HawK

We're doing the Longstaff/Miley double pivot again with Bruno in front. Nice to see.

Ashworth asleep in the crowd. Probably been injected with horse tranquilizers by Tindall

Regardless, pleasant change it's not us

Heart in my mouth as Barnes is taken out

Dubs no parlez football

That's a sizable jump, hopefully we should be able to maintain that with the Adidas deal coming in to offset the lack of CL next year. The growth won't be fast enough for some but with all the red tape being chucked at us I don't think we're doing too bad.

We have very involved owners via Stavely et al, I wouldn't be surprised if the rumblings from Ashworth about not having as much control as he wanted were true. He would have had much more control at a pre-Ineos Man* Utd where the owners were effectively absent. Edit: the shame

Top-tier squad player imo, pleased with this.

But.. but.. think of the compensation fee, it's free FFP money!!

On the other hand, probably only one of those 6 players would make the team if we had a full squad to choose from.

It's a shame that Howe seems married to this flat 4-3-3 approach becoming a 3-4-3 in possession. I'd like to see Longstaff in the hole further ahead of Bruno. As we seem to continuously struggle with the gap between midfield and defence and no single player seems suited to the role, stick two of them there. Personally I think Longstaff could show a lot just behind the striker, bit of a Kevin Nolan in terms of his ability to be always in the right place at the right time. As he offers little else in possession other than his goals as he rarely seems to know what he's going to do with the ball until after he gets it, it'll at least work to his strengths. Applying his pressing high up the pitch behind Isak/Wilson would also take the pressure off either striker to do so and keep their energy up for when we do have the ball.

He's nee Haris Vuckic yet, mind

Floaties where I grew up

Aye we're all grown ups here - we clearly hold different values and that's OK. Agreed on the complaint being the catalyst for the ban, the club was put in a position and it acted. Not sure how much you read of my previous responses, but I do also think everything that's she written is abhorrent, just want to make that clear I'm not condoning her actions or views.

Except, it is different in UK law. Of course NUFC have a right of refusal as any private company does, but are you happy for NUFC to be the arbiter of what views their supporters are allowed to hold in order to attend games? Let's not forget who owns us and where this might lead. 4th sentence - yes I've been over this already.

Aye I don't like it, look how wrong 'clear and obvious' became in terms of VAR. I think if dissent or abuse to the ref was a an automatic yellow, the cynical fouls would almost take care of themselves (if still yellow) to a degree as players are going to be on more yellows anyway, at least in the short term.

Popped this in a spoiler for those who really don't want to read about this shite

Thanks, your detail on her background makes NUFC's actions clearer on this. Being decked out in NUFC attire whilst spouting hateful speech is one thing, whereas without the NUFC association I believe it would be treat differently. Although I disagree that your example is fair, the employee-employer relationship with direct abuse involved is not really the same thing as pontificating your beliefs on the Twitter soapbox. However if you were decked out in your company uniform and every other post is about your company and you mix your own disagreeable views, then rightly that company could be seen to be associated with those views. If the company then does not act once aware, it could be seen to be complicit or condoning those views.

In my personal view - unless she actually harasses or distresses people specifically, she should be allowed in. But if that line is not crossed - i.e., she attends a game, watches the match, has a pint, goes home, she's fine. It's all a matter of opinion, you clearly feel that people who say things that we both find abhorrent and post about them on twitter should have their access to the world curtailed. I can understand your reasoning and respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise - it comes down to our own core value systems that are ingrained at a very young age.

To answer you point directly (I'm no legal eagle), I think it's not specified (gender-based hate) under law, whereas offences can be specifically racially aggravated.

The difference there is that racial abuse is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. It's another conversation entirely to ruminate over what should be a law and what shouldn't though.

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

For me, it's the implication that the club are selectively allowing people to enter the ground based on views and opinions which I think sets a dangerous precedent.