Saint86

Lost away to 6th in the league, a fixture we have a terrible record in, and without a professional goalkeeper or 2 of our best defensive players (sal and rom). Yes... This is obviously the game to sack him on for most level headed fans? Out of curiosity, what result would have been acceptable? If a loss is a sackable offense? I can't imagine anything less than a draw was reasonable to you?

£30-50m to design and build a connected conference centre. No idea on the price of the land.

Fortunately wasn't able to follow the car crash today... However from them snippets I've gleamed, the tone of this post doesn't seem to have been far wide of the mark... 🤣

That's some serious contaminated land treatment they'll be doing if they want it to look as green as that...

TBH Egg, unless the rest of you are testing regularly and masking up when you should, that guy is probably the least of your worries 🤷‍♂️. The risk of spreading it is comparable. Nearly everyone I know who has had the vaccines has gone on to catch covid. One person (AZ) had it twice. Given they're all under 35 and not at any statistically significant risk of severe covid, you do have to wonder why as a cohort our generation bothered to have the vaccine... nothing to do with access to holidays/bars/restaurants i'm sure 😅

You are of course obviously (except to a notable few on this thread 🙄) right. If people want a vaccine to protect themselves then they should get one, and if others don't feel comfortable getting it then thats their prerogative. Its as simple as that. People don't have a right to threaten and take away the jobs and societal access of others - in effect making them unable to pay for rent / bills / food etc. or access education. That is the slippery slope we are on (atm for vaccines but what next?) and its fundamentally because they want to force people to get a vaccine that they clearly don't trust to protect themselves 🤦🏼‍♂️). Its absolutely illogical and hypocritical, and the autocratic need to control others like that is blatantly bad for people in this country.

But this is wrong though isn't it? There is no "end" to virus for you to prolong short of the population achieving effective immunity. This virus is going to spread through the population until we develop that effective immunity, whilst in parallel the virus will mutate to be less severe. We are choosing to prolong the virus by delaying spread, seeking to minimise the chance for our populations to gain any natural immunity (despite the very high average survivability rate), and waste time and resources in an futile effort to prevent mutations - i.e. hanging our hat firmly on full vaccine dependence. That also ignores the fact that that natural immunity provides longer lasting and more effective protection compared to the vaccines. If for example you took the opposite scenario to full vaccine dependence (which i take to be what you champion), i.e. everyone getting natural immunity, the country would get better future protection - Now obviously that scenario would mean you don't vaccinate those vulnerable to the virus, which would equate to more deaths - and isn't something people advocate obviously. However, there is clearly an argument to be made for following an approach between the two, i.e. allowing a less severe strand (like Omicron) to spread whilst the most vulnerable are best protected by vaccines - If the main spreader groups (schoolkids/students/young professionals etc - who aren't under any real risk from covid) get natural immunity, it will serve the country far better in the long run compared to our present strategy of pure reliance on vaccines (that seemingly last 6months, offer only partial protection, and become ineffective after a few mutations/variations.) That's less debt for the country, a shorter pandemic long term, shorter waiting lists for the nhs, better education provision, less impact on services etc. It does unfortunately mean that the money currently lined up for the pockets of big pharma goes back into industries such as travel and transport, leisure and hospitality, and the plethora of businesses that serve office centres etc. Regardless of your take on whether you pursue full vaccine dependence, the point of this thread is covid passports. For me, the vaccines don't offer a long lasting protection, they don't impact on viral loads for future transmission, and they don't stop people catching covid. But they do reduce severe reactions which is particularly beneficial in vulnerable groups. In conclusion though, i would say that there simply isn't a strong enough argument to justify infringing civil liberties by bringing in increased digital surveillance and what amounts to "compliance" controls on access work/education/entertainment etc. - This isn't China and I have no interest in us adopting anything like their measures - Now... people can chose to protect themselves with the vaccines, and they can personally chose to take precautions to mitigate their risk exposure (masks /personal hygiene measures /avoidance), but there is no, "zero covid" scenario and they can catch it just as readily off of a vaccinated person. No one should have the right to stop other people living their lives (and actively discriminate against them) because you don't agree with their medical choices 🤷‍♂️. The vaccine some want to force on everyone else either works or it doesn't. But you've got to let other people have the right to reach their own decisions, take their own risks, and live their lives. It is beyond hypocritical to take a vaccine to protect yourself, and then expect other people to follow your decision because you don't trust the vaccine 🤔

I for one am totally against the introduction of societal/employment/educational passports, which is what this in effect is the start off.

Are people excited about us having a 40year goalkeeper who is without a club and has been training for AFC Wimbledon? 🤔

This has got a loss written all over it i'm afraid. Feel like we always do poorly at Arsenal. Especially when we have a 40year old stand in goalkeeper with only a few days of training

Anyone know how much debt are leeds are in relative to saints?

The skate equaliser was clearly offside in this as well 🤣

We won't.

Absolutely fucking pathetic from the team since the injury. Absolutely embarrassing. Ref hasn't helped the pressure with some terrible calls, but regardless, the players should hang their heads for this one.

You've convinced me its Ratcliffe. Sold. 😇

Jim Radcliffe, SPAC, and RedBull (mentioned by a claimed ITK on here / minor media snippets) are all likely to have at least been in the fiver interested parties and have had their names loosely attached. Wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them one of the two names being eluded to. Would take any of those as well.

Who knows. Both Leicester and saints are all over the shop recently. Could be a tight 1-1 / 2-1 game. Or we go full YoloRalph and lose 1-3 / 1-4. I certainly wouldn't predict saints to win comfortably. What do you think? 😅

Eh? We've been in reasonable form before losing to Liverpool. Arsenal lost 4-0 to Liverpool and they are 5th. Get a grip. The Norwich loss was just one of those games, we dominated, should have put it top bed but didn't. If we start winning those games consistently we'll be on the verge of challenging for europe. As it is we aren't and its keeping us in lower mid table. I acknowledge there is a fair gap between those two outcomes, but to say we have no confidence to win a game is just silly. Unfortunately Leicester is never a good game for us under Brenda. They're solid defensively and very dangerous on the break. If Ralph plays it sensibly we'll do alright, if he goes YoloRalph (ala liverpool) we'll be out of the game after a few counters.

Yeah same. Its the same area of the pitch as the Norwich foul last night, a few passes later they score. What exactly is the point of VAR? They've won the ball and started that move with a handball ffs. Only saving grace is i have salah and jota in my FF team. Get ready for saints to have a goal ruled out for a similar foul in a few weeks.

Been thinking about it. We have actually been very well run by semmens and ralph lately, and its clear they've got a good relationship and have put a solid foundation in place. I think its likely that any takeover of saints could actually upset that and not in a good way - Its unlikely we'll get a mega money takeover which means we would still need to be well run, and equally its unlikely whoever comes in would invest their own money and then leave semmens and ralph with the amount of control they currently have... as we've all seen, getting people in control of a club that know what they're doing and who will be successful is not a common occurrence - who would be confident that we could ditch ralph and semmens for an upgrade?

Flip it around, we tend to have players that are well grounded and hard working, some exceptionally so over the years 🤷‍♂️ And a lot less negative stories in the media about our players misbehaving.

They're interested in buying saints...

Ah, the old Les Reed special transfer sales.... That man almost ruined our club.

Agreed. We haven't been in a relegation scrap since Ralph came in and saved us in his first season. The way he (and our recruitment team) are growing the club now, i have very little doubts we are on a solid footing and will be challenging the top half and potentially for europe again shortly.

In all probability, we would not have lost that game had he not been sent off. We were the better side and looking to get the winner ourselves. Whereas, we did lose because of his sending off.