BTRFTG

Possibly, but I alluded to folks criticizing JET for squandering his talents, which undoubtedly he did, but more power to his elbow for the life he's enjoying. Couldn't miss it given the boots he wore that day.

Swazzy. Loved watching JET's 'training' social media when in Thailand. Recalls the Spanish waiter / George Best story, he delivering a UK newspaper headlined 'George Best, Where Did It All Go Wrong?' to the man himself. Best reclined on the suite's gigantic bed piled high with tens of thousands of dollars casino winnings, quaffing fine champagne whilst lying in the arms of Miss World.

As Johnson openly discussed at a Senior Reds luncheon shortly after Engvald made his debut they'd made a 'panic signing' days ahead of the season, knew next to nothing of him other than raw stats, had never seen him play and when finally getting the chance so to do immediately realised the huge mistake they'd made.

It didn't work out for him for one reason and one reason only. He's devoid of footballing talent.

Loving the Barca fans who screamed for & celebrated De Jong's signing now standing at the training ground gates screaming not his name but the fact they now consider him a greedy ****er who should take a wage cut & **ck off.

Frenkie de Jong – £470,156 per week Sergio Busquets – £354,591 per week Jordi Alba – £335,733 per week Robert Lewandowski – £302,208 per week Miralem Pjanic – £251,760 per week Ansu Fati – £224,842 per week Ousmane Dembele – £221,619 per week Franck Kessie – £218,235 per week Raphinha – £201,472 per week Jules Kounde – £201,472 per week Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang – £184,710 per week Gerard Pique – £167,947 per week Andreas Christensen – £167,947 per week Memphis Depay – £167,947 per week Pedri – £151,185 per week Marc-Andre ter Stegen – £145,060 per week Ronald Araujo – £112,824 per week Ferran Torres – £100,735 per week Samuel Umtiti – £100,735 per week Neto – £96,707 per week Quite a few of these haven't been paid of late....

€1.2bn in debt. Marca reporting today the TV deal with Sixth Street was 'over-reported' by Barca to the tune of €150m. That deal is for 25 years (for every € they've taken upfront they've given €3 away in future revenue.) They've also given away a sizeable share in their own content provider. 6 of their 8 highest earners aren't yet registered to play this season. Madness.

Flat? The egg-chasers pitch had a slope running from the bypass side down. That said, the kid I thought I'd killed didn't roll down it all the time he was unconscious so it wasn't as severe as some.....

Give it a couple of months and they'll be starring in 'Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!' But what to seize...?

£16.5k - fine by me......

So it's a crime not to be a glory hunter, to not feel obligated to follow the masses. I've done or said nothing to stop you and others enjoying your moment of glory (sic). I even offered my own congratulations to the Lionesses. All I did was highlight the folly of comparing the women's game to the men's. And that's now a crime? What, under your totalitarianism, would you have me do to mark the occasion? I said attend, not watch....

Football is no exception and as with any business if the directors are of an opinion the operation may no longer be self funding then they must immediately takes steps to mitigate others losers by winding up the company. Unlike many ungratefuls on here I remind why we've everything for which to thank Mr Lansdown as without his beneficence City would already be history. City cover this by having SL convert loan to stock. No longer club loses they'll be SL's if crystalized. In football's case (men only) there are active controls (of which City may shortly fall foul,) that mandate long term sustainability and removal of the contrivance of ownership. The other difference between men's and women's football is, I suggest, that there are critical mass income streams within the men's game (and likely always will be, though not supportive of present rates of spend,) which may sustain the men's side but which are unlikely to materialise within the woman's game. I could be wrong, but history doesn't suggest I will be.

Given today's wall to wall bandwagon jumping it's hard not to. But I'll be open. I'll commit to attending as many women's matches next year as I did this. (In my case that's not difficult.) Unlike others I won't scream women's football is the greatest thing since slice bread then do nothing until success is next in the horizon.

Self-sustaining? They have to have the potential so to be else immediately must enter administration. Agreed /, profit and merit have no correlation. Equal footing? Ah, to the point of my original response, you'll recall, the comparison that the Lionesses had done something no men's team had done since 66. Should they both have the opportunity to provide outlets for both sexes to play? Of course they should. Should success in both be recognised? Again, of course it should. Should the entertainment and skill levels across the sexes be considered equal? Historically the populous would suggest not. Doubtless a few more will have changed their opinion since yesterday, perhaps there will be a boom in attendances across the women's game and good if there is. But for those who demand equality in everything, even where it doesn't exist, there are always those who highlight that folly. Having spent a lifetime watching football, and not the greatest standard either, I've absolutely no interest in watching football of lower standard. Whether that's women, kids, walking or disabled unless one has a personal interest, why bother? England's women won a women tournament. Great. Congratulations. But no need for unfounded extrapolation.

