Rayvin

The question though, is why either you or I should care, given that we have no intention to have kids. Just eternal givers, I suppose Is that true universally? Birth rates aren't the problem, it's longevity? I know that's the issue here, is it now global?

I haven't actually flown anywhere this year (have flown twice in the past 5 years) but a couple of flights per annum sounds ok to me. In truth though, I'd be happy to work to some government mandated level if it assisted with combatting climate change. Agree on population increase, although I have the impression that this may be a self correcting issue due to our lack of long term planning.

We're fucked. Short termism it is.

It's short termist because aviation is bad for the environment and the environment is going to hell in a handcart? Governments are supposed to take a lead on this. Fair enough on the plane stacking point - if that stands up to scrutiny then great. My point was more that the government just doesn't care about environmental controls because the rewards for doing so are long term. Something that the private sector is also guilty of.

Weirdly, I'm not convinced that Tories are particularly pro-London... I'm really not sure what they are at the moment, and I'm not certain they're sure either. But either way, the vote chasing comment was more just a general complaint.

Let's be honest, it's not madness as such. It's short termism. Negative consequences are all in the future. May not even affect the people who will benefit from this. Will Theresa May be here in 30 years? Doubtful. Our short termist, vote chasing bollocks of a democracy just doesn't care.

Aye I guess so. Maybe I'm being too jaded.

Ah. Ok well yeah, I totally agree with that. I daresay we'd have won it, actually.

Fair enough - I certainly don't want to play down what we achieved then, but over the three years when we were actually there or thereabouts, I don't think we could have been considered consistent challengers. It was 3rd, 4th and 5th wasn't it? The 3rd would cover it. Not sure about the 4th and 5th. Could we settle on established top 4??

Maybe that's fair, although I don't think we were as close to title chasing under Robson as we were under Keegan. Robson's era felt more about qualifying for Europe, not sure we ever really stood a chance at the title. It'll be interesting to see where we get to with Rafa to be honest. If the money in the PL is balancing things out across the teams, Rafa himself could make a big difference. That said, we need to go up first.

Just read up on it a bit. What the fuck are they thinking trying to pull that off. And why?

How severe a points deduction would they get though? Surely not more than 3-5 points?

I reckon they'll beat Hull. They have to beat someone at some point and Hull at home are the best chance they'll get all season. If they don't win that, they may not win full stop.

Seconded.

Fair enough.

Thread of the year, right here.

That's gonna stick for a while, isn't it...

I think we'd all take that.

Sounds like Corbyn gave May a hard time today over the EU. She's now backtracking on hard Brexit. She has no clue at all what she's doing, mind...

If we'd not had that string of midtable finishes between Keegan and Robson I think we could have claimed to have been established top 6. As it stands, I'd say we were established top half on the balance of things. EDIT - those 11 seasons come to a 6.6 average finish.

I reckon 2-0 to us. Don't think we'll concede.

To hell with the children we're corrupting!