egg

I don't seriously think that any fan could argue that our transfers over recent years have been more successful than not overall, and our signings have mostly been from outside the Premier league. My comments, however, relate to Adams and Adams only. He's unproven outside the Premier league and I repeat and clarify my point - I agree with the clubs reported stance that spending a max of 14m seems sensible for a division 2 player. Others may feel differently, but seeking to justify the case to give Brum whatever they want cos Mane exceeded expectations (whilst ignoring, for example, Moi) is ridiculous.

WTF has any of that got to do with Adams, and my view that having a top price in mind and sticking to it?! You think he's worth paying whatever Brum want, I don't. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't agree with you. I have no interest in expressing my opinion on a random bunch of signings.

You're missing my point which is I disagree with the various people saying chuck Brum more cash to get him over the line. I'm saying is thats crazy for a lower league player. Sure, take a chance on him but the clubs rumoured 14mil maximum seems sensible to me. So is your point that we just pay 20 million?

Have you joined the MLG pedant police or something? Either way it's division 2/championship and Adams is a player unproven above that level.

You don't need to be a scout to understand that 14 million quid is a lot of money to spend taking a punt on a division 1 footballer!

FFS, I thought you'd pipe up! OK, so Jay Rod and Adams both scored 22, with Jay Rod. However you put it, he had a better return. The point is that a good season in div 1 (or championship for the pedantic) does not suggest a player is Premier league standard. If we sign him, I hope he is, but I've never seen such drama about signing a lower league player.

No idea, I'm not a scout. Re the 14 mil, I have no issue with the club paying that. My issue is paying more than that which many people are advocating.

I appreciate that, I was just highlighting that 1 good season in div 1 does not suggest a player is up to the Premier league - Billy Sharp sure ain't, and Jay Rob probably isn't, yet both out scored Adams last season. Gallagher looked half decent in that league but isn't a premier league player either. By all means take a punt on the lad, but we have to set a cap on the fee and I'm not one of the happy players who says chuck Brum whatever they want to bring him in.

Q 1.No idea mate, but I'm not the one getting excited about a division 1 striker. Q 2. Different players in different leagues so impossible to tell but from what I've seen, Djenepo has much more potential.

I repeat, he's had one good season in that league. One. Jay Rod and Billy Sharp scored more than him last season ffs. Sure, he may make the step up to the big boy league, and Ralph may think he can, but £14mil feels like top money and if Birmingham don't bite at that then I'd be happy if we move on to another target.

Exactly. I can't believe the "sign him at any cost mentality". He's a lad who's had 1 good season in division 2 ffs. On your 2nd point, we've done more than wash away the Van Dijk transfer fee. We've locked ourselves into massive contracts for many years with **** players, and committed ourselves to signing Ings. This is the only time I can remember that transferring out players is likely to cost us rather than bringing in revenue.

He's had one good season in division 2, and if the reports are correct, the only other PL club interested are Burnley so £14m seems top money. If he wants to join us, Birmingham will have to relent.

Is there any news on McQueen recovery?

Jeez, 60k a week I can believe, but 15m transfer fee doesn't seem likely. That said, we'll have to supplement his wages to move him on. Same will apply to fraser, probably carillon, hoedt and others. I think it unrealistic to expect the club to spend much this summer, we'll be spending a fortune shifting on deadwood. It says it all when selling players costs the club money rather than generates revenue coming in.

Because America is the only country to have used a nuke; because its post ww2 foreign policy has been international dictatorship and domination; because it has lots of form for seeking regime change; because it's now run by a lunatic who has threatened to the World at large that it would destroy in Iran - a tweet by a man in charge with the capacity (mentally I'd guess, and militarily) to act on threat is a bit different to the few words on the side of a bomb; etc. North Korea didn't want a nuclear bomb to destroy anyone. They are being destroyed by sanctions and millions of their people were killed by America in the Korean War. They need a deterrent. Iran see America led/sponsored action all over the Middle East/Afghanistan with regime change / control behind it. They have a deal with the west that as far as we know they comply with but the US unilaterally withdraw from, they then face awful sanctions, christ knows what threats and intimidation behind the scenes etc etc. We are a small country close to the more (historically at least) Russia. The fact that we have nuclear weapons meant that we were never realistically in danger of a Russian nuclear attack. Iran and North Korea want a deterrent for obvious reasons. Your point seems to be that the world is safer with less countries having nuclear weapons. I'm of the view that both sides of a potential war having equality of arms makes a nuclear confrontation less likely. Example, India and Pakistan both having them keeps a lid on their tension. If one of them had it I'd be much more concerned about it being used than I am in the knowledge that India firing would likely lead to Pakistan retaliation, and vice versa. Nobody wants mutual destruction which is evidenced by the last 70 years or so.

I understood. It was a daft analogy. A persecuted and threatened country seeking a deterrent to reduce the prospect of it being attacked (whether by conventional or nuclear warfare) is in no way akin to some kid wanting sh1tloads of ice cream. What kind of attack does the kid need the ice cream to fend off?! Ridiculous.

That's the worst analogy ever. Chocolate ice cream to a kid and nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Jeez.

That's about it! On that note I'm getting back to fathers day sweets and cake.

No wonder - it was lighthouse! Apologies.

I'll take that as you have no credible point to make. If you do, let me know the basis of your fear that a country may attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, and why a nation or its leader would expose its people to the inevitable retaliation.

Its simple enough, or are you acting daft as its obvious that there's no credible reply?

Its still your point that apparently a nation Iran or an unspecified other I think you wrote) may wish to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon which they may or may not have and/or want. I'm asking a) the basis of that fear, and b) why any nation or its leader would do that knowing the inevitable response and the damage to its nation and its people. The correct answer is a) none and b) they wouldn't but I'm intrigued to know your opinion...

You're talking countries using nuclear weapons. Don't change your own subject when asked about it!!

What's the basis of your fear? Does the leader of such a nation hate his people so much that he'd expose them to US (and/or Israeli) nuclear retaliation? Be realistic, no nation has ever done that, and the main nation dictating who can and cannot have nuclear weapons is the one country who has used two, and are controlled by an idiot.

Can you translate? I get the wish to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons so they can be pushed around/attacked without fear of equivalent armed response, but what of you mean?