thevelourfog

Members_2012
  • Content count

    6,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

About thevelourfog

  • Rank
    CFCnet Member

Previous Fields

  • Team
    Chelsea
  1. Media / Press

    Hadn't even spotted that.
  2. Media / Press

    Bit weird that last line; you can't act like you're above a discussion when you actively prolong it. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but how I entered into discussion with @paulw66 was to dispute the idea that the colour black has the same meaning to everyone, and that meaning is a negative one. Not to dispute that he or many others might find it depressing. I think it's pretty clear that's the case, odd challenges to redecorate my bedroom aside. Feel free to assert that black has one single universally recognised meaning that no one deviates from if you want to take an actual position, though.
  3. Media / Press

    First bit, I fundamentally disagree. On your example ... Firstly, I don't know that it is actually the case that Scandinavian countries have higher suicide rates than elsewhere in the world. I'd only ever heard of that in terms of it being a myth despite being widely believed, and a quick Google suggests there's no statistical basis to it. Indeed, the study in this BBC article that popped up suggests the top 5 "happiest" (whatever that means and however they measured it) countries in the world in 2017 were Scandinavian/Nordic. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39331314 Secondly, a high suicide rate is again often about social constructs. Notions and often even the legislation around what is and is not classified as a suicide are different across the world. Some countries have systems in which coroners will give a verdict of suicide on very little evidence, others insist on a suicide note. Others have no or a weak system for deciding in the first place. A Swedish coroner might return a different verdict to an English one if both looked at the same death. The example you give does nothing to evidence the idea that any colour has an inherent, universal meaning. Second bit, I already explained why. What harm does it do to try and avoid using the word "black" as a synonym for "bad"? None. What reason would you have to absolutely insist on it? I don't agree it's pointless or futile, and don't think you're right at all about the cumulative affect on people of lots of very small, in isolation insignificant, things. But that doesn't strike me as something worth us debating further. We each have our views and that's fine.
  4. Media / Press

    I think this part-sentence undoes itself, really. You could dive never to be seen again into a social constructionist rabbit hole about what colours even are (every so often one of those pictures that 50% of people insist is clearly one colour and that another 50% insist is a drastically different one goes viral), but to stay at a more pragmatic level, the meaning we attribute to colours is clearly socially constructed. Colours don't have any meaning in or of themselves. They become associated with practices, beliefs, feelings etc., and those associations are often shared among people and communities for a generations, but it's still an association rather than anything inherent. None of which is to say that I think terms like 'blacklisted' are racist or particularly problematic, or should be banned (and we should reject that word, because no one is banning anything here; employees who are paid to say certain things are being asked to say those things by their employer). It does make me think that if we can avoid using the word 'black' as shorthand for 'bad', that seems a decent thing to aspire to? That is a very different aspiration to attacking denouncing anyone who does still say, for example, "blacklist". Exactly.
  5. Media / Press

    Likewise, I had no idea what the origin of some of those phrases was. Now I do, I'd prefer not to use them again and that's what I'll try to do. Really odd to frame this as "banning", but I suppose that's the Mail.
  6. New Kits

    I think it's ... Fine? Not drawn to it but don't think it's much different aesthetically to most third kits. It's just ... Very blue for a third kit, especially when the second kit is even more blue. That's my issue with it.
  7. Transfer Talk Topic

    Don't understand why it's absurd to think Bats isn't getting a pay rise. Wouldn't it be even more ridiculous to think he is?!
  8. Transfer Talk Topic

    ^ Mitrovic, whatever he earns, will have signed that contract as a PL player in 2018. Varying levels of stock to place in rumours of course, but Palace and West Ham are apparently desperate to shift their higher earners and have no takers. At West Ham, to the extent they've sold a player they had no intention of entertaining offers for even just a few weeks ago. You have Deloitte estimating PL clubs have collectively lost about £1b, and KPMG estimating £10b has been wiped off the collective value of Europe's players. The idea that players are going to refuse to accept lower wages doesn't hold water. The vast majority aren't going to have any say in the matter.
  9. Transfer Talk Topic

