Memphis

Loved him (as you can see)

Here's the thing. All of your discussion is proving my point - the original meaning of the armband is being twisted for people's religious purposes. There's really not much room for interpretation seeing as how the message was clearly outlined from the start of the campaign. This is the message that the armband was designed to convey, straight from the people who started it: Wearing it shows that your club is a safe place where everyone can be themselves and that you actively support LGBTQ+ inclusion. It's not an endorsement of homosexuality. It's not a value judgement on lifestyles different than the societal norm. It's simply a way to outwardly say, "Hey, if you're gay, we're fine with you playing alongside us. We're fine with being your teammate." That's all. And if people can't do that, it says a lot about them.

The difference here is that none of our fans - to my knowledge - are claiming some sort of religious exemption to avoid supporting the team or regime or whatever. Bringing the religious aspect into this is where I am struggling. You are right that we are all hypocrites to a degree, though.

This is a strange response. It's a pretty simple thing. Captains being asked to wear the armband to show support for LGBTQ athletes. Why would you not want to?

Yes. It works both ways. I am offended that Guehi is doing this, yes. And that says a lot about me. You and others are offended that he is being asked to wear it. And that says a lot about you.

You wouldn't support gay athletes being allowed to play without being bullied?

What you choose to be offended by tells the story of who you are.

Here are you referring to his own hypocrisy? I can't take someone seriously claiming to be a serious zealot who cannot compromise their beliefs when that same person has endorsed other sinful behavior without incident for years. That then removes the idea of strictly "religious opposition" allowing you to write 'I love Jesus' on the armband - knowing full well why you're choosing to call attention to your unwillingness to just wear the armband as is. Either you are a devout Christian who cannot countenance wearing anything that would endorse sinful behavior, or you are a hypocrite and a homophobe because you're OK with gambling but somehow not OK with endorsing the idea that gay people should be allowed to play sport without being bullied or threatened.

You are choosing to miss the point, it would appear.

Again - how would that affect him wearing the armband? Gambling is a sin according to his church. Guehi wears a bookmaker sponsor on his shirt. Homosexuality is a sin according to his church, Guehi wears a rainbow armband BUT writes "I love Jesus" on it. Now why would he choose to do that on one but not the other?

What? Professional footballers are literally advertising hoardings. That is part of their job. The money they receive comes from sponsors, which they are contractually obligated to display.

To refuse to wear a rainbow armband can only be interpreted as choosing to tell gay players and people at large that you do not think they should be included in sport. The message intended by the proliferation of the armbands is that gay people are to be included and discrimination against them is not to be tolerated. If you want to twist that message into something that then doesn't conform with your religious beliefs, you are intentionally obscuring the truth in order to allow your homophobia to persist. Gambling is considered sinful by Guehi's church. Yet he endorses a bookmaker called NET88 with his shirt - a very shady operator without a UK presence and that has courted controversy in the past - and manages not to write 'I love Jesus' on it every game. Odd that he would find one "sin" too sinful to be seen as endorsing, but the other he seems to be fine with. It's almost as if there's more than a religious element to his statement. And that's the point. Gay people exist. Gay athletes exist. They have been forced to compete in a world that harasses and bullies them at every turn. Players like Guehi would love to ignore that gay people exist. Would love to turn their backs and pretend that homophobia/bullying aren't a life-threatening problem for gay athletes. And allowing them to shame-facedly claim some religious exemption helps to normalize treating gay athletes and gay people differently. It's not enough to be non-homophobic. If you are a person with empathy, you've got to help fight against this kind of "soft" bigotry.

The thing is that if we were to sell Isak for crazy money, it would have to be done as part of a bigger plan and I would have to think that money would have already been pre-spent - that is, deals would have already have been arranged contingent upon us selling Isak. There's no use selling and then sitting there with a pile of money that everyone will be looking to fleece us out of. Ideally it would all be set up well in advance. That would require harmony and proper communication between the coaching staff and the sporting director, however.

Everyone pointing out that we're dealing with a small and unique sample size is correct - that data isn't intended to be definitive by any stretch. It is intended to note a potential problem. Unfortunately a football season itself is a small sample size of a player or manager career, but we have to use the data we have. So by the time you find that the data is definitive, it's much too late to really do anything with it that season. It's flawed but the sizable changes potentially point to a problematic trend. At the very least, it's worth keeping an eye on.

What's very strange to me has been the dropoff in home performances. Though we have 7 points from 12, we have not been able to consistently play well or control opponents the way we did in the last two seasons. One interesting stat I've dug up - we are last in the league by a decent margin in home OPPDA (opponent passes per defensive action), meaning that we do not maintain any control of the ball before opponent pressing or tackling disrupts our play. That number has dropped by 35 percent in the last two seasons. It's a sign of the lack of control we show these days - and the poor state of our passing in general. The same is true of our non-penalty xG numbers - 19th at home (4.54 NPxG over 4 matches). We're sort of OKish away and quite rotten at home. League NPxG at Home: 2022-23: 1st 2023-24: 2nd 2024-25: 19th (through 9 league matches) League NPxG differential at home: 2022-23: 1st 2023-24: 2nd (by .05 to Liverpool) 2024-25: 15th So while we can talk about strikers not performing, missing chances, etc - the reality is that we're not creating anything at home. Not like we used to. I don't know specifically what to point to but the dropoff in these figures should be setting alarm bells off in Howe's office.