GenBr

8 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

Couple of randoms on Twitter speculating on the name of the manager. The name being an ex-derby player. 

I know you can't say names explicitly on here, but how long ago are we talking here for player and manager? Relatively recent?

What i would like to see:

Wildsmith

Oduroh Davies Cashin Forsyth

Bird

Knight sibley

NML mcgoldrick barkhuizen

What i think we will actually see: 

Wildsmith

Knight Davies Cashin roberts

Bird hourihane

sibley

NML collins dobbin

Think we win comfortably with first set up, but once again dominate possession with no end product with the second.

If we go same as last time i predict 2 - 0 defeat for us

19 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

That's their lot. Plus 3000 away fans or something similar. 

I'd expect the home following to dwindle as their full repertoire of crapness is revealed.... ?

They are still averaging well below 30k this season.

14 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Jason Knight is our best player.

Not at right back he isnt

8 hours ago, Crewton said:

 

Why are the attendances so low? Has part of their dump been condemned?

We had a packed house every week last time we were in the prem just to watch us get pasted week in week out

11 hours ago, WestStandStartTheBounce said:

Scott Parker

No thanks. We dont have hundreds of millions of pounds in parachute payments to help him out

6 minutes ago, Warwick Ram said:

The issue now is we play Oduroh and risk mistakes or we try to convert someone into a right back. Either way it is a risk.

The current player we are trying to shoe horn into the right back position gave a penalty away today, so it can't be much worse to play a recognised right back there even if they are inexperienced.

Knight needs to be in midfield. Play literally anybody else at right back

3 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Fair point on the first paragraph - correction accepted.

Last paragraph is conjecture, no challenge on you feeling my version is not as you see it but your conclusions drawn are really quite extreme in your analysis of Russian foreign policy - way, way beyond what most political analysts (inside and outside Russia) are concluding.

Sorry the last paragraph is not conjecture at all. Nor is beyond what most political analysts are concluding - certainly not inside Russia and not for most outside either.

Russian foreign policy goals are pretty universally accepted. Not sure why you think otherwise or what you actually think their goals are, but defensible borders has been the driving force behind Russian expansionism for the past 300 years. It was the goal under the tsars, it was the goal under Stalin and now it is the goal for Putin. I would love to hear your counter thpugh as to why Russua likes to attack all of its neighbours.

Its because they don't actually understand what freedom of speech means. A lot of people even think they are not allowed to be criticised for some of the reprehensible views they espouse and will shout "freedom of speech" as if they think it gives them a free pass to say and do whatever they want without consequence.

5 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Cooper invested in the 'project' at Forest. Let's not kid ourselves, Forest are a bigger club than Brighton. A few seasons in the premier League for Brighton doesn't change that. Last season's mid table finish was the highest in their entire history.

Forest and Cooper will believe they can surpass Brighton. I imagine Forest would also up his salary to something Brighton wouldn't match. The owner has shown he doesn't mind throwing the cash about. Brighton are a much more sensible club, they know their limits.

It's a move that simply wouldn't happen.

As i said previously a couple of European cups half a century ago doesnt make Forest a bigger club. Lets not be silly here. Forest will be back in the championship next year, but i very much doubt Brighton will be.

Brighton are also happy to splash the cash - particularly on wages, so thats never going to be an issue.

Just stating its a move that wont happen is pointless. None of the reasons you've given are strong enough to prevent Cooper leaving.

9 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Much as pains me, I would never think of a move from Forest to Brighton as a step up .  Historically, there a 3rd/4th tier team who only spent 4 years in the top flight prior to this spell.

You've got the same stuck in the past mentality as forest fans then. You need to bring yourself into 2022. Brighton is and has been a bigger club than Forest for a while now and is most certainly a step up for Cooper. They are a massive step up over us as well.

People need to get over events that happened decades ago. They are completely irrelevant to the decision making of managers like Cooper. 

14 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

I doubt they'd approach him, he wouldn't leave Forest for Brighton 

Why not? Coopers reputation is going to take a massive hit when his disjointed squad of nobodies gets relegated at a canter. Brighton has better facilities, better players, will likely pay him more, a better stadium and better attendances.

Forest are a smaller team than Brighton as it currently stands. Forest winning a couple of European cups half a century ago isn't going to keep him there. 

19 minutes ago, Srg said:

Tuchel sacked.

