Whatever gets you off.

Or it was just an observation on the different ways that people were reacting (including sometimes two different reactions from the same people). You're the one who has struck the arrogant tone but thank you for introducing me to the concept 'English' football. I can't wait to experience more of it.

I do love periods where I can just be an observer on this site. One week - 'we've extended the contract of our backup keeper??? Why??? We need a better first choice' Next week - 'why would we sell Raya? We could never replace him!!!'

?

Just a tip for next time - if you're going to semi-condescendingly explain what something is you had better get it right. The European Golden Shoe isn't awarded simply to the player who scores the most goals, it's a weighted system. Modric won the champions league, the club world cup, and was runner-up in the world cup (where he won the best player award). Now, I think a lot of people would take that over a league and two domestic cups, if you don't that's ok, it's a subjective award. My point is that you called it a farce. It's not like they selected Joe Hart as the winner. I mean, that's one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. They finished 32 points clear of 5th. Now, Messi is their best player and an amazing one at that, but they've got a lot of talent in that side and, whilst they may not have won the league without him (which is still saying his individual impact is worth 14+ points), they definitely wouldn't have been 32+ points worse off. By that logic, you'd arguing that Messi + our team from the mid-2000s would have won the league every year. Hyperbole in the extreme. The guy above has said this is like two fanboys arguing, to me it comes across more like a couple of kids who've just discovered who Messi is telling their friends that he can fly.

So Messi has had the best calendar year for 10 straight years? The question isn't has he been the best overall player. It is whether or not he has had the best year.

Not really. I said that Messi underperformed at the world cup, not that he shouldn't be in the top 3 because he didn't win it. Pretty simple really. Griezmann was good at the world cup, but not spectacular. If you interpreted my statement as being that anyone that won the world cup last year would have to be higher than Messi then I would have to rank Messi no higher than 24th.

No one is doubting Messi's greatness, but calling that a farce is saying that you fundamentally don't understand what the award is. The ballon d'or isn't for the greatest player of the time, but for the player who achieved the most in that calendar year. Messi failed to really impress in Russia, and in a World Cup year, underperforming at the season's major tournament is going to make winning the ballon d'or difficult. He was beaten in the voting by a world cup runner up (who was also voted the best player of the tournament and who was also a key player in a Champions league winning side), a Champions League winner who had another great year (winning the CL is undoubtedly a better achievement than winning La Liga, dull as it is), and two world cup winners (one of whom had a record-breaking domestic season and the other who had a good all round year. For me, Griezmann is the only player who probably shouldn't have been ahead of him and you can maybe convince me that Ronaldo and Messi were a push last season, but to call it a farce is, in itself, a joke.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.

Would I guarantee that Reed would be a long term success? No. He wouldn't be the first player to do well on a loan spell here and then fail. Obviously, he is a bit different to Brereton because he's more experienced and dropped down a level to play here. The jury is still out on Armstrong. A great loan spell in league one, a poor first half of the season the Championship, and now a good run of a few weeks.

Anyone who has been in football long enough also knows that judging players 6 months after they were signed, for good or for bad, is a very dangerous policy.

It may be possible that they're not allowed to come out and publicly state the fee.

I think it's always great when people justify a position by just quoting rules. None of my recent posts have questioned what's written in the rules of the forum, just their reasoning and impact. If we're using social media as a standard then why bother even having mods? One sit admin could give a cursory glance to complaints every 2/3 months and it would function just like twitter or facebook. Problem solved.

But we all know there are plenty of under 18-year-olds on the forum (as was the case when I signed up way back in 2002 and may well have been the case when you first registered) and that the messageboard has long prided itself on having a standard of debate that is significantly higher than those of other forums (in large part down to the overall quality of the posts and the lack of swearing). But I suppose it doesn't matter really.

This isn't really the place for the discussion, but I think having an admin openly saying fuck in a context when it isn't needed isn't great for the tone and long term is likely to be damaging, particularly when it is then followed up with him chiding other board members. It might not be against forum rules, but it doesn't exactly set a great example. ...but fuck it.

So, all swearing is allowed so long as it isn't directed at a forum member?

Well, fuck that then. How can one fucking swear out of fucking context?

bit rich to speak to people like children when one of them must have been relating to your own post... A post that remains unedited I should add.

He came through British academies, so I'm sure he will have been on everyone's radar domestically. Mowbray hasn't been perfect in the transfer market and we could maybe do with finding some more 'original' targets, but overall he's been good and I don't think anyone could accuse of us simply mindlessly spending money. Most of our signings have been relatively inexpensive and for the most part, they've been successful. Yes, we can judge Armstrong a bit harshly on his early season form, but then his form last season and the part that he played in getting us promoted also has to be factored in (even if he was on 'only' on loan). The total amount spent on our squad is relatively small, even by Championship standards, so Mowbray certainly deserves a little bit of trust from the supporters. All I would like for him to receive is a bit of encouragement to take a risk or two right now that might see us make the playoffs. We have a chance, not a huge one, but a chance. That is worth rolling the dice on.

If people want to discuss Brereton and his fee they should do so in the thread dedicated to the player. Almost every news outlet reported the fee as being structured, with the possibility that it could rise to 6-7m. I'm not going out on a limb by stating that; however, all of you asserting that this isn't common knowledge or that we may have locked ourselves into a 7m fee are. I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask that people stop endlessly discussing it in a topic that relates to player movement in THIS window.

...he's signed for Bordeaux

Well, let me use your own argument against you then. In spite of countless reports on the fee (which have been very clear), no one knows how it is structured. Therefore, how can you assert that it is a largeish fee? Give it a rest.

Revidge, I think you and others are sort of missing the point on this. Brereton's fee isn't described as 'potentially 7m' because it is being paid in instalments. It is described in that way because it is based on performance (both personal and team performance). It's really very simple. I don't understand why this is still being discussed. We don't need another person to say 'I don't think everyone realises that transfers aren't paid in full'. If he establishes himself as a good player for us we will probably end up paying near 7m for him. If he turns out to be a complete flop then we will pay nowhere near that amount. We haven't shelled out 7m, either upfront or in a payment structure. Can we please stop endlessly discussing his transfer. It's all relatively clear and simple and now we can just wait and see if he makes it into the first team and becomes a useful player for us. It's all painfully boring.

Dack is just the sort of player that a lot of teams in the relegation battle are missing. Not good enough to help them stay up, but someone that will stay with them and be able to help them bounce back. Dack simply doesn't have the physical abilities necessary to be able to thrive at a higher level. He's found his perfect spot right now, maybe he's aware of that.