The Fish

I don't think McTominay or Maguire are as bad when viewed through West Ham's lens. Their biggest issue is that, once again they don't have a goal scorer up front. I've never seen a club struggle to competently fill a position like this. They've spent €287,003,000.00 on strikers since 1992. Recent highlights include. Haller €50m highest return 7 goals. Scamacca €36m highest return 3 goals. Arnautovic €22.3m highest return 11 goals. Carrol €17.5m highest return 9 goals. Chicharito €17.8m highest return 8 goals.

What is it with you and autographs She signs the ball, then an amplified voice grabs her attention. I don't see the problem at all.

28/1 He could buy a street with that!

Lingard, is he still even playing?

To be fair, we are.

Bruno's celebration(s) for the goal against Brighton probably made up half of that.

Yay imperialism.

Hope you're not suggesting I'm remotely interested in the soiled undercrackers of Adweym Pwyearsohn.

He could sell them to Gemmil.

There were no fly on the wall football documentaries before 2018

I'm not sure it's a given that Livramento or Trippier will play left back. Last season we played with 4 at the back which morphed into 3 whenever Trippier advanced, Burn shifting across and the left sided midfielder and forward providing cover on the flanks. Part of the reason why ASM wasn't the man to hold down a place. Targett and Burn are fine at left back until such a time as a Trippier standard leftback becomes available at the right price. RCB is, for me, a higher priority. Without Schar we lose a lot of the outballs which caught so many opponents flatfooted. Dunno who we could pick up, Anderson from Palace is rumoured, but I dunno

Yeah, but that's the English tax, PL tax, Newcastle tax and Chelsea pay off. Apparently Saints paid £4m for him in 2021 - There is a clause in the deal that Chelsea take a cut of the profit on any future sale to a third club - However, the bigger the profit, the more the Chelsea % of the deal increases on a sliding scale - Effectively, this was so that if he became a star, both teams would make £20-£30m each - If he was decent but not quite a star, then Saints would recoup a higher % of the money - Example 1: Saints agree to sell Tino for £30m, then we keep £18m and Chelsea get £12m - Example 2: Saints agree to sell Tino for £50m, then we keep £28m and Chelsea get £22m

Who owns youtube?

£40m over x years though.

+ 40% going to Chelsea

Pancrate is a lovely fella, I'm sure. Nice family and all that. But his head does not bobble. So, No Dice, Paddy ó Dubhghaill

Literally trying to drum up support.

MF on his way to work

In fact if you can name two, you'll win a special prize.

I challenge you to, without googling, recall a single goal ol' Bobblehead scored.

I don't mind good CGI, loads of films use them and you don't even realise it. The issue is the bad CGI. The early attempts at de-ageing, sometimes where they replace people in their entirety the CGI-people lack weight and natural movement. Like Superman's moustache removal. It was so badly done that the disbelief that I'd already suspended for people shooting lasers out of their eyes, just couldn't be suspended any more and it took me out of the movie. But then the CGI in 1949, or where it's used to fill in landscapes or crowd shots is fine. And obviously stuff like Avatar is amazing visually.

Don't worry, it won't last

You're a good man Alex, a good man indeed. Dunno why I'm posting like this today by the way, feel a bit giddy for no reason.

Martin, I value your friendship and respect you greatly, but I have no earthly fucking clue what you're talking about?