The first thing you've put there is the top priority to me, as I assume it is to you. And yet I heavily suspect we won't try to get a new number one keeper. The rest...well, I think it's too much to pull off for a dysfunctional club constantly strangled by the owners, still undergoing wholesale changes to our recruitment and scouting department as you mention. Whatever people think of Broughton, we finally got on with contract renewals when he came in. Now it's back to the Waggott model, I expect us to fuck those up. Currently, I'm also still expecting us to go down next season, which has been my view since around March. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Charging at home is currently an issue if you can't park outside your home. Likely in the future there'll be charging points in many places you can park (even a lamp-post can be converted to be able to charge a car too), but you probably won't get the savings you can currently get by charging at home. Although if we invest more in renewables we could bring these costs down. However I'm going to answer your first question on the assumption that a buyer can charge at home. Why are EVs so much better than 'fuel efficient' cars? The average combustion engine is only around 40% efficient (60% of the fuel's energy is wasted in heat, friction and emissions). I'm finding it hard to get a proper figure for the most efficient around, but there's an F1 Mercedes engine (which I can't imagine is available to consumers) with about 50%, and a Wartsila 31 engine that apparently can do a little over this. Electric motors convert 85-95% of the energy into the car's motion. So they're roughly twice as efficient. Instant torque. Because of instant torque, all the sprint records for commercially available cars are held by EVs. In short, they're faster. The Rimac Nevera can do 0-60mph in 1.74 seconds (only 150 made though). The Tesla S Plaid (no production limit) does 0-60mph in 1.98 seconds. Looking at the list of fastest 0-60 on Wiki, you don't find a fully combustion car until 5th place. The ICE cars that do feature on these sorts of lists always need a mega engine that will burn an insane amount of fuel. The fastest quarter mile is held by the Rimac Nevera, at 8.25 seconds, nearly a full second faster than the next two (all electric Lucid Air Sapphire and the ICE supercar Bugatti Chiron Super Sport which I believe has a massive 8 litre engine! Both tied at 9.1 seconds) Less moving parts means less maintenance. Recent research shows that Tesla have the lowest average maintenance costs in the world over both a 5 year and a 10 year period of ownership. When you get a service, a lot less needs doing. Can potentially be powered without any emissions at all, including the electricity you provide to the car. In fact if you get yourself enough solar you'll never have to pay anything again to 'fuel' your car, and even without this you can get clever with flexible tarriffs and charge at off-peak hours and pay very little indeed. If you're not using the car the next day you could even (in some cars) export energy back to the grid at peak times and make a profit! There are Teslas that have clocked in excess of 450,000 miles without needing their battery or drive unit changing. I doubt there are many ICE cars in the world that have gone that many miles without the engine needing changing, at least not without constant care and maintenance. The average lifespan of an ICE car is apparently 133,000 miles. You should check out the videos showing some of these 450k mileage Teslas, they still look in good shape and are basically as fast as the day they were made. There is a guy who has driven over 1.1 million miles in his, though he's had three battery changes (I don't know if they were necessary or he just wanted full range back). They tend to get long warranties. Two of those battery changes I mentioned were provided by the warranty. The technology is still relatively new and will only get better. Batteries with close to a thousand miles of range are theoretically possible with batteries currently under development, better drive units etc. Despite the scare stories, the newer battery chemistries are actually far safer than ICE cars, as in they're far less likely to set on fire. Even newer batteries are being designed to be even safer still. Electricity prices are less dependent on the fluctuating prices of fossil fuels dictated by the whims of Russian and Middle Eastern despots. If we ramp up renewables so we are self sufficient for energy, we can avoid all that instability. I'm barely going to touch on this part because it's well known and the details would take too long, but with these cars being cleaner we can also combat climate change, and even if for some reason you don't care about that, we can all breathe clearer air. Air pollution kills over 7 million people globally each year, including nearly 50,000 in the UK. Getting on for twice the population of Darwen, or globally, more than the population of Denmark. I'm probably forgetting a few things.

