r0cafella

Proper sucker punch that.

Hell of a miss that.

They had another chance from a very similar position a few minutes prior.

Was just about to write them are a shambles at the back.

It is aye.

Maybe slightly less if they go down but not much less I'd imagine. Look how much we paid for Tino and that was with a horrible injury behind him.

Losing him would be a unmitigated disaster. What we need to do is show him our ambition still exists and play to his strengths.

You'd pay 50m+ for him?

Your final paragraph is interesting, I take it you don't think Eddie can take us to the top? If all things were equal (obviously they aren't).

Dibling would cost 50m+ don't think we can afford to spend such sums on players who aren't going to immediately improve us.

We couldn't replace him with anyone near his level, losing him would be a disaster and a real indication of things stalling.

Just to be clear when speaking about a super league in referring to the proposal of ditching Uefa not ditching the premier league.

A super league only affects Uefa competition and as I've mentioned in pretty sure absolutely nothing would have changed for fans of those clubs who joined in. Realistic speaking football fans generally don't walk away from the clubs they support. Given they all pretty much signed up for this concept it goes to show they came to the same conclusion. Money is so deeply embedded into football and thirst for more knows zero boundaries.

Aye maybe but if they are so easily placated when the life was being sucked out if us doesn't say much does it? To be clear what Ashley did to us is several magnitudes worst than what a super league would mean for these clubs.

On the contrary theyd be absolutely fine, we didn't walk away when Ashley pillage us for 14 years why would their fans walk away because they joined another competition?

They want the glamour ties against Europe's elite though, they just don't want to have to earn said games they want them by divine right.

Tron, the big club wants a super league because it guarantees revenue regardless of sporting performance, all these clubs want as much as money as possible and that money to be guaranteed. If they suck for awhile, do what they want to be paid. That's what drives all of this.

Yeah the righteous fury against us and City for having owners who are richer than the owners of the other clubs is all the reasoning needed.

The way to navigate it is quite clear and straightfotware however it's unlikely they choose that path. They simply have to get back to all being in agreement of whatever rules they want to publish. So basically horse trade with one another until you find something palatable to all members.

This is one way of addressing of the structural weakness or strengths depending on where you sit of the current rules. Unfortunately the league would never agree to such rules as they want the field firmly tilted. Your proposal essentially ends the gravy train for the likes of Palace.

I think we get a clear answer as to who has won when new rules are agreed, I’m really intrigued to see which approach the league takes.

Think he’s a really good journalist personally like. The case is obviously nuanced too.

Matt slater of the Athletic describing it as a draw fwiw. Also according to Matt Slater it he rules brought in when we were takeover are unlawful and we are back to the rules prior to that.