Ratcliffe, INEOS and the future

[JoelfuckingGlazer]

Seeing clips of Ruud on the pitch giving advice to our towards..... it makes me feel all warm inside. Fucking love it.

I know it doesn't automatically translate on the basis that he was a proper player, but he doesn't half know what he's talking about and he doesn't half have some credibility. If you're Hojlund, Zirkzee, Garnacho, Amad, even Rashford, you're going to listen.

I have a sneaky feeling Marcus is going to have another blockbuster season.

[Felwin]

Seeing clips of Ruud on the pitch giving advice to our towards..... it makes me feel all warm inside. Fucking love it.

I know it doesn't automatically translate on the basis that he was a proper player, but he doesn't half know what he's talking about and he doesn't half have some credibility. If you're Hojlund, Zirkzee, Garnacho, Amad, even Rashford, you're going to listen.

I have a sneaky feeling Marcus is going to have another blockbuster season.

Certainly possible. I think he's become a bit of a billy big bollocks as he's got older and had something to prove the season before last. Casting off Ronaldo's shadow certainly helped too. Maybe that dynamic is there again, he's on a proper low, rejected by England, awful season, part of him may want to show Ruud what he can do... we'll see

I'm a bit more pessimistic though. I really like the kid and I thought he'd finally found himself the other year but after last season I think he clearly has big problems. Maybe we were expecting him to be a starter for us and he really only ever should've been an option - he was never touted for greatness like Mainoo for example. So I'd be surprised if he suddenly became one of our best performers week-in week-out.

[Fuck the Glazers]

The 100 odd mil we could get for Rashford, who has zero book value, has to be on the minds of Ineos. Our finances are fucked remember. It could be transformative.

If he doesn't turn it around this season we should look at calling time. This is his 10th season. How many of those have been great? Enough to justify being one of the highest earners?

Also he's gonna be 27 in October. His career started when he was 17, he's had a lot of injuries, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had 2/3 more seasons in him before the decline sets in. The decline could be fast too given how young he was when he started playing week in, week out.

[FuB]

The 100 odd mil we could get for Rashford, who has zero book value, has to be on the minds of Ineos. Our finances are fucked remember. It could be transformative.

If he doesn't turn it around this season we should look at calling time. This is his 10th season. How many of those have been great? Enough to justify being one of the highest earners?

Also he's gonna be 27 in October. His career started when he was 17, he's had a lot of injuries, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had 2/3 more seasons in him before the decline sets in. The decline could be fast too given how young he was when he started playing week in, week out.

I'm not even bothered to see if he can turn it around this season, really. If an offer comes in we should bite whoever's hands off. He brought absolutely nothing to the team except issues last season.

[swampash]

The 100 odd mil we could get for Rashford, who has zero book value, has to be on the minds of Ineos. Our finances are fucked remember. It could be transformative.

If he doesn't turn it around this season we should look at calling time. This is his 10th season. How many of those have been great? Enough to justify being one of the highest earners?

Also he's gonna be 27 in October. His career started when he was 17, he's had a lot of injuries, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had 2/3 more seasons in him before the decline sets in. The decline could be fast too given how young he was when he started playing week in, week out.

I'm not even bothered to see if he can turn it around this season, really. If an offer comes in we should bite whoever's hands off. He brought absolutely nothing to the team except issues last season.

Totally agree.

[Fuck the Glazers]

Nick Harris has done a 12 year investigation into team GB and British cycling of which David Brailsford was director, and basically it looks like they were all cheating.

I don't think we should play this down.

[dozer]

Nick Harris has done a 12 year investigation into team GB and British cycling of which David Brailsford was director, and basically it looks like they were all cheating.

I don't think we should play this down.

The notion of incremental changes or marginal gains exhibiting compounded benefits sounded like bro science anyway. I'm not sure tbf, so I don't have strong opinions on this.

[Fuck the Glazers]

Nick Harris has done a 12 year investigation into team GB and British cycling of which David Brailsford was director, and basically it looks like they were all cheating.

I don't think we should play this down.

The notion of incremental changes or marginal gains exhibiting compounded benefits sounded like bro science anyway. I'm not sure tbf, so I don't have strong opinions on this.

Eh?

I think I understand. The alleged scale and effectiveness of the doping was enough to create complete dominance of cycling for years. Like City; from nowhere to a near shut out. Or the obvious one, Lance Armstrong who dominated for an impossible length of time. Truly impossible. Team GBs success was bizarre, an outlier - and not really achievable through fair means.

It's not marginal gains, it's significant gains.

I just think some of these individuals have been discredited and I don't trust em.

[dozer]

Nick Harris has done a 12 year investigation into team GB and British cycling of which David Brailsford was director, and basically it looks like they were all cheating.

I don't think we should play this down.

The notion of incremental changes or marginal gains exhibiting compounded benefits sounded like bro science anyway. I'm not sure tbf, so I don't have strong opinions on this.

Eh?

I think I understand. The alleged scale and effectiveness of the doping was enough to create complete dominance of cycling for years. Like City; from nowhere to a near shut out. Or the obvious one, Lance Armstrong who dominated for an impossible length of time. Truly impossible. Team GBs success was bizarre, an outlier - and not really achievable through fair means.

It's not marginal gains, it's significant gains.

I just think some of these individuals have been discredited and I don't trust em.

What I meant was Dave was apparently a genius because he peddled and also incorporated this marginal gains strategy. He would make incremental changes like change the paint colour of the room or the bus the athletes used, and other similar minor changes supposedly had benefits that compound over time.

My instincts told me this was bro science but again, I don't know enough so I'm not sure myself.

[swampash]

…wtf is bro science when it’s at home???