Had a stinker at Ewood as has been pointed out, but I heard he was great for them in the league. A league two below ours though. He might will have potential, but the last thing we need is another development keeper. I'm not interested in any goalie who isn't experienced and a safe bet.

2.5 mill probably is him adding a mill on for that Prem money 😆

Very different scenario, if the rumours about that are even true. Venkys had more interest then, plus we knew Manure had obtained details of his min clause implicitly so we managed to get a touch more out of them to avoid a court case and/or forcing the deal to Liverpool through instead (who had offered several million more than we got in the end). Hardly a bargaining masterclass to have given him a clause in the first case when he was already contracted for a decent stretch before it. Also Waggott was nowhere near the club back then.

If it's 10 we really are a joke. 15 is too low tbh. I appreciate it was a 'gamble' for Palace given his experience, but in that case it shouldn't have been too hard to get a 20% sell on.

Agreed with all your post except this bit. We don't do talking clubs up. Pretty sure the most we would squeeze out would be 2.5 mill, and tbf, that's a fair deal. With the caveat that we won't adequately replace him or spend more than a couple hundred k of that.

The only way it would make sense is if Ipswich didn't have much budget left in January, tried at 1.5 mill but were told we wanted 8 mill. Now they are getting Prem money and they inexplicably still want him (I guess his best attributes are pretty transferable to a higher level, if we ignore that his weaknesses are more exposed up there, perhaps he could end up being what he is in this league - an ok lower half squad player). Of course, the notion that we or Ipswich would put that value on him, especially at his age with a year on his deal, is pretty laughable. Perhaps a more likely explanation is they heard Ipswich were willing to pay 8 mill for a Rovers player (actually Szmodics), saw past interest in Gally and added 2 and 2 to get 8. Or, most likely of all by far, it's a load of fabricated bollocks.

That's not half bad. Another 50 miles and it would suit for any journey I care to make, and the price is borderline affordable for me (would be a big chunk of my savings though). Currently having to pump 500-800 a year into fixing issues on my 08 reg Peugeot, plus the fuel, so when you factor in savings that sort of car would almost pay for itself after a few years. What was it like in terms of things needing repairs, replacement etc?

Just browse them in incognito/privacy/secrecy mode or on a different browser/device and you'll be able to read a few more before you get locked out. Between my three phone browsers each with incognito mode, and two with incognito on my laptop it's never more than a mild inconvenience 😉

Apologies yes, ten minute walk etc. All this talk about cars must have distracted me! About your other part (btw you can use the multi-quote option instead of writing within your quote...not sure how you did what you did, what just press the '+' next to the Quote text and you can stack them then type under each. Lets anyone who is quoting you subsequently keep your comments intact unlike when I've just quoted you...apologies if you already know this) I think part of the problem for these legacy automakers is they're not committing wholesale to EVs, which is understandable given their existing infrastructure and markets, but means they're doing what you just said. Making EV versions of ICE cars. The problem with that is they're not purpose-built to be EVs, and their architecture therefore has unnecessary parts to it when converted to an EV, meaning waste and inefficiency in the design. When you look at the most successful EV makers who actually make profit on their EVs, like Tesla and BYD, they're committed fully to electric, and lots of the other successful Chinese brands are either fully EV or primarily EV, rather than simply adjusting existing combustion cars to have a battery etc. Again it's understandable, because they're already making the ICE cars and cracking the EV market is still very tough because it's a nascent market and technology. Their economies of scale are geared towards ICE, but if they take too long achieving economies of scale for EVs, they'll end up too far behind to catch up. Of course, some of them do have purpose-built EV cars and are building factories just to churn out those cars, and they're probably the ones with the best chance of competing longer term. Currently some of the Japanese firms in particular are in real danger of dying out or being bought out by someone who wants to use their badge and brand. Good point about the scaling up of EV percentages. I hate our current government but I do think they've gone about this in the right way. Pushing the requirements year on year is a better idea than expecting everyone to go cold turkey in 2035. It gives firms, customers, the market and infrastructure time to adjust without overnight disaster that could have resulted in the plans just being abandoned when it was clear uptake wasn't high enough. For those who don't know, companies will be fined for every combustion car they sell above the threshold. It's a huge fine, too - 15k I believe, or 9k for vans. It should force better price parity between ICE and EVs, though admittedly it's not good for consumers and car companies in the short term, but should get firms progressing with the transition. I hope the fines will be used to subsidise EVs or other green initiatives that could help the transition be affordable for consumers, but you never know with politicians. 6.7k for a decent used EV with decent remaining range and longevity would be very good and could be a bargain. But I suspect if you're selling one at that price in the current market it's something like an old Nissan Leaf? Not a particularly good car and whilst it would suit for some people, wouldn't suit me very well and I don't drive all that far. When you can get something like a Tesla at that price, which will eventually happen, you're probably on for a real bargain.

