Dr. Gonzo

That's an incredibly fast mile tbh

That's actually a shocking misinterpretation of the vaccine from a healthcare professional. The protected are protected from the most serious effects of COVID compared to what happens to unvaccinated people, for the most part. Yes, it's true that the vaccinated can still get COVID. But when they do it's often incredibly mild compared to what would happen if they were unvaccinated. They can pass it on to other people as well (although apparently they're less likely to pass it off to other people, especially other vaccinated people). So forcing the "unprotected" to use the protection "that did not protect the protected in the first place" is a huge misrepresentation of the situation. People who've been vaccinated by in large are protected from being hospitalised by the virus, from the long term effects of covid, they've got greater protection than the bog standard wearing a mask and washing their hands. Part of it is getting these "unprotected" to be protected, and part of it is simply to protect society at large. If you've got very low odds of passing the virus onto someone else when you are vaccinated and when someone else is vaccinated - it does a good job of slowing down the spread of the virus. And the sooner the world can say they've significantly slowed the spread of the virus worldwide, the less risk we have of different variants. Children younger than a certain age can't get the vaccines in many places still. People who've got vaccine allergies or sensitivities also can't get the vaccine for obvious reasons. I think healthcare professionals should know better in terms of the effect of the vaccine (both good and bad) and should better understand the societal risks - particularly the risk of passing on the vaccine to young children (which their patients might have) and potentially giving kids long-haul COVID and reducing the quality of those kids lives. So far the biggest risk I've heard of from these vaccines is the risk of blood clotting, which has a significantly lower chance of occurring in someone compared to the chances of catching COVID and the long term effects. For most people who can get the jab, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Considering there're parts of the world that are literally dying to be vaccinated, I can't help but think this concept of "vaccine freedom" is the height of Western privilege. We're all in this fight against COVID together, as a planet, and we've seen what this disease has done to the world. We should all do our part to get everyone's lives back to normal ASAP.

What happened to Kelleher? Gotta say, I feel more assured with him in goal over Adrian.

Even when they sacked him as manager they kept him around as an employee though - I think he's one of our "ambassadors" & I don't think he took it personally that he got sacked. He was brought in to wash away the stink Hodgson put on the club and probably the ideal man to bring in when the air around Anfield was full of toxicity. If there's a way to do it with Dalglish, there's a way to do it with Ferguson. The man will always be loved and respected at United, and for good reason. But if he's still having a say in how things operate at United, that's obviously not okay because he's going to be undermining people trying to do their jobs. If he wanted to still be involved, he should have asked to be Director of Football tbh. Honestly, if he'd done that, Moyes might have faired a lot better. I dunno if Woodward is a useless prick, he's done a brilliant job at making lots of money for Manchester United. I think you'd be hoping his replacement, on the corporate side of things, is as good as he is. But you'd also be hoping that whoever is brought in to replace him is also coming in with someone who understands football more than money to work with him - because that's obviously been a part of the problem, imo. A moneyman coming in and making football decisions in lieu of any experts (and perhaps putting too much trust in managers that the club didn't have faith in beyond a year) is silly. Just like you wouldn't ask Sir Alex Ferguson to strike up corporate deals with sponsors. The Glazers probably asked him to do too much and pushed him beyond his wheelhouse. But tbh, in terms of United being a profitable asset for their owners... he's done a good job. And considering how you've not really been a dominant force at all for years, I think he's maybe underrated at his job in keeping you as commercially viable as when you were amongst the best sides in Europe. Tbh, I think United have almost everything they need to be good again. They just need some focus on how they're spending the huge amounts of money they've got - because throwing money at problems without knowing how they'll be solving that problem doesn't actually do anything in most cases. Chelsea have embraced short-term thinking when they do it, City have taken a more long term approach. United have caught themselves between two minds in how they'll spend money and it's hurt them.

