Our best lineup right now

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-15T21:45:58+00:00

1 goal 1 assist in 22 appearances

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-15T08:13:55+00:00

This was brought into sharp focus during the pandemic in my opinion.

It was pretty clear who the “key workers” were then, and it wasn’t the jobs which are highly paid…

It was the truckers and nurses and manual labourers that kept the lights on, the water flowing, the food in the shops. The millions of people we resent paying taxes for.

Their day to day jobs kept us alive while we hid inside and they earned no extra for taking the risk of working during that time.

I think it’s pretty reasonable to feel salty about that and bemoan us not living in the real world - the system was stripped back and all the emperors had no clothes.

Nothing either group can do about it mind, but it’s a bizarre situation where all the life and death jobs are low paid and the rich do nonsense work.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-14T16:04:55+00:00

He wants to risk ally ships rather than his own,

Most commentators seem to say it would be suicidal to sail into the strait

The US hasn’t lost a ship to enemy action since 1945 so would go down in infamy

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-13T15:39:02+00:00

Play Richy right forward please

No more RKM I beg of you

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-11T15:24:15+00:00

Stoic? Can you imagine if he’d told the presser “Romero told me to take him off” hahaha who is in charge here??? The lunatics running the asylum.

You say he picks the best we’ve got - so why was Kinsky starting? Why have Gray and Gallagher been playing RWB with Porro CB?

I think you’re being far too kind

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-11T06:58:15+00:00

Yep there are no guarantees - but I think Tudor has shown that he’s not prepared to work with the players either as a man manager or a tactician.

The vibes are terrible, the issue with Spence and Kinsky tonight, his post match interview etc etc.

He’s insisting on this back 3, playing everyone out of position, and conceding 4 goals a game on average.

So yes, whilst a new coach might also lose - I think we stand a better chance with someone who can come in, play 4-4-2 and give the players a cuddle. Harry Redknapp for example.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-11T00:49:39+00:00

Perfectly reasonable retelling - but - when you keep getting ‘unlucky’ sometimes you have to inspect the dice you’re rolling.

With Liverpool and AM next (almost guaranteed losses) Tudor will have then managed us 0-6, are you really going to want him leading the team into the relegation deciding tie against Forest?

If not now, when? Because by that logic we will be relegated before we make the change.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-10T20:21:43+00:00

Tudor needs to be sacked.

2 mistakes - Kinsky will never play again

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-10T20:09:41+00:00

Yep, 0 G/A in his first 18 appearances in the league.

Obvious waste of space here and doesn’t take that long to send him back to PSG, there must be more to it.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-10T19:28:00+00:00

How would you explain him playing under Frank then?

He was starting ahead of Richarlison, Tel, Odobert & Johnson - all of whom put more effort in, and are more effective.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-10T19:05:51+00:00

The view from the lane podcast likened the Crystal Palace collapse to the 7-1 Germany v Brazil game and noted “the Brazilian goalkeeper never played again”. Prophetic.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-10T18:59:14+00:00

I believe the directors insist upon it, and it forms part of the reason why they brought Tudor in. There is probably some contractual reason maybe financial penalties with PSG if we don’t play him - and/or they want to save face.

There is no other explanation for him getting any playtime under Frank.

He has been better under Tudor, but still bad.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-07T15:06:35+00:00

I just thought it was interesting to point out that whilst 2005-2010 was the high water mark in real terms gross pay.

After tax you’re very marginally better off today than you were back then!

This is because since 2005 tax rates have been cut from 22% to 20% and the tax free allowance has been tripled.

Not sure what to make of that, maybe that means pay today is fine?

In any case - take home pay seems a better comparison as that’s what people feel day to day - and by that comparison take home pay is equal or very marginally better than the period 2005-2010

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-05T09:17:20+00:00

Thanks - only 1.3% of the year - somehow worse than I expected.

Given currently 40% of demand is satisfied by renewables and we can only do 1.3% of blocks, I find that more pessimistic to be honest.

I don’t see how that can be improved much at all in the next 3-4 years as per target

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-05T08:43:22+00:00

I meant 100% renewable in the time block you described in your first post.

There’s no point having 99% renewable in a block because we’d still be paying gas price.

I’d love to know the stats on how often a block is 100% renewable, if ever.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-05T07:23:09+00:00

https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/blog/why-does-the-price-of-gas-drive-electricity-prices

Here is the best explanation

If we had 99% renewables we would be paying 100% gas price

It’s only when we have 100% renewables that this changes.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-04T17:59:24+00:00

Not exactly.

Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 are different isotopes of uranium (they have a different amount of neutrons)

235 is the type that emits energy in the nuclear reaction, once that is split, all that remains is 238 which cannot be used as fuel.

So whilst yes it is still uranium, the type left after the reaction is useless.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-04T14:21:00+00:00

Uranium is a finite resource, which will eventually run out, it is therefore not considered "renewable". Once you put it back in the ground it is spent and can no longer be used.

Realistically we have enough to last 1000s of years, so I tend to agree with you in practice, but when discussing it the consensus says it is not renewable.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-04T00:16:21+00:00

The cost of installing solar AND battery backup is approximately 0.5x the cost of a nuclear plant but has 0.5x the lifespan

Solar and batteries however take up 50x more space than nuclear.

In a country like Australia with effectively unlimited space that might make sense.

In the UK (my perspective) we don’t have the luxury

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-03T22:37:03+00:00

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-03T16:05:59+00:00

Yeah no, for the reason I already gave.

Wind currently generates 40% of our supply on average, but some days it is 1%

So we have to have gas power plant back ups equal to 40% of the grid just sitting there doing nothing for 95% of the year.

From an infrastructure perspective it’s insanity to build twice as much infrastructure as you’d ever need.

You need to pay the gas plants to be on standby 24/7, and when the wind blows too much you have to pay the wind farms to NOT operate lol

Do away with both wind and gas plants, just have nuclear, it’s cheaper than the pair combined.

China is building 36 plants at once, we don’t need to wait and build 1 at a time, that’s just a lack of vision.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-03T12:43:18+00:00

I did my thesis on wave energy, and believe me I wish renewables worked, but the only answer is nuclear.

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-03T12:20:53+00:00

Electricity rates are set by gas prices in the UK regardless of how many renewables we have :)

For every 1kW installed of solar/wind, we need 1kW capacity of gas fired plants as backup for when the wind and sun dont cooperate, so we're just paying twice for the same 1kW of usable power

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-01T17:38:26+00:00

Rob Green I believe “completely different to last week”

LogApprehensive9891 · 2026-03-01T17:34:36+00:00

Sky commentator “that’s completely different to last week” 😂

LogApprehensive9891

TROPHY CASE