Pretty much all of us knew this though. We keep saying 18 mill because that's all we're guaranteed. Btw the majority of reporting I've seen said the deal could reach 23 mill, not 22 mill. Dependent on the terms of the deal (remember, our negotiators are clearly shite) we might not get the majority of those add-ons beyond the sell-on if Palace simply sell him for a huge profit this summer. In any case, the fees we ended up receiving for Raya and could receive for Wharton, before the sell-ons, are pretty much what I'd have expected us to get for the players guaranteed, before add-ons. And the reported sell-on clauses of 15% of profit are too low when selling top young talent. These should have been at least 20% of profit, or 10-15% of total sale. We've thrown away enough on these deals to pay for good Championship-level replacements for each player, likely with change left over if we had a good scouting and procurement system that we didn't need to completely reassemble every 12-24 months. Of course that said, we did get it right with Raya's replacement (albeit a year late, which meant we lost a whole season with Walton in goal), spending just 500k. Then we sold him for at least 1-2 million less than he was worth too, after alienating him by playing a shitter keeper ahead of him and reducing his market value. We're just really bad at this player trading lark. We make the occasional good bargain recruitment, but our sales expertise leaves a lot to be desired. Between selling too low and failing to renew contracts or sell when contracts are running down and the player won't sign, we've pissed away tens upon tens of millions. Then we cry poverty.

Maybe our players were kicking off because JDT told them to train Christmas Day and they weren't used to it anymore 😂 If he made them train that is. I'm sure we used to be fairly good on Boxing Day generally. Pretty certain there was a period of a few years where we would win it regularly. Maybe just when the games were at home, dunno.

Boxing Day results in the Championship under Mowbray (I think I've got this right): 2021: 3-2 defeat to Hull 2020: 1-1 draw with Sheff W 2019: 1-1 draw with Brum 2018: 3-2 defeat to Leeds We did beat Rochdale in League One in 2017 but we were easily the best side in that league. Maybe Ol' Tone should have done some fucking Christmas Day training instead of being everyone's mate.

Haaland was murdering the Bundesliga at 19, with nearly a goal a game. This lad is scoring 1 in 2 in the Danish second tier at 20. I'm not sure making such a hyperbolic comparison is helpful. We can sign a good prospect without them needing to be the new Haaland.

We would be eligible for that much? Honestly thought it would be a lot less. What happens if Newcastle just sell him on when he's made say 80 appearances though? For Elliott, Fulham also got 1.5 mill up front, which we won't. I don't know if either compensation package would include a sell on.

41 year old Zhang battered Wilder. With 4 losses in his last 5, that's essentially Wilder's career over.

There are already rules about what compensation is given though. Those could be enhanced significantly. They don't need to sign employment contracts for that.

You mean when they got about 4.3 million for a 16 year old player they'd had for one year who played 3 games for them? Us getting a few hundred k for a 16 year old who has played a game for us doesn't sound too similar.

