Dr. Gonzo

Lol Barca want to sell their backup keeper for 45-50m. So they signed him for 13m, player him for about 25 matches in 3 years, and are now telling us he’s worth about 4 times what they paid for him

So do you suggest we pay our workers like Indonesian sweatshop workers? Probably. I actually did leave so I could make as much money as I could for 10-15 years before I come back. And to be honest, if there’s a no deal Brexit I’ll probably be able to buy a pretty nice house in London and I’ll probably do that and rent it out until I come back

Sterling is just a money grabber, Owen is an irredeemable cunt.

It’s an absolute joke he’s a “club ambassador” we should cut all ties with the collosal dickhead

Idk why they bring Owen to these matches. He’s not a Liverpool legend, he’s a twat, and he’s fucking hated by our fans.

Hahaha that first sentence

I meant to write our

Happy days! Moreno is on the cusp of a move to join Lucas at Lazio. Don't tell Lazio that they're not getting anyone near as quality as Lucas... but fuck me, I'm so happy he's going to be gone.

Brexit postponed until May 22nd if we MPs approve May's deal, or until April 12 if not.

I wouldn’t be surprised if plenty on the continent think the Brexiteers have been extreme personality wise and culturally. We’ve got Barnier bemoaning the lack of realism on our part and complaining about how May’s government seems to want the EU to be able to solve domestic political issues (I wish there were recordings of the negotiations, because I want to know what was said). After 2 years of dealing with clueless morons like David Davis & having Farage say things like he can’t wait to exercise his veto vote, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that a number of people in the EU have developed a more extreme view in taking that harder line with the UK. I agree with you and that MEP from the land of waffles and chocolate though

@Harvsky on the one hand I see what you're saying, and perhaps yes the EU is using this clumsy tactic to keep us holding out for a delay that leads to a second referendum or general election that ultimately leads to Article 50 being withdrawn or something. On the other hand, this may be the EU sticking the knife in and believing (or knowing) that they will weather the No Deal recession better than Britain and ultimately dealing with the UK post-Brexit, may be easier once everything settles down and there is more public consensus in the UK as to what the fuck the country's Brexit plans might be. I have a hard time believing the EU will allow the 9 month extension to the Article 50 that May's cabinet seems to anticipate them getting - because as mentioned on here earlier, the EU doesn't want the UK using it's power to veto to obstruct the EU's 7 year budget as a way to blackmail the EU into better terms for the UK leaving... when the UK is supposed to be out of the EU in a week. That's why most EU leaders are saying they'll agree to a technical extension, but it'll be short term and it requires parliament passing the May deal.

@Harvsky… I did say it was just 1 MP saying that, I think that indicates that it's of questionable credibility & not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes It's a failing of our Brexit negotiations to not make a harder push for being in the EEA. It's the best option for leaving the EU imo, it's better than the Swiss model with EFTA because that model involves too many domestic referendums for my liking, it's certainly better than May's deal, and is obviously better than a No Deal Brexit. I disagree with the notion that we should have used the threat of a No Deal earlier on in negotiations as leverage. "I will hurt you, but also hurt myself much harder, unless you concede some favourable terms to me" is not a great negotiation strategy - and No Deal is something the EU has obviously considered very early on in negotiations; I don't think they've been unaware there is a deadline looming and if a deal isn't agreed there will be a hard Brexit that will obviously affect them - a No Deal is bad for both sides and was always a risk of what could happen when we leave the EU. But using the threat of No Deal to try to cherry pick the good aspects of being in the EU and not being in the EU would also just serve as a blueprint for Euroskeptic populists around Europe - threaten self-harm and the EU will cave and the EU will dissolve. I think in the grand scheme of things, the EU would rather take the short term hit along with the UK (a No Deal will send ripples through global marks as well) and rebuild from that than face a potential existential threat. Using that threat as leverage in negotiations to me just seems belligerent. It's better to start negotiations on areas of common ground - here that common ground is that a No Deal has negative economic effects on the UK and the EU and both parties would benefit from avoiding that. Unfortunately, the next best option to remaining in the EU is the EEA... which is unacceptable to a huge number of people who were promised a bunch of bullshit about Brexit. In fact, the biggest detriment to our negotiating position in Brexit is the huge amount of bullshit the public was fed and the unrealistic promises that any separation from the EU will never be able to live up to. The spineless shits in parliament are more concerned about not upsetting the people who voted them in than acting in the best interests of the country. And that's why no deal looks so likely to me. A good number of people want a second referendum, a good number of people don't want a second referendum - that's a hard decision for spineless politicians to make. A lot of people are just saying "Brexit means Brexit, we want out now!" and others are saying "we need to avoid a No Deal!" and while more MPs may agree with wanting to avoid a No Deal, they're still afraid of making any decision that might be polarising or controversial. It's far easier for them to just do nothing, have us crash out with No Deal, and then do what David Cameron would do upon any of his political failures - use the EU as a scapegoat.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norwegian-mp-britain-eea-norway-eu-brexiters Granted it’s just 1 Norwegian MP quoted