Sky Germany taking the piss out of Jadon Sancho

They'd probably have sacked him if he'd done that - at pretty much any club the owners are going to have some say. I think it's fucked up and parasitic the way the Glazers bought United and how they use money that could likely be spent on making United better on servicing debt for the club. But at the same time, the Glazers have given United lots of funding and honestly the managers have been well backed since Ferguson left. But Ferguson was the one doing long term & short term planning at United for decades, and by the end of his term he wasn't doing any long term planning he was overachieving with probably one of his worst squads after he'd turned United into a juggernaut. I think that's the real area to criticise Ferguson from a United fan's perspective: he didn't leave a good blueprint for anyone coming after him. And the Glazers are scummy owners, but they're honestly better at backing a manager than most other clubs in the world - their issue has been a lack of focus imo. United, with the amount they've spent in the last few years (second only to Man City) should be in a better state. But they have Woodward, a corporate accountant, making most of the decisions above the manager and tbh... he's not qualified to be making the footballing decisions. Business, sure. But there needs to be more structure above the manager at United nowadays - you don't have Ferguson anymore & I don't think United have really learned from that. When/if United get their new manager, I think they should have hired a Director of Football to work on implementing long term goals and setting short term goals for the manager to achieve. It's a part of modern football, imo, if you want to be successful you need to have long term plans - but a manager always needs to be focused on the short term because they live and die on their results as manager. Telling Ferguson to stay away from training and from making input at the club should be pretty easy for United to do, tbh. He'll always be a legend, but he's retired and hasn't been a football manager for a while. He can't be acting like a manager or director of football while he's no longer employed by the club, it's undermining what any manager would be wanting to do.

It certainly seems like a coup attempt. It may have been unsuccessful, but that should still count?

For me, if you want someone long term who'll stay for a while I think Erik Ten Hag ticks all the right boxes. Yes, it's a step up from Ajax to United and there may be a bit of a learning curve (I think every manager should be given at least a season unless they look furiously out of their depth) - but with him you know you'll play attractive football, he understands what it's like managing a club with lots of pressure and expectation, he's not afraid to promote youth, and he might get some of the expensive misfiring talent at United to remember that they're pretty good at football. And honestly, I think it's time for United to cut their losses on Pogba. He's obviously got a lot of talent, but his attitude is all wrong for United in their current state and while I think a lot of United players have the wrong attitude a lot of the time (I think there's a strong case to be made that Pogba's red was the 4th instance where a red card should have been shown on Sunday & United players were undisciplined because their pride was hurt and it was unprofessional and hurt United's football performance when you've got players more interested in lashing out than trying to do better on the pitch). A player sent on to change things that comes on and does fuck all other than get sent off, smiling as he walks off the pitch, while your team is in shambles losing 5-0 is an appalling attitude for a player at a club like United imo. The manager may be one of the problems at United, but I think there's problems above the manager at United (I don't think United have concrete goals for the long & short term at the club, signing Ronaldo even though he doesn't fit in just because City were close to signing him indicates that pretty strongly imo) and problems below the manager (I don't think the players can hide behind a bad manager for their own bad attitudes). Good attitudes and bad attitudes are infectious - anyone who's had to work around other people can confirm this. I think that's what Mourinho meant when he called a player (that the press seemed to indicate was Pogba) a "cancer" - he felt someone in the dressing room's bad attitude was rubbing off on his players.

Tbf though, Mourinho's Chelsea implosion was not the first implosion of his career. And in terms of getting results, which at the end of the day that's what you judge a manager on, Mourinho is pretty comfortably their best manager in a post-Ferguson era. To get the most out of Mourinho, you have to back him over the players - and for board rooms, I think that's uncomfortable because it's cheaper to replace one manager than it is to replace 5 or more players. And it can lead to letting good players go and shine elsewhere - like United would have binned off Shaw and while he was absolutely dogshit against us over the weekend, I think he's actually quite a good player. I'm not surprised at how Mourinho's term at Spurs went - he's managed just one club in his career where I think he wasn't at a place where he was expected to do well & it's the job he had before Porto picked him up. He's never had to take a pretty well off premier league side and build them into a contender before and I don't think his history as a manager in the last 20 years. I don't think Mourinho is suddenly a bad manager - I think football's changed a bit and he's probably not going to get top jobs unless he evolves, so he's got to learn how to do it at clubs like Spurs and Roma and build them into a top club so he can show he's still got it. But if United get in someone like Conte, who I think can turn them into contenders pretty quickly... they've also got to trust him and back him in the short term. Because managers like that, I don't think you keep around for years and years and years like they did with Ferguson - I think they're short term appointees because they have a history of fractious relations with boards (and sometimes players), you just bring them in so they can bring you success in that short time they're with you. So I think Neville's point re: Conte and Mourinho is - United tried the short term solution with Mourinho but weren't willing to back him in the way he wanted & as a result it ended with the Mourinho meltdown but without a league title or CL to show for. If they're not willing to invest in these short term managers, he doesn't think Conte will end up a success at United either. And I think it's part of the problem at United. The people making the decisions at United are caught in two mindsets: they want success now, but they also want the United manager to be the next Ferguson. It's not realistic, tbh - Ferguson is a legend for a reason and there aren't too many managers out there that have the history of longevity and success he had. And I think having lots of money but not having a concrete goal they're working towards other than "we want to be good again" just leads them to think they can throw money at a situation and see their goals achieved. I also think it's incredibly early in the season and being 8 points off first place is maybe a bit too early to start fucking panicking. It's not like Pep and Klopp haven't suffered embarrassing losses before... I don't think Solksjaer is the long term future for United, but if they went into the season expecting him to be that... then they should judge him once they can prove he's failed at his job. It's not an insurmountable lead they have to overcome to look like contenders again & historically his Man Utd sides have done better in the second half of a season. I agree with Carragher and Souness, where if United feels they should give him the full season, then nobody needs to be sacked at United - but the coaching staff needs some more experienced help because it's mostly novices and Phelan, who has a good reputation, but doesn't seem to be offering Ole any kind of advice on how to adapt when things are going poorly.

