egg

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?

reading point 77 of the new brexit deal.... Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationshipand the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment

Yep. People whine when all we have is an option but sometimes an option is more than enough. He was shocking last night and on that performance he's not worth buying.

Trade

Vestergaard looked awful to anyone who had watched him. Everything we now know was obvious then: can't jump, can't run and turning speed of an oil tanker. Elynoussi on the other hand did look half decent to me but arguably looks an even worse signing than Vestergaard. Whatever, £60m plus agents fees, signing on fees, wages for those 2 plus Carillo is appalling business.

League down, club up, club trajectory up. He'll have a transfer budget to work with but the main point is that players have a much better chance of succeeding / looking good in that league so it's easier for him to shine up there. I can see why he's taken the job.

I don't know but I'm guessing he's injured. Slattery is the main man in the u23 midfield this season.

Short answer is no. That said, RH has made some baffling decisions this season with his team selections, tactics, and subs (or lack of). Whilst he has a pretty poor squad of players, there's no doubt in my mind that he could have done better with what's available to him, so it's understandable that questions are being asked.

He was awful yesterday and has been for most of this season. If we had an alternative I'm sure RH would try him, but he doesn't seem to fancy Slattery and there's nobody else.