I don’t have any estimates despite a lot of them theoretically being swayable for either of those. But what I do have is the fact that right now the EU has not agreed to extend the deadline - EU members haven’t given a clear indication that they will even allow an extension. What we do have is the Article 50 deadline coming up and no deal in place. Anything else is just theoretical. And I’m not going to be optimistic about the worst British government in my living memory, that’s done nothing but dither for two years suddenly managing to avert crisis.

No deal is the default position if there is no deal by the deadline. A deal has been reached with the EU, it’s not a good deal (which plenty of people predicted would happen as the EU has so much more leverage in negotiations). What indications do you have that the EU will sit back down and give us a better deal, extension or no extension. And right now the EU position is no extension unless we accept their deal. So yes, it is the default position. But also: yes, no deal is a political choice. It’s one we’re making on our own though - the EU’s stance in negotiations has been predictable and expecting them to suddenly have the UK’s best interests at heart over the EUs is blind optimism.

I get what you’re saying, but in @nudge‘s post it seems much worse than what you’re describing. Particular with the falsified papers - that seems no longer like a tolerable risk (although I think with planes, most risks of crashes with no survivors should be considered intolerable). Here we’ve got Boeing and the FAA acknowledging hazardous planes to themselves but deciding to move forward for the sake of profits. Anyone that signed off on this is responsible for over 200 people being killed in those 2 crashes

I find that take surprising. The EU doesn’t have to make anymore moves for a No Deal to happen - they negotiated a deal with us and said those terms are final. Parliament rejected that deal twice. No ideal is the default position if there is no deal in place by the deadline. The deadline is just over a week away. If we have a no deal, it’s from the clumsiness of our leaders over the last 2 years. They’ve got less than 9 days to sort it out, or to drive us over the edge. In the meantime we’ve got to hope the EU agrees to give us an extension to sort it out. The EU is now saying they’ll only agree to an extension if we agree to the deal that’s failed in parliament twice. So we only get an extension on the deadline if we agree to a Brexit that displeases most in the remain camp and most in the leave camp. The government couldn’t sort anything out in 2 years, I doubt they get anything done in 8 days and a few hours (assuming there’s no extension that lets us renegotiate terms with the EU).

