st albans fox

He played the shot, not the ball it’s not test cricket it’s fine in limited overs that ball was not sweepable its ridiculous

IMO, he’s the only top quality batsman we have the others are great batters of the ball but it’s not the same thug

Oh yeah - silly me of course they are

Ha my bad as the youth say just saw something on sm where it mentioned it being part of the possible VK deal

I wonder if boycott can bear to watch this team - it’s like their feet are caked in concrete

Psr deal? they pay us 20m and we buy him for 10m ?? (Effectively a free)

we’ll see I think you’ll be happier than me come days end

Really surprised that with the slope and that sharp cut back the ball tracking wasn’t ’umpires call’

If crawley’s mindset is representative of the England team then I’d definitely be sticking a few quid on India

Ties into your post on the ‘things I learned today’ thread. they say ‘a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing’. I’d say a mountain of ignorance is worse!

Ffs, Annabelle Croft was a shite player and she’s a shite interviewer let rhe kid go !!!!!

isn’t it two consecutive quarters of neg growth ? that’s why I wrote ‘monthly recession’. We’ve now had two consecutive months of neg growth. I highlighted it because labour’s whole strategy in govt was based upon growth. I recall the interviews where starmer was asked ‘how can you be sure that you’ll drive growth’ ? Afaik, the report doesn’t state that one of the pilots was responsible for the fuel cut offs being activated. Now that maybe because there is no possibility for the auto systems to do that without pilot intervention. I’m not that well informed on that!

Could have been the Co pilot very strange EDIT: the report doesn’t state that a pilot was responsible - just that the fuel flow to the engines was cut.

Pleading not guilty carries a cost - if found guilty then will get a longer sentence. Clearly the defence believes they can try and wangle their way out of this via procedural issues on the arrest or subsequent events with evidence. can’t believe that with the cctv evidence available, they have pled NG (unless they feel they have a good chance of getting off on a technicality) .

If there are two of them, how do we know we have the right one ?

it’s not about losing money /making money in the longer term - it’s about this years psr numbers Because of psr, the below is true. We cannot sell him this summer.

I think we’re technically in a ‘monthly recession’ (albeit as small as it could be) not sure how that fits with the growth agenda of the govt ………

Strange that no time beyond the added 8 mins despite the hosts scoring in that period and spending a good minute celebrating

Poor decision making

Wonder if madders will be looking for a new club ? His work rate may not suit the new manager

From what we were told by Percy last time we dropped, salaries had approx 25/30% reduction clause. (Still way too much to be paying the 80k players 55/60k )

Plenty of ‘superstars’ don’t !

That is how I understand it. gardening leave means you’re paid to do nothing but you remain an employee until a specified date. I reckon qpr thought that someone would come for him so decided it was in their interest to keep him in employment so that any comp clause remained valid. (Maybe for six months ??)

Yep you basically take a bath on any transfer fee but try and get a loan fee to compensate Ayo cancelled his own contact (with our agreement) which saved us his wages. A loan fee wouldn’t have been that much so we agreed

Can we just get beyond this ‘pay cut’ and ‘paying back his ‘compo’ stuff. the fella will be v unlikely (imo he defo won’t) to earn less here than he was paid there. The 500k must be a settlement that he’s been paid in advance against his notice period whilst on gardening leave. ) we have to pay that back to qpr as compensation against that settlement. So we will pay him 500k less in year 1. Hence his salary in year 1 will be lower than he was earning at qpr. (He can’t demand to be paid twice although he could have insisted and it’s decent that he apparently hasn’t ). There could be variations on a theme on this but it’s going to be something of that ilk. If there is a comp clause still valid because he’s on gardening leave rather than having actually left their employment then there could be an additional sum involved that we have to pay.