chinapig

Maupay to Forest is the talk.

Yes.* *Though these days no pundit says yes anymore, it's always 100%. Though if they only half agree with somebody they never say 50%.?

And Wiemann.

You'd think so, which takes us back to the question of how the EFL can square the circle between the current, untested, regime and the one to come. What seemed like a good idea at the time may now be bogged down. From what Gould says things are still being debated. A dilemma for the EFL.

Points deductions are intended to be done on an agreed basis (Reading agreed theirs, Derby kept delaying theirs before realising they had no case, which made matters worse) so what you describe could be the case.

Agreed, the position the EFL might take is far from clear. If like La Liga cost controls were imposed in advance it might work but the EFL is now caught between two stools.

The extent to which the club is over the limit would determine the severity of the sanction I assume but unless the 72 clubs vote to suspend or nullify the current rules pending the coming changes I don't see how we could avoid sanctions altogether.

Absolutely, a rare thing in any context these days. One of the most valuable things my late Dad (a T&GWU shop steward) said to me was "Remember, sometimes the boss is right." A lesson I have tried to apply, replacing boss with the more general "person you disagree with." As to the forum, I am perfectly happy to give a like to a post I disagree with if I think it has been well argued. I'm fond of quoting Keynes: "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

He was but so was Richard Thompson yet he is now Chair of the ECB.

Nixon thought Chris Kirchner was the real deal during the Derby saga, which tells us something about his credibility.

Happy clapper/moaner. Why have an intelligent debate with somebody when you can call them a childish name?

From The Guardian: The appointment of Richard Thompson as chair of the England and Wales Cricket Board after a successful spell at Surrey brings with it a sense of cautious optimism when the sport faces significant challenges on a number of fronts. Though Thompson does not officially start a five-year term until 1 September, there is plenty waiting for the 55-year-old in his in-tray. What are the most pressing items? Appoint a new chief executive and review the ECB It is inevitable Richard Gould, Thompson’s chief executive at Surrey, will be linked given the success the pair had in turning the county into a financial powerhouse with a growing membership. Whether Gould can be tempted back into cricket after moving to Bristol City last year is another matter. Should this happen it would be a disaster for the club imo. The chances of finding someone else of his stature and qualities would be pretty slim.

Given its dreadful performance at Hull the bus should be thrown under the bus.

Nigel has said there have been no enquiries. Anybody who might want him can just wait until next summer and get him for nothing. The player has all the power in that case.

Loans mean loan fees so probably no on that front. Anybody who is a free agent still seems unlikely to do more than add to the numbers.

Somebody has to want to sign him. So far no sign anybody does. Seems clear enough to me.

Our dire financial situation, the result of SL giving Ashton the keys to the safe, has been explained multiple times on here by people who know what they are talking about. And Nigel has said time and again that we are not in a position to sign players unless others leave. Quite why the message still doesn't sink in is a mystery.

And it's reasonable to expect that it will take at least as long to fix the mess as it did to create it. If not longer since creating it was easy but fixing it is hard.

And according to Nigel he will have to see if he can play through pain. Which presumably means his op was not a success.

Bit harsh on the Gas. Should have been balanced by their record sale being Matty Taylor for £10m.?

We haven't demanded that players take a pay cut in the middle of their contract. We aren't refusing to pay £17m in deferred wages to a player. We don't claim that criminal activity was involved in a player's current contract so he should revert to his previous one. We aren't signing players that we can't register because we don't have the money to pay them. We are reducing our wage budget not increasing it. Etc ad infinitum. Otherwise we are identical to Barca.?

I'm torn on this one. Squires is a genius (see the Scott Parker panel for proof). On the other hand he's a Swindon fan. Can I forgive him that? Of course, his cartoons are brilliant, though it helps if you have followed him from the start to get some of the references. Brightens up my Tuesdays.

Good old Private Eye covers stuff the main press won't touch because they grovel to the Premier League. Still, I'm sure the Premier League thoroughly investigated the takeover before approving it. Much like Newcastle where they went so far as to thoroughly read a letter that said there was no connection between PIF and the Saudi state, honest guv, before caving in to government pressure approving the deal. Thank heavens the English game is squeaky clean, not like those foreigners.?

Astonishing info on the Athletic Football podcast today that Barca wrote to De Jong on 15 July claiming they had evidence of criminality in the process leading to his current contract and that he should revert to the (lower) terms of his previous contract. This is getting more fun by the day!

Ah, the language of the transfer window! Monitoring: sending scouts to watch him. Keeping tabs on: sending scouts to watch him again. Enquiry: are you prepared to sell? Offer: informal verbal bid. Bid: formal written bid. Rejected: **** off! ?