Some of these are silly names tbh. But some I could see coming. Zidane - maybe he wants to give a crack at making United good again a go, but I've heard he's waiting for the PSG job or the France job and tbh I could see both of those being more appealing to him. Getting to work with that insane PSG squad or with France, because he's a France legend... it seems more in line with what I'd expect him to do in his managerial career. Rodgers - I think he's learned a lot since he left Liverpool, both at Celtic and at Leicester. I think he's a better fit for getting United to be more competitive and playing better football. I don't know if he's the man to get a club to turn a corner and go from being "very good" to a genuine title winner & he doesn't really take European football all that seriously imo. But I think he's one of the better fits. Conte - this seems like the man to go for if you just want to throw money at the problem. Get him in, back him in who he wants to sell and buy - even if it means there will be a problem with squad balance for the next manager - and I think in 2-3 years he can win you a title. I don't think he'll stay much longer than those 2-3 years it takes him to win and it does mean there will be the issue of needing to "rebuild" again once he's left. It's basically going back to the Mourinho strategy of big name manager given big bucks to change things - if it works, it works and you've won a big title. If it doesn't work out though it's an expensive mistake. Mauricio Pochettino - I could actually see this happening. I don't think PSG and Poch are a good fit and I think he's not really enjoying the pressure he's finding himself under with them & trying to get Messi to fit in at PSG even though it unbalances the side. Having said that, I think most managers dream of getting to work with Messi so I'm not sure he'd willingly step down. I think he's one of the better fits too tbh, sort of like a "rich man's" Brendan Rodgers Erik Ten Hag - I can't see this happening mid-season while Ajax are still in the CL, but I could see him coming in the summer if United stick with Solksjaer for the rest of the season with an eye to a new manager at the end of the season. And honestly, I think this would be the ideal man for United to bring in - so I hope they don't. He plays good football, he understands what fans of a big club want and all the pressure that comes with a big club, he's got a good track record of promoting youth and a good track record of getting players that once weren't performing and getting them to perform at very high standards. This is who I would want if I were you - this is who I would want if Klopp were to leave tomorrow (which I hope the man never does leave us, tbh - but sadly I think he'll leave when his contract is up) Laurent Blanc - this one's interesting, I really don't know how good of a manager he is but his track record is already much better than Ole's. As manager of France, I think he had to deal with some weird political stuff that sort of impeded him from doing as well as he maybe should have. His time at PSG was quite successful though. He's now collecting a shitload of money managing in Qatar and that's not the best place to be getting a top level manager in though. I know absolutely nothing about the Qatar club he's at... so if I'm United I'd probably consider him but he wouldn't be my top choice. Massimliano Allegri - yeah, I'd consider him and probably take him if he were interested. I think he's someone you could count on doing pretty well as a manager and staying for a few seasons working towards a long term goal. Rafael Benitez - United could do a lot worse than appoint Rafa, but I doubt this ever happens and I really hope it doesn't. It's weird enough he's at Everton. Also I don't think United fans could ever take to him. And it's been a while since he's been at a big club that still has big expectations (I think he's at a big club in Everton tbh, but Everton don't have the same expectation/ambition because their history in the past few decades) - so who knows how he'd do nowadays? He's a better fit at Everton too and I think he knows it. Gareth Southgate - I absolutely hope he's the next United manager. Don't get me wrong, I think he's been a good England manager. He might even be an improvement on Ole. But I think managing at the top level of club football requires so much more from a manager. Southgate's tactics, imo, are pretty simplistic and work better at the international level - I think he's got a lot in common with Solksjaer in terms of "no tactics, just vibes" with how he sets England up to play. Julian Nagelsmann - no way he leaves Bayern so soon after joining them. So let's hope for Southgate

Racist people are everywhere mate Haiti?

