Cf

I understand trying to hold out for what you think a player is worth fwiw. But equally it's true that a player is ultimately worth what someone else is willing to pay. And it's not like people are queueing up for his signature.

If the player wants the move I'm not sure why he'd sign a new contract with a release clause higher than what anyone is actually willing to pay for him. Palace finished strongly last season so it's possible he'll have a decent season. It's just as likely though he'll be just one defender in a mid table team who isn't riding off the back of England exposure. His value will just naturally deterioate a bit and that's without even considering his dwindling contract.

Yet the bookies seem to have him favourite as first to go... https://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/next-manager-to-leave-post

As much as I want this signing I can't help but think we should show that we are willing to walk away and come back next summer with a £30m offer instead.

Tripper was a hugely important signing for us, arguably one of our most important ever, and he's been absolutely immense for us. However... He's nearly 34, and we have a ready to go replacement in Livramento who I think we all mainly agree should be starting ahead of him. So Trippier would be mainly as backup, and at 34 he won't be backup for long. With the PSR nonsense I can see the appeal in wanting to get a fee. This is the last chance to do so. And I suspect Trippier himself would want to start each week. So I think it's a move that makes sense for both parties.

I think I would. It sorts our defence out for the next 10 years.

What does "right to match any bids" even means? Anyone can bid whatever they like surely.

We're now officially part of the "big 7".

I mean they need to get you to share that link somehow

Whilst I appreciate there's other positions and priorities this is exactly the level of bench sitter we should have if we want to be at the top.

My "translations" were tongue in cheek to a degree and I imagine Howe cares deeply for his players, current and former. But you've also got to have that cold streak of doing what is best for the team. If that means someone is surplus to requirements then they have to go. It's possible to do this whilst being respectful, speaking highly of them, etc. He'll never say e.g. of Anderson in public that he was let go due to being the expendable one due to a factor of PSR and not being quite good enough, but I imagine in the background that's the conversation that was had. Obviously publicly he'll go with "good player, disappointed to lose him, etc, etc". I guess that's my point: we shouldn't read into such quotes as being Howe was against that transfer. (The quotes about club structure etc are a different matter - that felt like a kettle of fish he opened intentionally)

I never said he was a callous duplicitous liar, just that he lies through his teeth to the media

Probably reading too much into it but felt like Hall featured very heavily in that video.

We all know that Eddie Howe lies his face off every time he speaks to the media yeah? He knows exactly how PSR works. "I'd love to keep" means "get them out of my sight" and "I'm disappointed to have lost" means "thank fuck they're not my problem anymore". He knows the story and the squad rebuild we need and he has a history of ruthlessly changing players. He'll be fully versed and involved with what's happening.

Looking at your Guardiolas, Klopps, Artetas... Aren't they making all the big calls? They're not some Brighton style where you can just swap the coaches in and out. They've made those teams in their images with long term projects. Yeah for sure there'll be teams behind them but they're very much in the driving seat, no? They're way more than the guy who takes training and pick the team. That's my one concern with Eales' comments about Eddie being best on the grass. I don't want us to have this mindset where the manager is an easily rotatable piece.

I think on balance it sounds ok but I have some nerves that weren't there before. Eales' comments about wanting Eddie to focus on the grass are suggestive of the type of system where the manager has little input beyond training and picking the team, with overall direction, strategy, and players selected a level above. That sort of system might work in allowing some mid table stability player/manager churn but the top teams have long term managers who have input on all that stuff. I'm not saying Eddie needs total control, and I'm sure it'll all be fine, but as I say it's a slight concern whereas it wasn't before.

Garbage is probably a bit too strong in that instance I guess. But was another where I think we achieved at the lower ends of what we'd have expected to. Games until France were Iran, USA, Wales, Senegal. On paper all games England should (and to our credit mostly did) win comfortably.

I feel so gaslit watching the coverage about this. Yeah he did a good job 8 years ago. For the last 4 he's been garbage.

Staff should be the same as players. Have to be that nationality and if you could pick more than one once you choose you're locked in.

I think Bellingham saved him from this fate with his last minute equaliser. Had we gone out then the narrative would be very different despite the job he'd done being exactly the same.

Just heard Southgate gone on LBC.

In terms of the tournament being interesting there's just too many teams. Due to the seedings being split over 6 groups there weren't many interesting on paper matches. And because of 6 groups and this concept of best 3rd places to to round of 16 it encouraged safety first play where you could qualify from your group by drawing your games. Needs to go back to 4 groups of 4.

How the fuck Gordon got 5 minutes in the entire tournament will be a mystery for the ages.

Summed him up that.

One thing I will say in our defence is we do a good job of making other teams look not good. Whilst looking crap ourselves of course.