Charl91

He's 36. At what point do you accept that he's not cut out to be a starter anymore? A striker that doesn't offer much in the build up, and only scores goals if playing as a two, is probably not going to cut it at this point. I'm sure he'll play a part, but we shouldn't be relying on him to start anymore. Time waits for no man.

Can't believe you'd even suggest that. He just needs some decent service, on a Saturday afternoon fixture, with a favourable wind, against a geriatric defense suffering from severe intestinal distress, and he'll start banging them in.

I'd score goals if they were put on a plate for me. If he only scores goals under perfect circumstances, then he's probably not worth his place in the team.

The original post says "with the exception of Vardy".

Well, replacing an entire team is pretty difficult. Barnes is proven in the champ, as is Iverson. JJ can probably do a good job if he ever gets his fitness back.

I think the fact that almost every professional player can't do it, shows how difficult it is.

UNDEFEATED ON XG SINCE DEAN SMITH HAS ARRIVED, YOU'LL NEVER SING THAT

100% it is, purely for his reputation and job prospects if we don't give him a job. Regardless of whether we stay up or go down though, his full time appointment should be based on seeing improvement during his short tenure.

We need that now - I reckon a squid would make a great replacement for Danny Ward.

Well, the government has made an offer to teachers. And it's shocking

Have we ever had such a high and quick fall from grace?

I woke up this morning, and looked out my window. And I thought to myself "Wow, that's the most transparent thing I will see today". Then I saw your post.

On the flip side, at what point do people stop saying "class is permanent". When he's 40? 50? We'll have people saying "If we just set the team up to play to his strengths, and we ask their defenders to stand still, and the opposing keeper has the flu, then he'll be banging them in". He's not finished as a footballer, but he's certainly not shown for a while that he should be a starter, let alone building a team to play to his strengths. Even with the shoddy play we've been showing this season, Prime Vardy would still be banging in goals left, right and centre. Current Vardy has been getting games on reputation rather than performances.

**** sake... That's normally my 'go to' post when I've not had much rep for a while. Now I'm going to have to wait longer to use it again.

I could do that. But they're covering my class anyway. So if I were off sick instead of striking, I'd be expected to plan for the school day - which I'm not prepared to do on a strike day.

I'm on strike today. Sadly I'm also off ill, so I'm essentially taking an unpaid sick day.

Is it going to unage vardy by about 4 years?

Not anymore.

Unions are about collective action for a greater good. Not everyone has to vote for strikes, but if its the direction that is voted for, then unless you have a very good reason, or have very strong feelings to the contrary, then it's your duty to support your fellow teachers / nurses / any other profession. And if you feel like a union is constantly going against your interests, then it's probably not the right union for you.

I think at this point you're just being deliberately disingenuous, but I'll bite. The union isn't just the leadership, it's the sum of it parts. The heads of the union help organise it, but a union relies on all its members working collaboratively. A union that splinters into lots of different factions that all do their own thing defeats the point of a union.

Most head teachers will not be on six figures, or even close - at least in primary education. I think the only person on that is our CEO, in a trust of over 20 schools. Maybe of you're in London or head of a massive secondary. But I always have to call that figure out, because I know a lot of heads, and none of them are close to earning 6 figures.

Bit of a straw-man argument there. No one said all teachers are on the breadline. Teachers salary is roughly 1.4x the average national wage (down from about 1.6x, a decade ago) so it would be naive to suggest that. That doesn't mean we should be happy with the continual erosion of working condition and pay, just because we're not on minimum wages, considering the workload, the responsibilies, and the training and qualifications you need to do the job.

You do realise it's not teachers giving out fines, right?

I didn't say that though I said people who parrot the propaganda about teachers being lazy are ill educated. I can understand people being against strikes. As I said earlier, I chose not to strike in 2016, as its quite drastic and I naively thought things could get better on their own. Clearly I was an idiot, as education has been gutted substantially more since. Turns out that unless you actively strike, the Government will treat your profession like shit. And they think the answer to the teacher recruitment crisis is "put more 'be a teacher' adverts on the TV", since it's easier than sorting out all the systemic problems in the education system.

Is it? Most teachers aren't lazy, and work long hours (the average is 47 hours per week) . To say otherwise is factually incorrect. So I presume those people who shares those opinions are either ill-educated, ignorant or have malicious intent. But correct me if I'm wrong. Give me your factual reason for why most teachers are apparently lazy, and let's see how grounded in reality it is.