What a legend. Shame he's probably going to be tortured horrifically now.

Tbf, I can get where Neville is coming from because some of the abuse Solksjaer is getting on the internet is absolutely appalling because he's a literal United legend. There's some seriously bad shit said about him... and as a Liverpool fan, I've got no love for the man... but I think treating a club legend like that is pretty poor. I don't remember much about when Souness was our manager and ripped apart Kenny Dalglish's side because I was very fucking young but... I hope he didn't face similar kinds of abuse as he did his terrible job. Although credit to Souness, he eventually walked once he realised he was taking Liverpool backwards. And don't get me wrong, I think Solksjaer is the wrong man for the job & I think coming second last season papered over a lot of the cracks that have existed the entire time he's been manager at United. But I also think sacking him and bringing in someone like Conte won't just magically fix thing imo. I'm confident Conte could come in and have them competing for a title in 2 seasons or so - but I also don't think it's a long term fix for them, he can win them a title and then fuck off immediately afterwards. Granted, I'm sure a lot of United fans would take that because they were spoiled under Ferguson and now they're getting starved for some glory. But I think a lot of what's happened to United since Ferguson left is down to only having long term plans in terms of corporate dealings - and not really having a concrete plan with what is going on on the pitch. And honestly, I think some people at United really underrated how much of a genius their legendary former manager was - they took him for granted tbh. Because most managers in football would not have be winning a league title with Ferguson's last ever squad. And if we go through the timeline, we can see where United have been caught in two states of mind with how to go about life without their legendary manager: David Moyes, handpicked by Ferguson to be a long-term successor. Obviously, nowhere near as good as Ferguson... but tbf they should have expected that. He did a bad job with a squad that won the title the season before, but... realistically he was never going to be as good as Ferguson right from the off. I think they sacked him too early tbh and it sort of fucked over his career for a bit until he went to West Ham When he was sacked, I think this is when United's board thought "alright fuck long term planning, we don't have the patience for that we need to win now" 52.94% win rate at United Louis Van Gaal, experienced & managed at the top level with Netherlands, Barca, Bayern Munich - someone brought in to "steady the ship" Boring football & ultimately he lost the dressing room - tbh, I don't think you can keep a manager when they've pissed off too much of a dressing room (even if the manager is in the right tbh - it's too difficult to replace half a team compared to replacing a manager) He won an FA Cup though 52.43% win rate at United Mourinho, who is probably the exact wrong sort of manager to build a team with a long term project - I think he's like Conte, you bring him in once you've built something up and he takes you round the final corner towards winning a title/CL (which is also why he was a horrible fit at Spurs tbh) It's Mourinho we know how this goes: boring football, after 2-3 years he falls out with players, public relations nightmare because he goes in front of the media and says stupid things for like no reason whatsoever when he's pissed off... 58.33% win rate at United though Best manager United have had from a Liverpool fan's perspective because he went out in front of the media and said that United's football heritage is one of being mostly shit in Europe. Solskjaer - back to a "long term" approach, I think... probably because dealing with the fallout of a Mourinho meltdown is likely very very unpleasant. No tactics, just vibes - a Southgate style manager imo - this was probably helpful when trying to restore some positivity back to the club in the wake of the Mourinho shitshow The downside is... no tactics can make a side shit and easy to beat. Team of individual talents rather than a real team 54.88% win rate At the end of the day, if they want to take a long term approach with Ole and have him learn on the job... then I think I agree with Carragher, they've got to hire an experienced coach to help him out because his tactical ideas need evolution. But they've spent big money backing him (and they spent big money backing Mourinho too) and the football is just... poor. And I think, regardless, United need a director of football who'll come up with a long term plan on what direction United want to take as a football club over the next 5-10 years and how to get to that plan. Because the scattergun approach to figuring out what United want is a big failure. I dunno why I'm giving them ideas though because yesterday was absolutely brilliant & if they get Conte they might have to rebuild in 3-4 years... but they'll probably have won the title in 2-3 years and the last thing I want is them winning another league title before the 2042-2043 season (but preferably never again in my lifetime...)

Nah it’s obvious that anyone would do that. I think some Chelsea fans are being very strange by constantly hoping he fails because he leveraged something into getting more money from the club. Like it’s their money he’s being paid with or something when it definitely isn’t. Dunno why anyone would want a player of theirs to fail tbh

I think it left a bad taste in peoples mouths the way he leveraged Bayern Munich’s interest in him to get a big deal out of Chelsea before he’d really proven himself. Not like that makes me understand why some Chelsea fans just want to see him fail…

Of course this idiot can see his club win 7-0 and still have shit to bitch about.

