Rayvin

Good analysis

Wasn't that bombing? Bombing, ridiculously, doesn't count as 'war'.

Has he been moping like? Not been paying much attention but I don't think I heard anything to suggest that.

Does sound good tbf.

Tbf, there was Chez's proposed model which looked like something you'd find while calculating derivatives in the banking sector. Simplicity won out in the end though.

It's one point for a correct 'goals conceded' and one point for a correct 'goals scored'. That's all there is to it as far as I know?

Hm. Still though, the younger generations should absolutely be making this a priority. It's hard to say they can blame the old if they didn't vote. I reserve the right to blame the old because I do vote though

I hadn't seen it, so thanks. Encouraging to read; maybe the government will move to that position. The real difficulty IMO is that I don't see what they can possibly say to the Leave crowd if they have to accept any form of immigration. How do you 'spin' that?

Fair points HF. The club needs much better management in a business sense, and many of those things you've mentioned wouldn't cost a fortune to fix so its lethargy if it's anything. We probably need an upgrade on Charnley as well. He's the Pardew of the administration side. Actually that might be generous. The John Carver of the same, perhaps...

Sounds to me like Mourinho is lining up an escape already... https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/25/jose-mourinho-manchester-united-manager-disaster-hotel

Next year will be about consolidation anyway, and I strongly suspect that we'll be able to go toe to toe with the lower half of the PL without worry. Leicester managed to win the league with a team that should have struggled ffs, with the right mentality and organisation we should be fine. If we strengthen one or two areas, get ourselves established again, then we'll be able to kick on in the 3rd season of Rafa's term with us.

:lol: Next we'll have Quiff trying to poke HF in the eye...

ewerk trying to reduce the pressure on himself there but really, this is his to lose

Aye that's true - but the populist support it had was anti-establishment, which I was (lazily) pointing to. The Tea Party itself is Neoliberalism taken to its inevitable conclusion, but the populist support, I would argue, are simply anti-establishment - and the establishment is Neoliberal. Take them out if you want, they weren't central to the point. Just lazy labelling on my part.

It's ridiculous how much everyone took to Mitro He hasn't achieved a great deal with us at all but his attitude has gone a long way. I'd love to see him properly established here and doing well.

On the plus side, we can be fairly confident that her spell as president is going to keep Wikileaks in business...

That makes sense, I can see the logic of Gatwick being used instead based on that. That's also true I'll probably just back out of this now, I'm agreeing with everyone. That said, the stat you've posted there is disgraceful.

Absolutely agree with this. It's terrifying.

Did you read the article that I posted a few days back that explained what Neoliberalism is and the problems it is responsible for...? At this point it's not so much 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' and more the prevailing ideology that the West lives by. Neoliberalism is fundamentally a backlash against the welfare state; it's about true competition in markets and the classification of all people as consumers. It isn't directly comparable to Neoconservatism in the way we think of politics. You're thinking of this as a binary 'conservatives are on the right, liberals are on the left' issue. In reality, Neoconservatism is about interventionist foreign policy and a general support for Israel, predominantly. Neoliberalism is the general philosophy by which the West operates. Despite the terms, they're not comparable labels. Comparing them is the same as comparing Soviet foreign policy with Communism. Neoconservatives can and have been Neoliberals as well. Reagan is generally considered to be a conservative president. He's also a leading Neoliberal, based on his economic policies. Thatcher was a Neoliberal. Blair was. These people believe in the market above all else. Opposition to Neoliberalism traditionally comes from the Tea Party right (or Brexit), and the Socialist Left (Corbyn and then some). the reason I keep harping on about it, is that this Neoliberalist ideology that we live under, is causing absolute mayhem with people's lives now. It's failures are giving us Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, the rise of the hard right in Europe, the annihilation of Greece, rampant wealth inequality, and so on. Neoconservatism has given us ISIS and terrorism, but they're directly tied to foreign policy.

It's not that they're democrats, it's that they're Neoliberals.

I'll just drop this from the Guardian about Elizabeth Warren and how much better it could have been than Clinton... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/25/elizabeth-warren-us-president-workers-rights-wall-street

Aye. And it's not like we haven't won 6-0, away, this season already...

Not that tonight's game has much to do with whether or not we get promoted, but we're starting to look pretty fucking consistent. And as Howay says, our strength in depth is formidable.