Indeed. The difference being there are income streams whereby men's professional football could be made to pay it's own way. It isn't (yet) bankrupt and why it may keep trading. That isn't the case for women's professional football where the rules allow larger clubs to pass costs to related entities but where those without patronage have been known to forfeit cup ties because an unkind draw has made the journey unaffordable.

Virtually all women's 'professional' football is funded by parent clubs. At the top end to the tune of many millions of pounds each year. I think it had been reported Chelsea, as WSL champions, to the tune of upward of £200k per week. Sponsorship is presently around £10m a year for the top two tiers, The Premier gave a similar amount from the last TV deal for the overall development of the women's game (all tiers,) not sure if the EPL contributes (other than allowing cross subsidy from men's football.) But if that last measure is all it'll outstrip all other sponsorships by miles. In City's case and in the last accounts the women's team had debts of around £93k, of which around £22k were EBITDA in year and thereafter consumed within the overall losses. Small change? Oh the 15 employees, all their wages, all their costs and expenses were reported against the overarching account, not the women's team. The woman's game reports it's income but not it's expenses on the pretext the club offsets such losses from FFP/P&S calculations.

My 'very poor' post simply highlighted the blind adulation, bandwagon jumping that pervades today, in this case the phrase 'done something no men's team could do since 66'. As I highlighted there is NO comparison, though clearly reading whilst wearing rose-tinted glasses is difficult for some. For one the 'professional' men's game is required to publish accounts that meet certain criteria. The 'professional' women's game is that in name only. Wholly bankrupt, minimal revenue (why might that be,) and dependant upon funding provided by, er, the men's game. I posed the rhetorical question if there was a comparison just how comparable are the two, then proffered my own answer? Few were brave enough to suggest an answer knowing they'd be shot down if so doing. That's the nature of debate these days. I congratulated the woman several times for their achievements and for the impact they'll have on the development of woman's football. But we'll leave it to the bandwagon jumpers who, if true to their word, will ensure a massive expansion in attendance at woman's football this season. They sure as hell need the money.

To be fair well done, bravo and all that but they haven't 'done something no men's team could do since 66', for men aren't permitted to play in woman's tournaments (at least not yet.) Admittedly I only watched about 30 mins of the whole tournament, but that was sufficient. By all means celebrate a great achievement for woman's football but in all seriousness answer this: Against which City representative side do you think the Lionesses would remain competitive? I reckon they might give the boys U16s a game but by U19s they'd struggle. U23s they'd be played off the park. And that's City. From the few bits I did see the Spaniards were technically light years superior to anybody else and attempted to play something resembling adult men's football. England may well be champions of Europe and good on them. But if comparing to men's football, lack of ball control, ball retention and kick and rush, there is no comparison. I trust their success has women and girls rushing to pull on their boots to get involved, for that can only be a good thing Just spare any conflation with the men's game as the two have little in common.

Remember to turn it off when trying to conduct any type of secure interaction within the UK. Norton's anything but smart.

Awful news particularly in somebody so young ( I recall watching Marvin's debut.) As you correctly highlight age is no respecter when it comes to this form of cancer. If you've ANY concerns and your GP fobs you off, go back and go back and go back and give them hell, it might well save your life. If they tell you you're 'too young' or have 'no familial history', tell them to look where the sun don't shine, really, take a LOOK. I promise you won't regret it. Early prevention is not embarrassing, nor painful, nor a waste of time. It's conducted by professionals who do this day in day out, with good humour and discretion. If dubious, think of your family and friends. Like me they'd prefer to share a glass or two with you in person on your birthday rather than when buffing the plaque on your park bench (as I now have to for good friends gone far too young ) Here's to a full and speedy recovery Marv.....

A good news story would be for Mr Anderton to live a long and healthy life amongst his family. That's all that matters. I don't like Barton though suspect from the reported form of Mr Anderton's cancer he's trying to take pressure off and manage fan expectation. If so, he should be applauded in allowing the player to wholly focus on treatment and recovery without ever worrying about football.

Can't move for train lines near me. Pointless when there's no sod willing to drive, guard, staff, maintain trains regularly on them. If public purse is to underwrite any investment then it needs a quid pro quo from those that staff the railways. Sweet FA chance that will happen anytime soon.

Football matters not. I wish Mr Anderton, his family and friends positive outcomes over the following months.

Forever known as 'The Gus Caeser' game. For one night only he was utterly magnificent.

A few of our acquaintances had the shirt last season Slarti but not, of course, seeing City play. Many years back I got fairly close counting only City visits (courtesy of the golden period of relegations,) but gave up what with the replacement and majorly remodelled grounds, not to mention the ins and outs of the league.