madras

Someone mentioned in the pub watching the game if Brunos iffy start to the season is down to the armband ?

Hope it stays as his goal.

It's not just the goals, they're nice obviously, but he's safe with the ball, doesn't give it away easy.

I was thinking that as I typed.

He offered more be because he had Joe and Gordon outside for them to take care of. Tino had Sean and Murphy so naturally they pressed that side more. Right now with next week being away I'd start Trippier and Kelly and keep Tino and Hall for Wombles.

Be hilarious to do a season of this and finish top 4.

And Kelly, Tonali and Barnes.

I wouldn't say we were bad, just disjointed for large spells.

Because Isak couldn't cone out for the 2nd half, otherwise Murphy off, Gordon on the right.

Tge 433 suited us great with a different squad. I'm not sure it's best for us now

Right then.....does anyone think maybe the plan wasn't for Gordon to be LW and that was it ?

Doesn't give it away much either.

All of our games at Wolves are like that.

HaemophilIsak?

Shit, just realised one of the subs was Isak.

Push Tonali alongside Bruno, play Willock in behind Isak. Kind of 4411.

Sure he's not just having them warm up ?

Also his playing kind of boxes us in to having to play a 3 in the middle.

I'll judge it on today's performance.

It's already silly. Look at the differences between Chelsea and last seasons Luton.

Then change the rules, come up a with formula to allow investment without it being a closed shop for the richest. Owners being able to put in without it being debt on the club would be a start but it has to be limited somehow to stop it just being the "big 6" instead of "big 5" or whatever. I wonder how many on here would have wanted Man City to win their case if we didn't have the owners we do ? If we did t have a pot to piss in and all it would mean for us was other clubs s with richer owners pushing us further down.

20 billion ? It's easy to pick an amount other clubs are allowed to spend but have no chance of actually ever having to be able to spend.

No I'm not in favour of these rules (I am in favour if trying to find some formula to allow investment without having another Man City/Chelsea situation). Should Man City be punished if found guilty ? Yes Should they be derided? Deride if you want, don't if you want. Should the rules be scrapped? See my opening paragraph. Should NUFC break the rules etc ? My personal feeling is we took advice and were told we wouldn't win. Man City's spending means nowt without context. Without the massive, possibly against the rules uplift, would Haaland be there ? Could they even afford his wages ?

Again I disagree. Yes some clubs have spent more than others but within the rules, if they were found to break those rules, like Sunderland in the 50s, they get the punishment and Sunderland never really recovered. Yes they deserve credit for utilising their revenue better than others but they don't deserve to have their trophies if they only got that revenue by deliberately cheating and going beyond "gaming the system', "expoiting loopholes" etc but by, what seems to be naked all out ignoring and breaking the rules.

My bad, see above.