Flinkers

The English version of the Lokomotiv Moscow website has him down as on loan with a priority purchase option (whatever that means...) https://www.fclm.ru/en/publications/news/24682

€4m a year for a truck driver?? I picked the wrong profession.

He passed his citizenship test before he left Chelsea.

Nitpicking here, but I don't understand number 3. If there was no arm, there's no handball, just a deflection - which may or may not have resulted in a goal... No handball = no pen and no red, surely?

Maybe Rüdiger has rejected his offered contract and will be sold instead? I can't see him and Christensen making it to January without an extension.

3-4-2-1 with Mount and Werner playing off Lukaku. I think that would work nicely. If we want to go ultra-attacking + hard press we could drop Kovacic/Jorginho for Mount, leave Alonso at LWB and put Havertz or Ziyech in the inside RF spot. Prbbably not the opponent for that though...

Think so - played for us, West Brom and Everton before turning 21.

As a Kiwi kid growing up in the 70s and 80s I never kicked a round ball in anger! On the rugby field I started on the wing then moved to loose forward when I got too slow. I played mostly openside or No. 8 until the opposition started getting too big and too fast. 3 concussions in a row (each with a longer stand down) put paid to my rugby career at 17.

For his size and strength, he doesn't really use it though and is more of a last shoulder player than a battering ram. I think that's why people tend to underrate him and why he's less influential against packed defences than on the counter - which is also why I'd be wary of signing him although I think he's an excellent player. I'll admit though, I've not seen much of him since he left the Premier League. I often think Carlo's Christmas tree formation would work well for us or a 3-4-2-1 with Werner and Havertz playing off someone if we don't want to change to a back 4. We tend to "fence" rather than "cut" and IMO we need more runners from deep or quicker ball speed to improve our goalscoring ability. A back-to-goal CF helps immensely with that. Especially one that then spins and goes straight for the box. Theoretically, a 4-3-2-1 gets most of our players on field in their 'natural' positions; it gets Mount (who has a decent long shot and good timing) running in from deep and late and still leaves us with enough in midfield to cover whichever CBs play. We could even make do with the fullbacks we have. If it was my money, I'd be pushing pretty hard for Lewandowski even at 32/33 years of age. I think he's got everything we're missing in a forward. He's never been the quickest and he looks after himself so should be able play on effectively for a while yet.

That's my point - the perception doesn't have to be politically or racially motivated and is absolutely driven by the media's agenda. Especially when its solidified through the red tops in the UK which are traditionally read by the less affluent and the opinions and stories are intentionally sensationalist. In this case it's old/clean vs. new/dirty money with a hint of Cold War animosity. That for me, is the principal reason we get tarred with a thicker brush than Manchester City. The ADAG ownership is more credible than a "rubber duck salesman from Saratov". The narrative was formed off the back of popular opinion (United and Liverpool supporters feeling threatened), reinforced through the media and then amplified by David Dein et al spouting on about Russian tanks firing rubles over English fences. Even the Shinawatra regime was more liked than us and that really was a case of a dodgy dealer siphoning money from a legitimate source but, because the regime was so inept, so non-threatening, they usually got a free pass.

Or maybe it's just due to public perception - on the one hand a billionaire spending money accrued at a time when things in Russia were decidedly dodgy; on the other a Middle Eastern country investing the returns on a naturally occurring resource.

That’s what they keep saying about house prices!

I‘m not completely up to date with planning law in the UK, but I would think that would be a supporting document or report for the application. It would be here.

That’s just the sum of lost seats applied to one stand. The rail seating is being in the MHL too, so the losses are spread over ca. 10000 seats and not 7000. Still just a ratio of about 1:1 though. The seats being wider, or the mounts for the flip seats taking up more space could be two reasons why we‘ve got a net loss in capacity. The planning permission for the installation must be on the LBHF website somewhere.

Welcome Northern Lights!