Probably should have given him more time, but can't say they didn't back him in the transfer market. Even Forest didn't spend as much as they did

1 hour ago, LittleEatonRam said:

In the same way that many clubs who were once in the PL view themselves as PL clubs still (ask a Stoke or Bolton fan etc and I'm fairly sure they'd say "we're a Premier League club, we should be up there") there is now a small cohort of teams emerging who equally think they deserve to be an elite club. Their fans then insist on the club spending elite money on players in the hope of getting into the CL but the obvious major obstacle to this is that there are only four places in it.

When you have 7 or 8 clubs competing for 4 CL places then half of them will lose out and have their delusions of grander burst in front of their eyes. For me this is what is happening to Leicester now, and may happen to Newcastle in the future too.

Newcastle fans have always had delusions of grandeur. Gonna be even worse if the petro state can't achieve their rightful place a the top of English football

9 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

 

 

What I don’t understand is how Brighton had an average of £50k yet a £107m bill. That covers 40 players.

 

Yeh i thought that was strange as well. I think it covers non playing staff as well, but even so you wouldnt expect those wages to make a massive dent on that total

4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

£107m? Where have you got that figure from?

That is £2m a week. That puts 25 players on an average of over £80k per week. There is no chance of that.

Don’t get me wrong, the salaries above which I wrote were off Spotrac. Some need updating, and they are base salaries which do not include clauses, bonuses or other incentives.

 

"The average wage of a Brighton player topped £50,000 a week for the first time
Brighton players earned an average of £50,601 per week in 2020-21, the first time in the club’s history that pay has gone beyond the £50,000. The average wage of the Albion’s 2016-17 promotion winning squad was £18,753 per week.

In 2017-18, Chris Hughton’s side ended the campaign 15th in the Premier League with an average weekly pay of £36,049. Graham Potter worked with a squad of players in 2020-21 who were paid around 38% more than Hughton’s team and finished a place lower.

The Albion’s total wage bill increased by over £5 million, up from £103.2 million in 2019-20 to £108.9 million. Expenditure on matchday staff dropped as games took place behind closed doors, requiring only 90 non-playing staff employed on a part time basis compared to 536 in 2019-20."

And from 2019

12 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Villa won't go down. Leicester have a few good players but at the moment they just look a complete mess. 

Neither will leeds, but one can dream

47 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Imagine a Leeds, Forest, Leicester relegation.

Getting giddy just at the thought of it

I'd take a villa, florest and leicester bottom 3 as well

4 minutes ago, Mckram said:

That second half was absolutely insane. No game management at all. Poor from Liam and I hope he holds his hands up and has learnt lessons there. 

He will be absolutely delighted in his post match interview

I think theyve done a great job this season.

Even when we're free of restrictions I'd rather our transfer policy be closer to this than the buy every teams player of the year for inflated prices that we did under Mel

44 minutes ago, BucksRam said:

I don't know what pleased me more.  Seeing Florist panned or having captained Haaland in the FPL.  

But jokes aside, it does show the huge disparity in this league that they're still nowhere near the elite teams despite spending something like £150m, sticking someone like £100k a week Lingard on the bench, and rumoured for even more incomings on deadline day.  I really don't want to see any team fail but there's always exceptions  ?

Yeh but they spent £50mill on a guy thats only ever scored one premier league goal and didnt even play for Wolves most of the time. I could spend £100 mill to buy Jake Buxton, but it doesnt mean he would be capable of stopping Haaland scoring

On 31/08/2022 at 10:16, BaaLocks said:

The general split is that everything east of the Dneiper is Russian Orthodox and looks towards the east, everything west is Catholic and looks to the west.

All I am saying is that it is great that we (generic :-)) seem to confidently know what every part of Ukraine wants when we drape our flags over the front porch, maybe ask some of these regions where they want to belong - especially Crimea.

If Zelensky wanted this over tomorrow all he would have to say would be that he would be open to a referendum in the three disputed regions, watched over by third parties to prevent fraud, and he would comply with the result. I can all but guarantee Putin would agree to that also. Of course Russia is every part of wrong in their invasion, both in undertaking it and the actions since, but it is a naive view to believe that just defeating the Russians will resolve the situation indefinitely.

To your last paragraph, not everyone views it as an invasion, some view it as a liberation. Russia has not invaded (and I do see it as an invasion btw) to expand (or, more correctly, create) an empire. They have done this to liberate those in Eastern Ukraine they see as their rightful citizens. You can disagree with that point, but you likely won't progress the discussion until you understand it.

Everything west of the Dnieper is not catholic - not even close. You are correct that that region of Ukraine looks more towards the west, but the vast majority of Ukraines population are Orthodox Christians and even the minority of Catholics that exist in the country still use a lot of Orthodox rights.

