The Fish

To be fair, Man City aren't known for spending a lot of money. Two seconds, I've just got to wipe the memory of Jo, Mangala and Roque Santa Cruz from my memory...

Semantics, isn't it? Leicester deserved to finish top of the pile because they took their opportunity to do so when other teams did not. Fair dos. But they didn't have the best players, the best manager, the best style, or the best anything, bar the only thing that matters; the best results. My original point was that we've fallen past, and been usurped by, clubs that were nothing clubs not so long ago.

Sterling was a better player but wasn't in the same form as Mahrez. Don't think we'll ever agree on that, so lets have a look at the rest of that Leicester squad; Schmeichel Simpson Huth Morgan Fuchs Albrighton Drinkwater Kante Mahrez Okazaki Vardy Not exactly star studded now is it? At the beginning of that season you wouldn't have picked that squad for top half, would you.

What about Navas? What about all the other better players at City? Face it you talked shite, got caught out, and are now trying desperately to redirect the conversation away from the shite you talked. It's ok Thompers, I'll be the bigger man and forgive you.

No it was Jesus Navas and Raheem Sterling, both better than Mahrez, you dopey argumentative bellwhiff. #ThompersGonnaThomp

Ferguson's Man United bought Eric Djemba Djemba #Mustbemintthen. Drinkwater has barely featured, Kante is good, no doubt, is Mahrez better than Sane? De Bruyne? Silva? Is he fuck. Fucking Thompers

I agree and Leicester winning the league was truly bizarre, that's why they were 5000-1 (or whatever) to win the league. Man for man they were weaker in most if not every position than the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and the Manchester club. They were didn't have the best manager in the league. They worked hard, had a striker and 2 midfielders in the form of their lives and because of their previous season rarely went into a game as favourites meaning they could play the counter attack style that was very successful. No serious pundit expected them to get top half let alone win the thing. It's a total aberration and whenever people say "yeah, but Leicester won the league", what they're really saying is that nothing is set in stone. That's fine, but it's never happened before (afaik) and it's unlikely to happen again, so it doesn't really stack up as evidence of anything much at all.

That's not true though, is it? Sometimes the best team doesn't win a football match because of a ludicrous performance by the opposition 'keeper. Sometimes the best team is screwed out of a win by poor officiating, or bad luck. Sometimes the best team's striker has an off-day and the opposition striker plays out of their skin. So if all that is true, it's entirely possible for a few games to go against the "best team" and for a team that is fundamentally not the "best team" can steal a march. Ferguson's last Man United squad were not the best team in the league, but they won it.

They won the league because of a perfect storm. Similar to when we finished 5th. Underrated players maintaining superb form, good luck with injuries, poor performances by other (traditionally elite) Premier League sides. It's not unfair to say that, because it's patently true. Of course I'd love Newcastle to win/have won the league, but, with the owner we have, the players we have and the players we're likely to get, that's not going to happen.

This shit right here is why there aren't any good right wing comedians.

Leicester's Premier League is an aberration. It's also the exception that everyone brings up when their position is weak. My point stands. Where once we were signing world class talent, then competing with Arsenal, Tottenham or whomever for signings, now we're competing with the likes of Leicester and Cardiff. If you'd told an 18yr old Fish that, he would have spat his Pimms all over his blazer.

How far we done fell

That comes in the return leg.

When was the last time a side was relegated to league 1 and returned? Southampton? That took them 7 seasons, administration and a takeover by a billionaire. Edit - It was Leicester in 2014 and it took them 10 years and a takeover by mandaric, then the King Power Group. Leeds and Portsmouth are much less fortunate, the former has been out of the top flight for 14yrs, the latter 8 and neither looking likely to return any time soon. Best possible case for Sunderland is an immediate return to the Championship for the 2019/20 season and a subsequent promotion for the Premier League's 20/21 season. I just can't see that happening short of a miracle or cheating on a Football Manager save. 21 clubs have been relegated from the Premier League down to at least League 1. 2 clubs were in League 2 this season; Swindon & Coventry, 7 were in League 1; Blackburn Rovers, Blackpool, Bolton Wanderers, Bradford City, Charlton Athletic, Oldham Athletic & Portsmouth, 9 in the Championship; Barnsley, Leeds United, Norwich City, Nottingham Forest, QPR, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Wigan Athletic, Wolves, and only 3 have returned; Leicester, Southampton and Man City. The average time spent out of the top flight for double relegated teams is 12 years. Sunderland are far, far more likely to join the ranks of Norwich and Leeds, than they are to become the next Leicester or Southampton.

I like the dunno one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wiping out the money they owe him is one thing, but paying off the external creditors is another. If he's done that, they should erect a statue for the poor sap. Bank rolling them, spending a fortune on players and managers, the man's a saint. Don't they still owe money on transfers too?

I thought it was common knowledge that Donald hasn't a pot to piss in compared to other owners of recent Premier League clubs? Even some League One owners are wealthier than him (Portsmouth & Scunthorpe e.g.). These mystery backers need to be willing and able to pump a lot of money into that club.

I knew there was a reason Parky didn't like him.

It's weird, when I was a kid nobody read comics, and they were very much counter culture, but now they're mainstream af

Time doesn't necessarily equal quality though. Some terrible films are years (and hundreds of millions) in the making, and others take no time and have a modest budget but are great. The world doesn't need 99% of the movies that come out, and there are far far worse movies that cost similar amounts. The Michael Bay movies are a prime example. There's not a finite number of movies that can be produced and the fault doesn't lie with Marvel for being successful and dominating the box office, it's the other studios not coming up with anything to challenge their current dominance. Does it drag it down, or are you just getting older and find yourself outside the demographic that make up majority of the cinema going public? I don't see them recycling the ideas now, and even the recent origin movies are markedly different to those that began the "universe". Were it not for the deliberate effort to tie them all in, you'd not necessarily know that Guardians of the Galaxy was in anyway linked to Captain America: Winter Soldier, or Thor. The ratings and reviews are a side issue for me, I think that some critics rate them for what they are, rather than against things like the Godfather or Three Billboards, which is why you'll never see a Superhero movie actor picking up an Oscar for his portrayal of a talking tree. Take away all the superpowers and maybe, but by their very nature they won't receive genuine critical acclaim (and rightly so). I tend to go off the opinions of people I trust, rather than IMDB or whatever.

Lee Hurst?

I often see right leaning people state that left leaning folk don't have a sense of humour. Yet the overwhelming majority of successful comedians are left leaning in their act or off stage. If the left have George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Frankie Boyle and the right have Mrs Brown's Boys and Mind your Language, I know who I'd accuse of a humour deficiency.

Started and stopped reading there, tbh. Aren't there plenty of Action movies out there, that aren't based on a comic book? Off the top of my head; Rampage, Jurassic Park, Fast & the Furious, Robin Hood, Pacific Rim, King Kong/Godzilla, whatever vehicle for Jason Statham is on at the minute etc. ?

There's not a finite number of films produced a year. Marvel Studios pumping out 2 blockbusters a year doesn't stop Manchester by the Sea or Get Out coming out. I don't think your issue is the number of Superhero movies, I think it's the quality of some of them. If each one was as good as, say, Logan or Deadpool, you surely wouldn't mind?

Then they're too stupid to live. If you're incapable of seeing the difference between Ant Man and Winter Soldier e.g., you should stick to Big Mommas House and Sherlock Gnomes. What movie did you want to watch?