I think the problem is that Chelsea have had so much success with someone coming in to paper over the cracks... but they've now lost that core group of players that were part of those very great Chelsea sides - players like Terry, Fat Frank, Makelele, etc... They've still got a good group of players, but I don't think they've got the same leadership qualities as those core group of players - nor do they have the character to turn things around when things don't look great at the club. And the board at Chelsea has done a lot to create a very toxic culture at the club. Because what they've got now are a group of mostly good players (because you don't win the league 2 years ago and keep most of the same players and just suddenly look hopeless), but they've got serious motivational problems and they clearly know that if things look bad at the club and tough for the manager... they can be the end of that manager, all they have to do is continue to not give a fuck. I agree that they need to give Sarri more time if they're actually serious about giving him a chance to make Chelsea a club that plays fluid attacking football. I think Chelsea need to clean house at the top though - the people above the manager have been appalling at their jobs. But after over 10 years of short term planning taking centre stage and neglecting long term planning... I'm not sure that's going to happen at the club. But they need to have a board and a director of football that are working towards long term goals for the club - they're no longer the richest club in the league and they're no longer the only club that can splash serious cash - they've got no long term direction. Even their excellent youth program is just being used for short term purposes, to loan on young kids and sell them on at a profit to fund other first team signings. Look at the top players they've let go that are now at rival clubs ahead of them in the league. That's really the first thing Chelsea need. A real long term plan to work towards. That's not saying they need to neglect short term goals - but expecting to simply buy success in this day and age requires both short term and long term planning. Especially when there's another oil club in the league that's richer, run a lot better on and off the pitch, that's got players that are part of one of the most historically significant title winning sides in the league's history (because they did just break the points total). But that means Chelsea need to operate more like an actual football club rather than a billionaires plaything - it means an adjustment of expectations at the board level... and probably for the fans too. Because Chelsea fans got a bit spoiled in the last 10 years with sustained success in the league (winning it multiple times, used to always qualify for the CL) and in Europe (2 CL finals, 1 CL victory, and a Europa League) and other domestic trophies - and in the recent past, sacking a manager and a quick change has worked out. The next thing that happens after Chelsea do come up with an actual long term plan (if that ever happens) is selling toxic players and breaking up dressing room cliques. IMO, Chelsea have a lot of these toxic players - anyone with any sort of "leadership" role at Chelsea that didn't haul Kepa off the pitch after that refusal to be subbed off, like Azpilicueta (the supposed captain) would be on my list of players to go, regardless of how good they might be (Azpilicueta is a pretty good player, but that was unacceptable from a captain). Players that are clearly not good enough, like Alonso, Zappacosta, and Morata, also need to go. No point in keeping them around paying Chelsea wages for players that are dogshite. And then wantaway players, like Hazard, I think should probably be shipped out because when you've got a culture of players downing tools to get a quick manager sacking don't need the added distraction of their best player constantly going to the Belgian media and begging Real Madrid to sign him. That's a bit harsh on Hazard, because despite his dickhead teammates, I think he's one of the few players at Chelsea that hasn't looked like they don't give a fuck. But a massive clearout is needed. Then the manager and DOF need to work together to sign the right types of players to meet those long term goals first and foremost - more of those promising kids at Chelsea should be given a chance in squad roles. Granted, none of this is really realistic with a transfer ban looming over the club's head. But that transfer ban comes again from them breaking rules to sign young players... for their youth team that they hardly use to supplement their first team; which would infuriate me as a Chelsea fan, but is a mildly amusing fact if you're not a Chelsea fan... it's just an example of how the people above the manager at Chelsea either don't plan for the long term or they are all reading off different pages of the plan and aren't working together to push Chelsea forward.

Power CPube

I really hope so because he's the best midfielder we have at connecting the midfield to the front 3, but he's been out for almost a year so probably not - we didn't see much of Lallana until recently after his long injury issues.

I somehow missed this. Tbf, if you listen to Cannibal Corpse without thinking about killing people at least a little bit, you probably need to turn the volume up a bit.

A lot of articles seem to use them as synonyms tbh - here's just one example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/17/france-triggers-hard-brexit-plan-warns-no-deal-less-less-unlikely/ I've always considered a soft-Brexit to be something along the lines of us leaving the union, but getting to keep a number of the advantages of EU membership for the good of free trade and freedom of movement. And a hard Brexit I've always viewed as us leaving the union fully and reverting to WTO rules - which is the default no deal situation. I think the vote before yesterdays was even more of a reason to hold a second referendum. The government essentially asked MPs to change their mind on the vote of a few months ago - if it's reasonable to expect that MPs can change their mind after a few months, why is it not reasonable to believe the voting public can change their mind after a few years? Especially as many who voted leave did not vote for a hard Brexit, and many leave campaigners explicitly stated that there would not be a hard Brexit.

That's actually fucking hilarious. For anyone to believe Boeing pulled the planes themselves, they'd need people to 1.) not be aware that almost everyone else grounded their planes before this announcement, 2.) not be aware that Trump made the announcement to ground them, 3.) get most of your aviation news from Boeing's twitter

I mean I do agree with you, she was given an impossible task - and even in negotiating with the EU, when she comes back she has to either sell a bad Brexit deal to both Brexiteers and remainers. And the EU held all leverage in negotiations, but the problems domestically really made it unfeasible. You've got around half the country that didn't want to leave in the first place, then the leave camp that's made up of shitloads of views with very few of them being realistic.