CornwallFox

What we really don't need to do is play two defensive midfielders. Why are we set up to defend? No overlapping full backs, most our midfield sitting. We need to get people forward if we're ever going to put any pressure on our opponents

Never did. Afternoon drinking makes me sleepy and don't fancy needing a pee every ten minutes if I've mullered several pints. Did it once and hated it.

It certainly hasn't escaped my notice how modern right wingers are immigration obsessives that are absolute victims about everything.

What do you mean? No club in the world talks about who they're talking to until a deal is done

He's been pretty ineffective this season. Don't know why we don't push him up front, where he can't be worse than our other options, and put Monga in to gain experience. Neither Ayew nor Daka are going to score many.

Although I'd say I am more open to debate and engage, and admit when I'm wrong.... Fair point on the rest I suppose.

You're one of the only people that doesn't get into any lengthy discussion of your worldview so it's unlikely you feel the same. Most of us can discuss our opinions and possibly inconsistencies, you prefer to simply chuck glib remarks about to avoid having to think about your worldview. Each to their own eh

Has its benefits for some of us

Always amusing watching selective outrage in action.

It's a pretty rubbish point

We would have done. But our players would still be on a lot

That season we ended up 2 points from safety, so either 2 or 3 points from staying up depending on goal difference which the table i just looked at didn't show. Keeping schmeical would have probably seen is mid table. Dropping ward a month earlier would probably have seen us safe. Playing soyuncu over Amartey would've helped too.

Years ago the advice was ignore it and they'll go away. Case law since suggests paying is the safer option is my understanding.

TBF I'll stick my hand up here. Rudkin is director of football and so is to blame for our football operations failing. I have previously, and to some extend still do, say that people blame him for every aspect of our failure but actually he isn't director of finance or head of risk management and so I have doubts that he is the only person culpable, and we have little visibility over exactly who is responsible for what. That isn't to defend rudkin, simply to point out there's wider failings and we shouldn't let others off by only focusing on rudkin and top.

The idea that when something terrible happens, you can only talk about it to fix it, not to discuss any knock on effects or side issues, is clearly bonkers.

It's a standard clause in contracts

That's a different point which I don't disagree with

Soumare had a great breakout season in France and Faes had a decent run before we signed him so they are harsh shouts. Daka may be our worst ever player, and I know you didn't name him, but in fairness he was highly sought after too.

Just my opinion but it's the sort of untested, creative appointment I absolutely don't want. That's the kind of thing you do when you're on a positive place and are rolling the dice on a new idea that could turn good into incredible, safe in the knowledge you're not going down. We're not in that place at all.

It's the sort of name I'm after. Somebody with experience and with success in the championship. I've been calling for Mowbray but Dean Smith would not be the worst call at this level.

Only upside would be getting rid of most the squad and starting from scratch. Downside to that is Pearson lightening unlikely to strike twice.

Well we either start playing as a team that needs to win and drag ourselves up the table, or we carry on as we have been as get relegated. The new lads have an unfair amount riding on their shoulders at this point.

The age verification thing is a completely separate issue which presumably could have been made better if we had a national form of ID confirmation. I don't know enough about exactly what was proposed to know if I'm way off but surely the app itself doesn't need to link to the actual data? So, for example, it could simply know you're flagged as being over 18 to give you access to alcohol, events etc that require an age check. It doesn't need your actual date of birth if systems around it were built to simply accept the word of the app. You need to be a UK resident or citizen to access a service? The app simply confirms that, it doesn't need to know your while background, just that you're flagged as a UK citizen. Presumably they could have a limited number of watts to interact with it. I may be way off, there may be plans for it to actively review maybe your passport photo, name, date birth docs against your gov held records, but again I'm not sure how many variants they would need to confirm ID. Maybe worth exploring, i suppose I sit in the find a safe way forward camp, rather than the it's too hard camp.

Does the government not hold basically all of the information already? It already has your photo, Comms info, addresses, finances etc. It just strikes me as backwards that we can't have a straightforward id system as if this is a hugely novel product.

Not always though. The incredibly sensible national id card idea, that could simplify all sorts of government services, keeps getting shot down due to vague reasons pushed by the right. It's a great idea, it's eminently sensible, but in that case convenience, which it offers, is seemingly ignored