Areas such as the Crimea may very well vote to join Russia if a referendum was held, but Ukraine should not be expected to lop off parts of its country because somebody decided to launch an unsuccessful military invasion of their country. If Russia loses this war it will be a very long time, if ever, before they would be in a position to try it again. Putin will not survive a defeat and the Russian nation will have far greater problems to deal with if they are pushed out of Ukraine. Yes Russia may eventually try again, but with a collapsing population and miniscule economic power they are likely going to face the same result. 

Your last paragraph is not entirely correct. Russian foreign policy is entirely based on securing more defensible borders for themselves. The Soviet Union controlled virtually all of the necessary gates into the Russian sphere. Modern Russia only controls a handful. Securing Ukraine is not enough for them - they would need to push into Moldova as well to anchor the border on the Carpathians. They control the Crimea for now, but they also want to push back into central Asia to secure the central asian corridor and ideally into Poland to secure the polish gap. Most of the Russian elite base their foreign policy goals on the works of Dugin, which is frankly stupid, but thats the world we live in.

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I've seen people say this a couple of times now, but based off what?
So far this season he's been in the U21 squad twice and played just 18 minutes out of their 6 games. 10 other CMs have had more game time already.
Last season he was in and out of the team as 6th most used CM, playing less than 40% of the available minutes.

Based off the opinions of Chelsea fans and people involved with the club. 

He has played enough minutes for people to make an assessment on his abilities.

Not that it really matters, but it is still a complete waste of time to be loaning a player for the U21s. If he impresses for U21s we're not going to keep him.

1 hour ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

You would think that Wassall/Rosenior would have a plan or reason in mind as we are not in the position financially to use up a loan ( senior or youth ) frivolously ? 

We might not be paying any wages for him in which case it is a free hit, but still seems pointless to me. As above if he does do well here I very much doubt we'll be in a position to sign him in a years time.

1 hour ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

If that’s the case then more likely we’ll take a look at him in u23s initially then he’ll get in first team if he’s that good.

I know our U21 team was decimated curing administration, but again I still don't think we should be wasting time putting somebody elses player into our academy on the off chance that he might play for our first team every now and again. 

33 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Could be someone that isn’t going to make the Chelsea grade who we see potential in and could integrate into our club, loan first but then permanent possibly down the line, for those saying an u23 loan will be pointless.

He is apparently highly rated by Chelsea. Yes not every single one of Chelseas youth players makes it to their first team, but if we end up signing this guy I will be extremely surprised. Seems a complete waste of time to me. If he's not going into the first team and we don't own him I wouldn't waste our time.

50 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

 

Unless we're going to sign permanently eventually seems a bit pointless to loan a player and stick him in the youth teams.

On 28/08/2022 at 05:59, Archied said:

How long before we find out that it’s nothing to do with human suffering and freedom and there’s some vast deposits  of mineral like lithium or some such thing in the regions being fought over 

Ukraine is larger than France and has billions of tonnes of raw materials buried within its borders. Yes it has large deposits of Lithium and most of its coal production was in the east of the country. They also have significant Uranium deposits, as well as hosts of other valuable minerals. The West supporting Ukraine has never had anything to do with freedom and democracy though. The stated aim is the destruction of Russian military power to ensure they can't do something like this again for a long time - not exactly a secret. We also want to use them as an alternative to China for certain materials

On 29/08/2022 at 12:41, sage said:

I can see support for Ukraine cooling slightly over the next few months. Countries will not be able to cope with high gas prices year upon year. 

They will come under pressure to accept a compromise with Russia over the Don as and Crimea. 

It will all be coded as western politicians don't want to be seen as the first one to break cover on this, it will come. 

 

The only support that matters to the Ukraine is the United States and they are energy independent, so won't have any need to negotiate with Russia. European countries aren't going to be able to produce enough weapons to keep the support at the same level either way and Germany can't pretend to be helping forever. The United States is the only nation with the capabilities and the military and economic strength to keep this going for a significant period of time.

On 29/08/2022 at 21:44, Archied said:

You honestly believe putin dies and all is hunky dory? If it were that simple and clear cut he would be dead already 

Putin is one of the most heavily protected people on the face of the earth - killing him isn't that simple. And it isn't his death that would make the situation better - it would be dependent on who ended up replacing him. If its an oligarch they will more than likely attempt to extricate the country form the war. If its another FSB agent probably more of the same, but even then they can't keep bleeding themselves in Ukraine forever.