Kid Icarus

Owen, Parker, and Dyer I'd guess.

Was looking for some word associated inspiration to make a hilarious quip on his surname. The word association generator cut straight to the chase

https://youtube.com/shorts/t5ie55NR8Lw?feature=share Hmm, interesting

I guess we won't be playing out from the back then. 8-10m is a good fee and he seems like a decent shotstopper. The proof will be in the pudding for me because I haven't paid loads of attention to him.

Not sure they are now tbh. As soon as we ditched Puma they've started bringing out some beauts.

I beg you to please at least diversify your references man, it's painful

I was alright with not getting Raphina if he was going to Barcelona or even Spurs, but Arsenal getting him is a strange one when they have Saka and Martinelli. We should be all over that™

Sterling doesn't miss loads of chances though. It was a few seasons ago he was like that, ironically when he still scored loads of goals

He gets shit from the left as well because he goes on like the stereotype of a liberal who's only bothered about the spectacle of civility and oratory, rather than anything substantive that would involve having any ideological consistency. E.g Pointing out how awful Trump was for doing something that Obama also did, someone he seemingly loves.

The rest of us don't get an expenses paid trip to Qatar to do punditry on a football tournament, then excuse themselves as going there to do 'reporting' like they're Jeremy Bowen on the front line.

Rules for thee not for me.

You only need to think back on every 'keeper we've had since Given to give Dubravka his dues. I missed that period people talk about where he was supposedly dodgy, but every time I've seen him he's been largely a steady pair of hands.

Oof. I don't rate Pope and I don't rate JWP either. Worrying

Krafth's been great but I think most fans have noticed that. For me it's a split between Dubravka, Schar, and Shelvey who've all performed really well under Howe but not really got much credit.

Graeme Bailey/90 mins is absolutely right as a bad source. Consistently wrong

I do a bit though, When it was first mentioned back in 2020 I went away and tried to learn about it. That freakonomics episode I posted yesterday covers pretty much everything if you're interested. Like I say, nothing wrong with questioning whether it works or not, but it undoubtedly does exist and is attempted.

You have nothing to back up what you're saying aside from your own gut feeling on it. Meanwhile sportswashing has been going on and explicitly admitted to by the people doing it for years. Its effectiveness and whether it actually has a Streisand effect is another matter, but saying sportswashing doesn't exist or that the Saudis aren't attempting it is just blind.

Conversations tend to go off on tangeants. See for yourself:

This we can agree on. The whole debate being played out among fans and sportsmen and women is ideal for those with actual power and is malpractice on the part of journalists imo. I've said it before but they have no intellectual curiosity and are far too preoccupied with moralising.

Wouldn't have a problem with it all being moved in there if the mods wanted to, the conversation just flowed to this, as they do.

Sorry for the interupting the thread with a conversation. Please feel free to get back to the golden 'huhuhuh he's slow' patter for the next 48 hours

Yes mate, it's a forum.

If you didn't see it then I'm pleased for you, because I wish I'd never seen it either. Attacking Amnesty International and Hatice Cengiz, constantly bringing up everywhere and everything that's done the terrible things Saudi Arabia has, pointing to the other things Saudi Arabia invests in, that the UK sells them weapons so why should we care, claiming people didn't care about it before they bought us, claiming it was all an anti-NUFC agenda, that it's racist, or just outright that they don't care. Ringing any bells? Not saying all of them don't have fair arguments attached to them, but getting into the realms of saying things like 'well they bomb such and such, why are you picking on me?' is getting into the realms of inadvertantly putting forward the philosophical argument of 'if everyone's guilty no one's guilty' when really you're just trying to defend supporting your football club, which no one should have to do. Re the bit in bold, I didn't say that it is that, I said they end up crossing the line and doing that like in the examples above. I've said it many times, but under Ashley the excuse was 'support the team not the regime' and the truth is that we didn't have a say in any of it. We can quite easily leave it at that, but there are some that will defend and deflect for the owners and it's self-evident that there are those in our fanbase (and Man City's) who do that, so not absolute nonsense at all.

Timely https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-is-sportswashing-and-does-it-work/

The rationale for defending and deflecting doesn't change the fact that they're doing it. It is happening yes - all you have to do is read the threads on here when it was looking like happening in 2020, or just on Twitter in general. No one's out there saying to themselves "I'm going to defend the things the Saudis have done" like, who would? They're out there defending our relationship with our owners and in doing so often cross the line into inadvertantly defending and deflecting from the things the Saudis have done. Because of our fans' emotional link to the club, when people come along and legitimately criticise the owners and our relationship with them, fans take it to heart (because of our emotional attachment to the club) and in trying to defend something they love, end up defending and deflecting for the Saudis. I'm not moralising or owt, it seems like a pretty clear cut case of people defending their emotional attachment and looking after their own material interests, but I think it's weird that people also try and pretend it's not happening.