Suits both clubs. The deal was going to happen, so doing it this way enabled Arsenal to dodge FFP better, and Brentford to make a larger portion of the sale. The fact both sides have something to gain from it doesn't diminish it as a 'conspiracy', it enhances it. I'm not saying they did it with a malicious intent to fuck us, but I suspect (not know, suspect) it was done this way to benefit both clubs in these ways, with zero concern for how it affected us (obviously what Brentford would have wanted from it would have directly negatively impacted us, but of course they won't care about that part). I don't see how a keeper who still has probably 7 years of career left would depreciate notably inside a season. He's only reaching his theoretical peak years now. The market constantly inflates, so at this stage of his career I don't see his value dropping much if at all from that. Playing and becoming number one for a much more promiment club on the other hand, has probably boosted his transfer value. But all of that is immaterial if the deal was always going to happen anyway (unclear from past and present reports if this was guaranteed, but it seems to be at the very least a gentleman's agreement to buy).

So, a Prem club won't be included in that, as the EFL is only Championship to League Two, right? Which means it's down to whether we negotiated this specifically in the transfer agreement, which means we need competent negotiators, so....well, think we all know how that usually turns out.

Sorry, what requires a change of approach and financing? I'm not one who would want to buy a car on finance personally, although I do see the appeal and I'll never say never. Just think you tend to get a raw deal overall, and I'd rather buy an older car outright much cheaper. However, I'm not close to being able to afford a half decent EV for the 2k or so I could probably afford if my Peugeot conks out tomorrow (which is always a danger, it's had a lot of issues). I could spend more than that but that's about the size portion of my life savings I'm willing to give up for moving A to B at the moment, given all the extra costs of running a car and my very low income. But this kind of drop in the used EV market is important for bringing lots more people, similar to myself but maybe earning more or willing to do finance, into EV ownership. Which has knock-on effects in pushing demand for EV infrastructure, in turn making the whole thing more viable. Yes, lots of legacy automakers are going to become bankrupt from this market disruption. That's what happens when a game-changing technology comes along, a paradigm shift. A lot of the earlier adopters who have continued developing (especially Tesla) are doing well enough from it, but due to the race to the bottom encouraged by the great ecological need for EVs, and their currently high price forcing it to need to come down to hit larger markets, many car makers are struggling to make and sell EVs at a profit. As far as I've seen, it's only really Tesla and the Chinese companies (the latter getting huge subsidies and cheap labour) cracking the code on that for now. I think one of the main problems has been legacy car makers not committing fully to EVs, meaning they're not developing the technologies nor building the economies of scale required to build profitably en masse whilst keeping the price competitive. Increasingly lower battery prices may help with this, but most of those batteries are produced in China, some of them by car makers. If governments and companies aren't careful and clever, most of the Western, Korean and Japanese carmakers could end up out of business, with Tesla and Chinese companies dominating. And then with tarrifs slapped on the EVs too so they're not as affordable here as they are for the Chinese. Subsidies and tarrifs need to be intelligently managed, and companies need to invest in the future before they become the past. On the flip side, that loss of legacy companies means lots of space for new startups etc to innovate and compete, perhaps growing into the giants of the future. Thing is, the Chinese production behemoth is reaching such alarming cost efficiency that it becomes hard to see how we overcome the advantage we have surrendered to them through inaction. And as we've seen with Russia, allowing an autocratic state to have majority control over a crucial resource is a very risky proposition. A bit scary to think Russia dominates oil and gas, and China dominates EVs and renewables, which are a key part of the alternative. We need to step up.

If he continues in the same vein til January, his value won't decrease even though he's ageing. As it will show it wasn't just a fluke. Personally I don't think it was a fluke, I think he's finally found his peak. There were no scuffed, fortunate goals a la some of Brereton's, he was goddamned clinical. They're actually better finishes than Rhodes used to consistently do, and his work rate is in no way a fluke (although it's possible it and his form will diminish slightly if he doesn't get his dream move as his motivation may dwindle...I suspect he's the type to be very resilient in that sense though).

A very misunderstood concept. Conspiracy theorists seem to have latched onto it and spread a lot of false information, suggesting the idea is for the government to trap you in a small zone of a city. Which is bollocks. The idea is that you can get nearly everything you need within a 10 minute drive of your home, not that you must. I don't see anything whatsoever to find objectionable about that, it's just good planning instead of the ad-hoc approach we currently have.