I disagree with much of what Sadoldgit posts, but this thread is pathetic.

No, you're missing the point. Clause 77 (an addition not present in May's deal) essentially imposes upon us an alignment with the EU in many areas beyond us leaving. That interferes with what brexit is meant to achieve, namely a launch pad to negotiate with others without any ties to the EU. Don't get me wrong, I know full well that Trump will turn us inside out on any trade deal, but clause 77 appears to stand in the way of such deals / negotiations. Whichever way you look at it though, we're exposed to getting ****ed from all directions.

Under point 77 of the revised deal, the alignment must be between the "Union and the United Kingdom".

True, but either way it's a provision which means that we won't have full autonomy over our affairs with reference to "state aid, competition, social and employment".

We read it very differently. There is clear reference to "competition" and specific reference to "These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages" between the union and the United Kingdom. It's pretty obvious what it means and is a new addition that is very restrictive to our ability to negotiate trade deals on whatever terms we want.

In my reading it means we can't get any trade deal that favours us more than the EU, and basically it seems the EU has a very deep concern that we will be better without the EU ... and Boris has given this away ... what's the point of having trade deals if can't be competitive?