ClaphamFox

If you look at the original article, Mick Brown has the byline and also refers to himself in the 3rd person in the text. So he is both the author and the the source. He even describes himself as being very well connected within the game. Did he interview himself? Did he sit on one side of a table to ask the questions and then move to the other side to answer them? At the end of the interview did he shake hands with himself and politely wish himself a good journey home?

It would be a bit extreme to make him actually undergo surgery as a smokescreen for a transfer. Also I'm sure I read that somewhere that Chelsea aren't interested any more and are focusing on other targets...

He's under contract until next summer and nobody will buy him given his injury record, so he'll almost certainly be with us next season.

It would be quite something to follow up our last two managerial appointments with one that was even more stupid and incomprehensible. But if any club is capable of doing it, it's us.

RVN's post-match and press conference comments don't suggest he's being backed - it sounds more like the owners just aren't engaging with him at the moment. If they really wanted him to stay and had told him so, he wouldn't be constantly talking in public about the need to clarify his future, but that's what he's doing.

Well if it's club policy to avoid paying compensation to get a decent manager, then it's a ridiculous policy. It's the sort of policy that leads you by a short route to the kind of shambles we've witnessed this season. Sometimes managers are out of work for a good reason.

If we're restricted to out-of-contract managers because we can't afford the compensation for somebody in a job, we're in big trouble. We made that mistake last summer with Steve Cooper and have paid a very heavy price for it. The managerial appointment is more important than any single player transfer - if we have to pay to get the right man, that's what we should do.

The club is not going to say a word about anything until after the season is over in a month's time, and possibly not for several weeks after that.

Yep. Farke would be underwhelming, but I'd take him in a heartbeat over Martin or Dyche.

His recent track record is not good. Everton were abysmal under him earlier this season but improved significantly the moment he left. That should tell us something. Besides, if we are aiming to return to the model of bringing through talented youngsters and selling one of them every summer to keep us ticking over financially, we need a manager who is willing to take a chance on young players. Dyche has always favoured experience over youth and has never really trusted flair players. He is not the man to help us return to a model that makes full use of our academy.

Soumare won’t be with us next season.

Well we do, but…

18 league goals in 35 league appearances, some of which would have been aa a sub. More than a goal every two games.

It’s interesting that those of us who don’t want Dyche are often accused of turning our noses up at him, implying that it’s just a form of snobbery. I really don’t think it is. Personally speaking, while I prefer attractive football over turgid football, I mainly just want Leicester to do well. I don’t want Dyche because I genuinely don’t think he will get us to where I want us to be. Football is evolving all the time. In recent times, the most successful coaches have been those exhibiting tactical intelligence and flexibility. While I think Dyche would - like Pearson - clear the bad apples out of the squad and make us hard to beat, I’ve seen nothing to suggest he has anything like tactical sophistication to succeed in the modern game. He has always favoured rigid game plans executed by experienced players, and has a longstanding distrust of youth and flair. In his recent interview with Lineker he seemed almost contemptuous of the idea of tactics - he came across as a likeable old dinosaur, baffled by these new-fangled ideas and nostalgic for the days when things were simpler. If people really want a genuine reset, we need a manager who can succeed in the game as it is played now - not as it was eight years ago. Dyche is not that man.

Your quote from Dhejne (from 2015) is indeed correct, but it is one that has been misinterpreted. In it, Dhejne is accurately stating that in the 1989-2003 period, the transitioned group as a whole (ie, irrespective of the direction of transition) had no statistically significant difference from the population as a whole for general criminal convictions. This was in contrast to the earlier period, when the transitioned group’s conviction rates were slightly higher than the population as a whole. Dhejne’s statement is therefore only true in the sense that patterns of criminality were not examined separately by sex for each period, meaning that no such finding could be made. However, if you refer back to the study itself (which I’m sure you’ve read), you’ll be aware that one of its clear findings was that over the whole period, male-to-female cases had a pattern of conviction insignificantly different from that for the male population, and significantly higher than that of the female population. It's also worth noting that the quote from Dhejne that I used previously, where she appeared to clarify the situation: "Regarding criminality there are only results from either both trans women and trans men and displayed for the whole period 1973-2003 and for the periods of 1973-1988 and the 1989-2003. If one is only interested in transwomen data is only available for the whole period." This quote is from 2017 – two years after her interview comment that you cite above. As you note, there is not a great deal of data in this area. More would be certainly welcome. But as things stand, we can safely state there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a man who says he identifies as a woman can be safely assumed to be less of a risk than other men. So if we are to retain sex segregation in prisons and other settings, the choice is either: 1) to apply it to all people born male irrespective of how they identify; or 2) allow males who identify as women to opt out. Of these two choices, I think the first one is a much simpler and more effective way to manage risk. A safeguarding policy that allows certain people to simply opt out at their own behest doesn't strike me as particularly robust. It is worth remembering that trans people are still protected from discrimination by the Gender Recognition Act 2004. However, what the Supreme Court ruling clarifies is that the era in which men could self-identify their way into women's spaces, irrespective of whether or not they were welcome there, is almost certainly over. This is a positive development. The task now is to find new ways to ensure that transgender people are protected from discrimination and harassment in a way that does not deny women their right to biological female-only spaces.

Not a chance.

I’m not religious and never pray, but I might make an exception in this case. God, please let this be true…

Yep. Exactly the same as last summer when our first choice was Potter but we couldn’t get him so went for Cooper. Thankfully it seems Happy Fox was just speculating…

That is the most depressing sentence I’ve read in some time.

That’s a sentiment with a short shelf life if ever I’ve heard one.

It’s increasingly looking like the decision over RVN’s future will ultimately lie with somebody who isn’t yet at the club, hence they’re dragging their feet until that person arrives.

Incredibly sad.

Why do you ‘like’ Martin, who has proven that he’s basically a more stubborn version of Enzo with fewer leadership skills and less ability to organise a defence?