I have more faith in you getting one of them running than Arsenal actually buying a top rate defender.

no more loan signings (can somebody give me an example when they have ever worked well for us)

Hi Soc,
As far as Monday's game, he owns Colorado Rapids as well. He'll profit from ticket sales, merch, etc., both sides. Whether or not he or Josh attend, they'd have to be impartial. Wouldn't surprise me if half-half scarves are sold. The Bayern game, Weds., is in LA. No guarantee on that either.

Jim Leighton?

Oh God ..... NZ wins the toss and decide to bat

Now obviously Kane Williamson know a lot more about cricket than I do but I think there's far less pressure of the side fielding first .

A couple of early wickets and our campaign collapses .... like last time around McCullum went out and she was all downhill from there .

If we sent England in first we'd know exactly what we had to chase .

Ludicrous decision in my book

Don't forget, Kroenke owns the Los Angeles Rams so its likely no coincidence the game is being played in LA. The stadium that the Rams are planning isn't finished yet, so they are playing where the LA Galaxy side plays I believe. A football (soccer) specific field. I wouldn't be surprised he is getting something a bit more out of that as well since he owns a club in the same league.

The Rapids match with our 'sister club' is a pure money play. He keeps everything on both sides, which has been stated.

I suppose many people’s enthusiasm for getting him is based on how weak we are at left back with Kolasinac being such a bad defender and Monreal being so old. It makes them hope against hope that he’ll miraculously become and stay fit.

But I understand your viewpoint. Signing Tierney would represent a very big risk for such a significant proportion of our transfer budget. Even if he’s another Maldini or Lahm, if he hardly ever plays we’ll still be seeing lots of Kolasinac or Monreal.

The injury stuff is being over stated as he played 40 games last year and if Chelsea were not on a transfer ban apparently they would be in for him as they need a full back.

Admit it he looks a talent
If you think too much is being made from
https://youtu.be/PdPgMdqKZsQ

I’ve never seen the bloke play, I’ve said that. But I’m not going to declare someone as a massive talent based on one long range shot from YouTube. It’s his injury problems that enables me to see what Gaz is getting at. If you think they’re being overstated then I hope you’re right. But I have seen his injury record, including last season, and it wasn’t pretty reading. So if Chelsea didn’t have a recruitment ban they’d have wanted him when they already have Alonso? Hmm, okay.

Many moaned about the club’s injury record for years. And now people are desperate to sign an injury prone player. Ironic really.

Don't forget, Kroenke owns the Los Angeles Rams so its likely no coincidence the game is being played in LA. The stadium that the Rams are planning isn't finished yet, so they are playing where the LA Galaxy side plays I believe. A football (soccer) specific field. I wouldn't be surprised he is getting something a bit more out of that as well since he owns a club in the same league.

The Rapids match with our 'sister club' is a pure money play. He keeps everything on both sides, which has been stated.

Wow. Guptill run out going for the second. England win. Bad luck New Zealand.

UNBELIEVABLE game of cricket. Stokes diving to get in for a second run, the throw hits his bat in mid dive and flies to the boundary for four more.
Game tied, it's a super over. What a finish to the game I've never seen anything like it. Nobody deserves to lose this.

Indeed. If the teams tie they should share the cup. A tie is so rare it really does feel unfair to insist that one or other should win. The Kiwis have been tenacity personified.

Indeed. If the teams tie they should share the cup. A tie is so rare it really does feel unfair to insist that one or other should win. The Kiwis have been tenacity personified.

Is it fair because wouldn’t the English bowler be fresher? If they have to decide a winner, wouldn’t the team that lost fewer wickets be a better way of doing it?

no

Why not?

Is it fair because wouldn’t the English bowler be fresher? If they have to decide a winner, wouldn’t the team that lost fewer wickets be a better way of doing it?

Both teams knew the rules at the start of the game Bernard, so England won fair and square.

I’m not saying England didn’t win on the basis of the rules as they stand (what you call ‘fair and square’). I’m just questioning how sensible the rules are.

Brilliant game of cricket. However, I can barely recall a more unlucky moment in sport than the throw that went for four off Stoke's bat. I'm not sure I've ever seen that happen in that manner in any cricket match, let alone in the last over of a cricket world cup final. Desperately unlucky because they probably had the game in the bag at that point. It feels a bit like cheating but it clearly isn't.

Still, rules is rules and the sporting god's looked favorably down on England today. Amazing game, amazing victory. Well done England.

See it may be a big risk for our budget but in the market generally he would be seen as something of a bargain. His weekly wage is mooted to be 70k, half of Kolasinacs. The fee of 22 million plus bonuses is just nothing for a competent fullback with a bigger ceiling remember Kyle Walker went for 50 and Juve want 60 for Cancelo right now.

What’s the alternative ? Probably sign an older more experienced full back in the age 28-32 bracket who will probably ask for 150k a week on a 4 year deal.

The injury stuff is being over stated as he played 40 games last year and if Chelsea were not on a transfer ban apparently they would be in for him as they need a full back.

Admit it he looks a talent

https://youtu.be/PdPgMdqKZsQ

Bernard, as a proud Englishman I'm sure you will enjoy this picture.

Well Kiwi nothing much I can say. Did not watch it but it seems like a heartbreaking end.

Time to think positive. You can wake up next month & know you have a great prime minister & they will have Boris and his bike helmet.

True Gaz ...... don't want this to come across as sour grapes ........ They were in fact tied twice ... the match then after the extra over

England lost all their wickets getting the 241 while NZ only lost eight .... now that surely would be the logical way to assess who won

...... but THEN they give England the win on the basis they had scored more fours and sixes during the match .....

Sounds like they were looking for any formula to guarantee an English victory .

I'm figuring if the fours and sixes had been equal they would have moved on to which team had the most supporters in the crowd .

Maybe the V8 supercar heirarchy is running that event as well .

Mrs Kiwi is a Pom I'll sort out my frustrations give her a damn good beating