DJ_NUFC

I can’t stand to look at him, I’ll pass. Just his image boils my blood.

Is this his Mr. Burns spitting out the 3-eyed fish moment? His R. Kelly losing it in the interview moment? Loving the hate in this thread though, we need this passion to get this guy out.

Do we know if any effort was made to keep him? A new deal with a higher wage? 20k a week for our top scorer two years running is a joke, and no attempt to even keep him, letting Rondon drift away, etc., what a regime we have.

Yeah I agree, I'm sure I read a quote about his relationship with his dad. Yeahm here: Holy crap. Makes me want to hug and marry him even more.

That's amazing I really wish he'd had a role model or a mentor. Watching his early footage and reading up on his troubles, he was the typical outsider kid crying out for a successful role model who understood him. With even one coach who "got" him, he would've worked wonders in this sport (more so than he already has). Too bad we won't be able to watch him play this year.

Needs to be GIF'd

Oh dang, wish I had Sky Sports. Thanks.

Which, er, river are you traversing?

People are jeering Ayoze? Are you serious?

Would be great, tbh. Was my fave player. Also because it would trigger his haters on here. Having said that, hope we win 4-3, but with that team, yeah, don't think so. Leicester seem to have their full side out. Liar Liar, Brucey on fire.

Mehdi Abeid, too, is due a start.

yes, that’s the bit you should focus on instead of the topic at hand. Wrongthink must be called out in every forum (and thread)! Settle down, comrade. well depending on your interpretation of events the future of bury has been left to the market, you should be all for it no? or do we implement "regulatory frameworks" to stop SME's going to the wall as well Every country with any form of capitalism has existed, and exists, within a heavy, albeit ever-changing, regulatory framework. The fine tuning of this framework is the reason we have elections, to elect parties that ensure things don’t get too extreme in either direction (full libertarianism or full socialism). In life and politics, this friction is between voluntary transactions of goods and services between humans (aka market capitalism) and the regulatory framework created by the *government.* In a private sports league created by willing participants of free humans, without any meddling from the state, you can, and should, set up any sort of framework you want. It is then upto owners or teams to want to participate or opt out. The US as a culture and country has been founded on and celebrates capitalism, yet it has very smart scaffoldings enacted within its sporting institutions to protect teams and fans. I wonder why. If you don’t see the difference between the two scenarios, and choose to pretend they’re one and the same, you’re free to do so. I would rather focus on putting pressure on the FA and EFL into mirroring even 1% of the regulations we have in real life for regular “SME’s.” Instead what we have is seemingly the Wild West. If an owner doesn’t like the new rules, they can opt out and we will have willing buyers who wish to play within those rules. Anyways, no interest in furthering this discussion about grand economic systems and politics. Protecting institutions by allowing them to be franchised and moved out of states? Sounds great. In all fairness, the MLS is different. When Chiva’s had troubles they took ownership of the club back (they technically owned it in anyway), and rebranded the club again and it stayed within LA. Now they are LAFC. We don't even need wholesale changes in England, I think simply applying existing statutes and creating some new basic ones, like owners having some sort of a fiduciary duty to the institution, the league and fans, would go some way in rectifying these issues. Heck, they won't even need to do any "fit and proper" tests if they simply have a set of rules every owner must follow. Then you can be Kim Jong Un if you want, as long as you follow the rules and don't destroy a club / siphon off money to off-shore accounts / treat own fans with contempt, you're welcome to the party.

