Dr Gloom

he looked back to his best yesterday. ran the midfield, two lovely efforts on goal, one well-saved, the other just over the bar. i'd still like to see him play on the right-side of the three in midfield, with more license to get forwards and influence the game, with tonali behind him as the DM in the middle

massive player for us and a big reason we finished 4th. he bring something completely different to the rest of our midfielders - his energy, running and that ability to progress the ball and drag us up the pitch is huge.

What a player. I love his lack of ego. Put him anywhere on the pitch and he’ll still bust a gut for you. Credit Howe for switching him and Gordon today as we looked even more threatening. Could he be the short term answer to the right wing conundrum?

a couple could have been straight reds tbf, the dirty twat

I thought we thoroughly deserved the win. This has been coming. We’re finally converting good performances into results. Forest are a one-trick pony. Threatening on the break but clueless when we sat back to protect the lead and they were forced to try to break us down. We dominated both halves. Both clubs are in false positions. Forest will sink to mid table and we should really expect to be challenging for Europe. Hopefully confidence and momentum will start to build now we’ve remembered how to finish chances. I loved Joelinton’s goal and performance. Thought Willock was unlucky to be subbed too - he was great in the first half.

JRM, man of the people

agree with all that and i'm inclined to think howe will too, with the exception of burn, who will probably keep his place. it's not like chris wood is going to trouble him for pace, do it might be the right sort of game for BDB

you keep saying this, but the IRA was genuinely a transformative piece of legislation, which trump will be powerless to overturn

Apparently Forest are happy to give the away team possession/control when they play at home and hit on the break. We have struggled when teams set up against us like this. Could be a game for Bruno and Tonali rather than Longstaff, which would be harsh on Sean who has been brilliant the past couple of games. It’ll be interesting to see if Howe applies a horses-for-courses approach

The other thing to point out is that you could almost forgive America in 2016. Maybe it was something they needed to get out of their system. He didn’t win the popular vote, he only lasted a single term. This time he has a clear mandate and the popular vote and control of the senate and the house. This is America and trump can pretty much do what he wants

Trump’s messaging is very seductive. It’s big on promises, light on detail. I will end inflation! (No explanation how) I will make America a global manufacturing power again (what, through tariffs?) I will secure our borders and deport illegals! (racists lap this stuff up) Perhaps the Dems could have played this game too. The economy was definitely Kamala’s weak spot. She had few answers, perhaps she needed more slogans

glad you're okay @Andrew!

luckily the players he is inheriting look nowhere close to being able to implement his game plan. Who are his wingbacks in his 3-4-3 - Rashford and Garnacho?

maybe KD is right and the Democrats need to fight fire with fire next time, find their own strongman leader

It is of course a sexist country but you have to wonder what so many American women were thinking, given what’s at stake. I thought the abortion issue could have swung it Kamala’s way.

Biden’s inflation reduction act was a transformative piece of legislation, creating billions of investment into clean energy industries of the future and reshoring thousands of high-skilled manufacturing jobs - that’s his legacy. The problem was a failure to communicate with voters. A perfect example is Georgia, one of the states which benefited most from IRA jobs and investment turning blue. This is legislation even climate-change denying Trump won’t overturn. States won’t want to say goodbye to those subsidies and the inward investment created by the IRA. It’s the economy, stupid. The price of everything has gone up and that usually means the incumbent falls. Inflation did for the Dems

Well done, America. We can debate how stupid they are from our ivory towers. Ultimately it was won on the economy. Inflation has brought down ruling parties all over the world and it did for the Democrats. Could they have won with a different candidate? I thought Kamala was impressive but again it appears the yanks aren’t ready for a woman president. Would a strong male candidate have made a difference? I doubt it. The truth is most US voters don’t really care if Ukraine falls or what an emboldened Russia means for Europe. They care about food prices.

can't believe this was four years ago it still makes me lol - how do you even go about book a press conference at a garden centre? imagine working at four seasons total landscaping and taking that call - you must be thinking it was a prank call

i'd be amazed if he's as underwhelming for us as hugo viana was. but on that subject, is tonali a defensive midfielder?

is series link a big deal still? i remember being wowed by it in the pre-streaming days when linear tv was still relevant. i have all the apps i need on my firestick. it's surely just the sports propping sky up? this is the iptv/on-demand age cab - can sky continue to remain relevant when its consumers are denied choice available elsewhere? i don't know anyone with a sky sub anymore. 10-15 years ago, everyone had one.

The answer to the other question is more ad revenue. The streaming market is so saturated now that providers are having to offer entry level budget packages, with ads. The result is streaming services wind up looking more like traditional linear TV and those with deeper pockets get the ad-free content. For the traditional satellite/cable providers, the future is less certain. They’re surviving thanks to the older demographic, which is diminishing. I don’t know what the future holds for them in a world of on-demand content unless they get much, much more creative with their offering or if there is a race to the bottom on prices. The on-demand premier league football rights idea that I floated could be one solution, given sports is one areas propping them up. I would happily pay a big subscription fee for a package that offered every Newcastle game on demand.

I wasn’t just talking about illegal streaming tbh, though that’s part of the picture. Sky just seems such poor value compared to other streaming services such as Netflix or Disney. It must be the sports packages keeping them afloat but then that stuff is so easily accessed illegally for so many people, I don’t know how much longer that will remain the case. The other thing I couldn’t stand about sky when I subscribed was how they hike up your fee every six months, so even if you renegotiate a better price, it gradually goes up to what they want you to pay for it without consultation. We were talking about it in another thread recently but the only time I start paying for a Sky sub again is when they start to offer Newcastle games on demand instead of having to watch whatever match involving one of red cartel they decide we should be watching on “super Sunday”

Why still pay for a sky sub in this day and age? Genuine question. I presumed it was older tech-illiterate people keeping them afloat