    I'm sure plenty of agents will be looking at their own projected income over the next few years and very happily encouraging players to take whatever deals they're being offered right now. And I'm not sure what players backing themselves has to do with anything; plenty want or need to earn as much as they can. The issue here is what "worse off" means. Surely the overwhelming likelihood is that Bats will be made "worse off" whatever and from where ever his next contract comes. He doesn't have the same stock as he did when he signed his last contract, and virtually no one has money to spare. A Chelsea contract now for a few years at (for argument's sake) 50% the previous contract's pay is likely better than Any Other Club's contract in 2021. "Worse off" is going to be the reality of plenty of players in the next few years. The only wiggle room is going to be by how much.
  10. Transfer Talk Topic

    This ... ... and this. Until a few months ago I might have gone along with this thinking. There are two things though that I think undermine the previous logic. 1) We've missed the boat getting a good fee for him. No fault of our own because the economics changed around us when the season shut down, but very few clubs are in a position to spend Kante-levels of money this summer. It's no longer plausible, imo, that we get the sort of fee that makes losing his immediate contributions worth it. 2) We've drastically accelerated our team and squad-building. Even as recently as January we looked 3 or 4 years away from being realistic title contenders, and it could have made sense to cash in and spend that money on players who could contribute to that development rather than be at the end of their career by that time. That's obviously no longer the case; having Kante here and contributing to genuine pushes for serious trophies in the next 2 or so years is worth so much more than the money he could bring in.
  11. Transfer Talk Topic

    He wasn't trying to make them look accidental ... He was trying to make it look like he was fouled! Brilliant player, but absolutely the dirtiest and nastiest I have seen in the PL.
  12. Season expectations/predictions/peculiarities 2020/21

    Looking at your list, I'd imagine it has to do with money and value. A few of the purchases before 2015 (Hazard, Willian, Oscar to a lesser extent) did really well for a few years, in some cases all the way up to 2019 or 2020, and simply didn't need new signings to replace them. Pedro was a good top-up in 2015. After that the price of similarly able players shot up, and what you could bring in for the sort of cash we'd spent didn't add much. The difference now is a) we do need to replace those players and b) economic circumstances seem to be returning, from our perspective, some value to the market.
  13. Season expectations/predictions/peculiarities 2020/21

    No idea, don't really care, pretty bored of any discussion of Conte being limited to him either being God's gift to football management or a simpleton. He obviously did some things really successfully well, he obviously did some things really disastrously badly. You can see how dug in this forum seems to be on that matter when a poster such as yourself (and I'm meaning that as a compliment!) makes even a passing allusion to Conte's inherited Chelsea squad being "duds". We don't have to suggest players like Hazard, Costa, Fabregas, Willian, Courtois, Kante and Azpilicueta were less than they were (I.e. at the time the envy of at least about 90% of European football clubs who'd start them every game possible if able) to try to make an argument for Conte. Doing that is, imo, not praise or a defence. It is the most damning criticism of him, more savage than anything anyone being outwardly hostile towards him could possibly say.
  14. Season expectations/predictions/peculiarities 2020/21

    Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Morata? And Alonso signed under him for over £20m! He was hardly a previous manager's leftover scraps he had to make use of. He was also given Kante and a CL-winning CB to add to Hazard, Costa, Willian, Fabregas, Courtois, Azpilicueta ... Absolute insanity to even slightly suggest Conte's successes here were despite having "duds", and a courageous take to suggest he "made things work" when he truly did have more duds to work with. I don't understand what it is about Conte (and Sarri) that drives this forum to such hyperbole.
  15. Chelsea Finances Thread

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54014827 Chinese TV rights deal pulled. The implications for all PL clubs are pretty significant.