I'm not a fan of Pears and would be delighted if we sold him and bought two new keepers, but this time I think that's a little harsh. I really wouldn't expect my keeper to be stood on their line there. Just because in hindsight it would have helped doesn't mean that's the right spot to take in that situation most of the time. You don't want the goalie to have too much to do to cut the angle off if someone breaks through the line instead of shooting. Also most of the time, a shot from there won't rise and dip, it will be arrowed straight, and if you're right on your line you're giving yourself a lot more reaching to do to stop it going top corner. Pears isn't the biggest keeper either so it's natural he wouldn't adopt the position which requires the longest reach if it heads to the top corners with a shot with a direct path. I think that goal is beating nearly every keeper in the league 9 games out of 10.

Yep, we're definitely not the 'someone comes in with enough money' to get a player that a fairly large club want to keep, kind of club. We're the 'someone comes in with enough money' to sign a player you either don't want or desperately want the money for, kind of club. If you're/we're lucky. Likely after offering a derisory loan deal first.

Experienced yet sluggish centre halves are best when you're backs to the walls. Having two slow CBs today will open us up to the counter attack.

No, it isn't. It never is. This is football.

That wasn't the topic of discussion. But having some is better than not having some, regardless of outcome.

Mbappe would be a very good signing too. But much like Stansfield, he's not a realistic target either so nobody is talking about us signing him.

Swansea's owners have been clear for years now their ambition is to return to the Premiership. So yes, they have shown more ambition. Return to the Premiership versus 'pushing' top 10. Night and day.

Is Swansea's objective just to stay in this league? Because Swag has made it pretty clear that's ours.

We did batter a side about a week ago too didn't we, after most of them were on loan? Guess that can just happen though.

Could be. But weren't there even more than that during preseason?

Anybody got a good explanation (apart from it being preseason) of why we were annihilating everybody in preseason and now it's reversed? Are we now putting more u18s in the u21s now, or are other teams putting players they used for first team preseason back into their kids teams?

Well, got spanked 7-2.

Stritch puts us back in it, 1-2 now. We have a stunningly low 18% possession.

I struggle to see it being true, right after being given the captaincy and giving an interview in which he was gushing about being back and how much he loves the club. Of course, you can rule nothing out at this mad club.

A real shame to be pretty much battering all comers of all levels in preseason, then the first league game is going like this. Stats look similarly one sided, but hopefully second half we get back into it. Probably missing Tyjon.

Well we're 2-0 down so it's not going well.

Sorry, correction. Somehow went up in 2nd. Can't say I watched them a lot, but they weren't that impressive against us. And we were far from impressive. Credit to them for their consistency, pluck, etc, and I'm sure they earned a high placing. But if I recall (maybe I misremember), they were remarkably fortunate with injuries for a large stretch of the season. I think they'll be coming straight back down.

Not if he's spent all his development cutting inside and doesn't know how to cross. Giggs and Duff could do both, tbf.

We did, but it could have been worse. They could have done a Finneran. Clubs have far too little power with players at that age.

Probably the best way to do it tbf, when you're an unfancied team who somehow went up through the playoffs and know you're likely to come straight back down. Better chance of yo-yoing back up and keeping that Prem money a while longer whilst you build. And there's always the chance some of these Championship stars shine in the Prem too, and either make you a packet or keep you up.

I think a lack of fight is Jack Vale's exact problem, actually. Granted, perhaps a drab loan in the ass-end of English football may have come as a necessary reality check for him and invoked some fight in him. Like you say, apparently did ok in the SPL (but not as good as the player we just sold for about 200k), and that was a very fine finish against Stockport. I find myself wondering (perhaps against my better judgement) whether it might be worth giving him some cameos and see if he's found the player that once seemed to be lurking inside him. Alternatively, I agree, I'd sell him if we're not planning to use him for depth. I don't think the same loan will build his value or our confidence in him breaking into the team.

You are wrong, yeh. He scored on the opening day of last season. He also scored 2 in the cup.

Their running of the club should be...

A distinction has previously been drawn on here between a bond and a guarantee. I believe it was stated that a guarantee would just mean Venkys promise to pay (to the Indian tax authorities?) the full amount they've sent if things go tits up (to use the proper legal parlance). Whereas a bond would mean they physically need to give an equal amount over to be held (by the Indian tax authorities?) in case of things going tits up. I know it's an Indian case, but are you or your colleagues clear on which one it appears to be saying? If it's the former, it exposes it as a really shitty excuse to not send funds, and we haven't heard of them sending any funds since I think it was November.

If Venkys need to put up a bond equal to what they send in order to send anything, and if they have any confidence in eventually winning their case, you would think they'd still have sent us half of what they usually do, bringing the full commitment to the usual amount and still helping the club whilst the matter gets settled. That they seemingly haven't tells me they either have little confidence they'll win, or are happy for the convenient excuse to not send us money. You could argue that even if they're confident there's still a risk of their money vanishing into the ether, but there is every time they send money to a football club, by the very nature of the business. They've already sent 200 million they're unlikely to ever see again.