They’ve uturned and said it’s alright if Newcastle fans want to dress up like Arabs if they want

Yeah

If FSG don’t resign him we should burn down Fenway Park tbh

That is shit

I think it was referred to an ethics board for review in January, but since then I haven’t heard anyone talk about it. But it was the second one - charging higher rates for the secret service that had to follow him around to his properties. The Russian claims are weird because the story kept changing, and the Mueller report - if you read the whole thing in full - says that some weird coordination probably did happen, but he could not recommend further action against a president. This paragraph from the wiki of it explains why the Mueller report is at least a bit troubling: “Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment. As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him", with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence. The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation". The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,referencing impeachment.” (from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report) And it was weird seeing a US president say so much that sort of looked like what you’d see in opinion articles on RT Honestly though in 2021… the US & Western world talks a big talk on human rights, corruption, and law and order - but are keen to hop into bed with the Saudis and keen to keep strong business ties with China… I do think there’s maybe a case for western countries trying to change countries through diplomacy and influence through closer ties. But I dunno if I’d make that case for Putin’s Russia. They just seem belligerent - even ignoring any claims of election interference anywhere in the world - the annexation of Crimea & using our country as a killing ground for ex-spies (and killing/harming innocent people in the process)… I understand why we’ve got frostier ties with Russia than we did say 10 years ago.

I mean there’s the whole calling Georgia’s elected officials and trying to get them to change election results - that’s probably the closest to Watergate in terms of pure illegality with political purpose. But most of his corruption was in funneling taxpayer money to properties he owned. Think it was something like $70m of taxpayer money going to him

Made dumplings and ramen and put them together

I think corruption in politics (not just US politics) is... sort of normal. It shouldn't be - but it is. Especially in the US where there's basically unlimited campaign contributions (which is basically just legalised bribery) - it's how you end up with so many laws that were written by lobbyists and corporations rather than the lawmakers that claim to have written them (and that's been caught happening a lot in the US, but nothing really happens with it). I dunno if any other western leaders were as brazen as Trump was, with the whole funneling as much taxpayer money into his hotels & golf resorts any opportunity he got. He did break laws as president, but they probably won't be enforced because US politics is full of similar corruption and it would mean a lot of politicians going after each other in a pretty hypocritical way. I actually think it's a massive problem for America because money is such a huge part of their political machine... and there's no real incentive for lawmakers to pass laws that wash away the stink of the corruption. They're allowed to make stock trades with inside knowledge of how laws will change too (and a few got caught selling their stocks after they were briefed on how bad covid would be and before the market crashed - all while they were trying to minimise how bad covid would impact the economy). But personally, I can't understand how anyone would vote for Trump after hearing him perform in those first debates. The guy is shit at stringing coherent sentences together & contradicts himself all the time if you give him enough time to talk... but in politics the electorate is often more motivated by emotion than reason and some political issues he did a very good job of hitting the right emotional notes. As president, I think he also did a good job hitting the emotional notes that made him lose a lot of moderate support compared to Biden... so it swings both ways. I honestly expect every US politician to be at least a little bit corrupt, I don't think there's much ethics in politics... especially US politics. Imo there's never really been a "good" US President in my lifetime... but I do think Trump's open corruption puts him down in the rankings with Bush (who is, imo, the worst US president in my lifetime for his war crimes and the damage he did to the Middle East and his spread of global terrorist groups - some of which the US is now backing in some countries and fighting in others).

Yeah, I think that's exactly what's happening. Biden's agenda is being held up by 2 democrats just as much as it's being held up by the Republicans. One of them wants both parties to meet him in the middle, the other... well... I don't know what she really wants tbh. I think she wants more lobbyist and corporate money coming in for her next election campaign... even though that's in 4 years. But I think with how divided everything is in America, everything is going to be a fight to and every president's agenda will be held up unless there is less of a split in the senate (or house, but in this case the house is comfortably under the democrats control - but the senate has an even split, so two senators differing from their party can hold everything up). Tbh, it makes sense if you think about it purely politically. Sure, nothing meaningful really changes for any of the citizens of the country (and I think that's why consistently congress has generally low approval ratings year in year out)... but it's an effective way at taking power from the other party and winning seats without actually having to do anything. And that's why both parties play the same game at the expense of the taxpayers. Power and prestige for minimal effort on their part.