yes, that’s the bit you should focus on instead of the topic at hand. Wrongthink must be called out in every forum (and thread)! Settle down, comrade. well depending on your interpretation of events the future of bury has been left to the market, you should be all for it no? or do we implement "regulatory frameworks" to stop SME's going to the wall as well Every country with any form of capitalism has existed, and exists, within a heavy, albeit ever-changing, regulatory framework. The fine tuning of this framework is the reason we have elections, to elect parties that ensure things don’t get too extreme in either direction (full libertarianism or full socialism). In life and politics, this friction is between voluntary transactions of goods and services between humans (aka market capitalism) and the regulatory framework created by the *government.* In a private sports league created by willing participants of free humans, without any meddling from the state, you can, and should, set up any sort of framework you want. It is then upto owners or teams to want to participate or opt out. The US as a culture and country has been founded on and celebrates capitalism, yet it has very smart scaffoldings enacted within its sporting institutions to protect teams and fans. I wonder why. If you don’t see the difference between the two scenarios, and choose to pretend they’re one and the same, you’re free to do so. I would rather focus on putting pressure on the FA and EFL into mirroring even 1% of the regulations we have in real life for regular “SME’s.” Instead what we have is seemingly the Wild West. If an owner doesn’t like the new rules, they can opt out and we will have willing buyers who wish to play within those rules. Anyways, no interest in furthering this discussion about grand economic systems and politics. Protecting institutions by allowing them to be franchised and moved out of states? Sounds great. The King of bad faith arguments and uncontrollable smugness strikes again. Yes, yes that is what I want, dude. You got me.

correct, but they chose not to give a f*** and here we are they have a captive audience so there's no benefit in them doing anything to protect the clubs, i don't think the brand thing applies tbph Agreed. I think these administrators are suits with really soft stomachs, and if all fans from all teams begin protesting about needing a change, they’ll fold like a pack of cards and implement something at least. These aren’t thick skinned politicians. In my opinion anyway.

yes, that’s the bit you should focus on instead of the topic at hand. Wrongthink must be called out in every forum (and thread)! Settle down, comrade. well depending on your interpretation of events the future of bury has been left to the market, you should be all for it no? or do we implement "regulatory frameworks" to stop SME's going to the wall as well Every country with any form of capitalism has existed, and exists, within a heavy, albeit ever-changing, regulatory framework. The fine tuning of this framework is the reason we have elections, to elect parties that ensure things don’t get too extreme in either direction (full libertarianism or full socialism). In life and politics, this friction is between voluntary transactions of goods and services between humans (aka market capitalism) and the regulatory framework created by the *government.* In a private sports league created by willing participants of free humans, without any meddling from the state, you can, and should, set up any sort of framework you want. It is then upto owners or teams to want to participate or opt out. The US as a culture and country has been founded on and celebrates capitalism, yet it has very smart scaffoldings enacted within its sporting institutions to protect teams and fans. I wonder why. If you don’t see the difference between the two scenarios, and choose to pretend they’re one and the same, you’re free to do so. I would rather focus on putting pressure on the FA and EFL into mirroring even 1% of the regulations we have in real life for regular “SME’s.” Instead what we have is seemingly the Wild West. If an owner doesn’t like the new rules, they can opt out and we will have willing buyers who wish to play within those rules. Anyways, no interest in furthering this discussion about grand economic systems and politics.

yes, that’s the bit you should focus on instead of the topic at hand. Wrongthink must be called out in every forum (and thread)! Settle down, comrade.

I’m a free market capitalist but even I fail to understand the way football in England operates. The FA/EFL simply had to create a regulatory framework within which ownership can change hands but ultimately the league has a say in protecting its own brand and customers (the fans). The US sports have done this really well, seemingly. The idea of publishing finances is a great one, it should at least start there!

*Waves imaginary red card to get these two sent off*

I like how Miggy has more about him in regards to tactics by asking him what shape or formation to play using his fingers. All waved away by Steve, “or whatever...”

“Or whatever...”

Craig Hope is my new hero. Also, is Brucey the most lily-livered of all the managers we’ve had? Even Carver and JFK had an outsized ego that made them think they were superhuman and battled criticism with inherent narcissism. This dude is folding like a house of cards 2 games in and is talking about Michael Chopra ?

Brucie vs JFK: who’s the winner of Ashley’s Beauty pageant?

The organic, water-based lube used by Ashley for this buggery was one positive I take away from today, made the sliding in and out rather enjoyable. - probably Kaka.

Same here We’ve signed Ritchie’s long lost twin.