Chris_R

Lots of people blaming us for playing poorly, but maybe there's credit to Luton for not letting us play well? When we do that to other teams and the commentators / other fans say they didn't play well against us, we're often raging at not getting enough credit. I think there's an element of that here, Luton have stopped us playing as they have against many sides this year. That's not to say we can't do anything about it and that we can't improve and cut out some individual errors, but let's not just dismiss the role the opposition have in how we've (not) played. They've harried us into misplaced passes, pressured us deep, made us make mistakes.

Schar just gave up on tracking Barkley. Love the bloke, but that was shit. Left him to tap it into an empty net.

Whenever Anthony G picks gets to a loose ball in the box, I can't believe no commentator has yet taken the opportunity to shout "GORDON'S ALIVE!" Really needs to happen.

I'd at least have Isak on the bench. Luton have already shown us they're not going to just roll over this year. Don't start him, by all means, but we need him as an option if he's fit enough.

They were a big draw in L1 for some of the smaller teams. Nobody gives a shit about them in the Championship, that's their level. Leicester, Leeds and Southampton all far bigger clubs than they are over the last 20-30 years, which is the only relevant time period for spectators - maybe even less.

This.

I heard the barber nicked the top of his ear, and he's now out for the season.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge. Derbies aside, if this lot were playing in my garden I'd close the curtains.

To be fair all he did was run at defenders who backtracked away from him then had a couple of potshots. Granted it was more than the rest of them did, but it's hardly a sign of quality. He didn't actually "do" anything that a pub level footballer couldn't have done. (Not calling him a pub level player, just saying his 'positive contributions' against us didn't require any level of skill, just the ability to run forwards completely unopposed, and then kick a ball at the goal without scoring)

Please don't up his thread like that, this close to deadline day!

Of course it would look suss. My point (which isn't entirely serious) is why bother not looking suss, they're already doing everything in their power to stop us competing. They can't do more. Might as well shithouse things off the pitch as well as on it.

Should've loaned Tonali to one of the Saudi clubs. What you gonna do, PL? Make our lives difficult in future?

This is going to sound far more harsh and blunt than it's meant to, but the most likely reason Robson has a statue whilst Keegan doesn't is that Robson's dead. The living don't often get statues because their legacy isn't complete. I'm sure Keegan will get a statue in time but I hope we don't see it for a very long time.

Part of me is wondering if, like Matt Targett, he's suffering from just not being Dan Burn. Howe seems to consider Burn utterly integral to everything we do, and I get that to an extent because he does have some unique attributes that other fullbacks just don't have. But he along with that he holds us back in some ways - His positives are also his negatives. But he seems undroppable and of course that's Howe's call, but as with Targett last year many of us are wondering if things would be better with a more conventional, attacking fullback.

And Hall. And to be honest Dummet has never let us down, and even Ritchie hasn't looked out of place when he has been on. I think Hall is the one that's most baffling though. Can only assume there's a problem there because it's refusing to use him is just strange and confusing.

Should caveat this with me being a massive fan of Howe and certainly I'm not wanting him replaced or anything mad like that. Love the bloke, just want him to trust his subs more.

Loads of times this year we've not made subs and conceded goals to lose winning positions. Today it worked, but lots of times it hasn't and it's frustrating to see us keep doing the same things.

You're all welcome

When we conceded and lose late on again, because of sitting deep forever trying to hold onto a lead again, and offering no threat at all up the other end again, we'll deserve it.

Regarding the handball, that's never a foul anywhere else on the pitch. Hand by his side, ball hit at him from 3 yards away. Always a goal for me.

Again, Twitter(!) has loads saying Howe's either a liar for not saying he wants rid of people, or a shit manager for actually not wanting rid of them. Are people that incapable of thinking things through beyond the press conference itself? Or their own self importance and neediness to know what's actually happening? He's saying what anyone with half a brain would say. Players may or may not leave, and he has to cover the possibility that they may not and have them still committed to the cause and giving 100% on the pitch.

Why would he say anything else? Those players still play for us, are still needed on the pitch, and may not leave if they either don't want to or we can't agree terms with the buying clubs. Twitter (I know) seems awash with people who think he should have openly said that he wants to sell certain players, honestly so many people are thick as whale spunk. Or they think their personal right to know Howe's plans trumps in some way our need as a team to function well on the pitch and get results. Either way though, idiots.

Great. But entirely not my point. My only point is that too many people think that amortisation just removes the future commitment. That you can repeatedly sell a player for £10m and that gives you £50m to spend, and that you can just keep doing this infinitely. That's a genuine position some seem to have. All I'm doing is pointing out it's nonsense. Sure, revenue will increase in future allowing more spending. But it would do that anyway without us selling Trippier, the two things aren't connected.

That's all well and good provided those revenue streams materialise and can cover the shortfall. But there's not an infinite amount we can grow revenue by, at a speed we dictate. It's a nice theory, but it's not a certainty to happen. Far from it. And we can't just keep saying we'll increase revenue streams by 4* every sale we make forever more.

Well yes if we amortised his initial fee over a number of years and that's not fully paid yet, we still owe it.