506 Comments Login to Post a Comment
  1. ShaunGoater123
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 12 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Currently looking at the this arsenal & united midfielder drafts, thoughts?

    Onana
    Estupinan, Gabriel, stones
    Rashford , saka, martinelli, Fernandes, foden
    Ferguson, haaland

    Areola, chilwell, beyer, archer

    1. Bartowski
      • 15 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      too much arsenal & united in midfield.

      1. Zimo
        • 8 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        U can never have too much

    2. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I like it. I have the same midfield.

    3. notlob legin
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Great team

      1. notlob legin
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Just Wissa over Ferguson for me

        1. Fulchester's New Centr…
          • 9 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Me too.

  2. Stranger Mings
    • 5 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Is wissa better than a 5.5/6m mid?

    1. Fulchester's New Centr…
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Does the pope ship in the woods?

      1. Stranger Mings
        • 5 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I take that as a ‘yes’

        1. Fulchester's New Centr…
          • 9 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Yes.

    2. The Mentaculus
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I think so, at least to start with given Brentford's fixtures. I don't have any sub-6.5m mids currently

      1. Stranger Mings
        • 5 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Ok cheers - changed enciso to wissa now

  3. Lord.
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 11 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Trevor Francis RIP. Sad news.

    1. AC/DC AFC
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Terrible news, a heart attack this morning at his apartment in Spain by accounts.

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        There's worst ways to go at least, RIP to the first £1m player (seems like pennies with today's Mbappe news)

    2. George Sillett
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      RIP Trevor. Saw quite a few games he played in and was one of the best forwards of his era.

    3. RIP - though for some reason I thought he died already a few years ago.

      1. Andy_Social
        • 13 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        You're thinking of Gerry Francis.
        He’s not dead yet.

        1. I know - I saw him in my local Tescos a few months ago! Same haircut still!

    4. Fulchester's New Centr…
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      More memories of him as a manager than a player.

      First £999,999 player.

      1. The Knights Template
        • 12 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Hi Shakey!

        1. Fulchester's New Centr…
          • 9 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Hullo. How art thou?

          1. The Knights Template
            • 12 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Very tired, bedtime I think!

            1. g40steve
              • 8 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              You in AUSTRALIA

            2. Fulchester's New Centr…
              • 9 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              Don't let the bed bugs bite. Nearly midnight here too.

    5. MJF
      3 years, 18 days ago

      RIP. Good co-commentator in the early days of Sky.

  4. Johnny too hotty
    • 14 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    This is my first season upgrading my membership to premium. What are the top 2-3 tools that are most useful amigos?
    almost a MUST HAVE to get my head around 🙂

      1. Deulofail
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        (If it's working)

        1. Johnny too hotty
          • 14 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          lol - a bit brutal?

          1. Sure You Did
            • 3 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Fair response tbf. I think paying for a fantasy football site is pathetic enough but if you are going to do it, make sure it is worth it. Not sure this is, unless they get proper devs in and sort out the raft of issues that they have been told about for years.

            1. TheTinman
              • 10 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              Sorry mate but people can spend their own money however they choose. Who are you to judge? Perhaps reword or learn to articulate yourself a little better

              1. Deulofail
                • 10 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                "Make sure it's worth it"
                So...then.... it can be worth it!?

                And then he's questioning himself.:
                "But wait, I'm not actually sure whether it's worth it or not..."

                "Okay, sign me up!" 😆

              2. Sure You Did
                • 3 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                My original comment, as it has been written, stands.

    1. TheTinman
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      When I was a member the things I used most were;

      Full Season Ticker access
      Members articles
      Access to a lot of stats

      1. AC/DC AFC
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        It's the articles really and also supporting something that we're happy to comment on daily, even without paying but happily denigrate (not you)!

        Imagine if Musk took over?

        1. toerag
          • 16 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          FFX

      2. g40steve
        • 8 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        That was £12-17 pounds for a year, not the bend over it is now?

        1. TheTinman
          • 10 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          That's true, I think for my first stint I paid for a half membership and it was like £5 for half the year.

          1. g40steve
            • 8 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            That’s worth it & I would pay the £15 but not a chance the recent prices 🙂

    2. The Mentaculus
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Tbh I don't use RMT & 'tools' all that much. I'd rather 'optimise' my own team in my head rather than through RMT projections, but it can be useful for the occasional comparison like comparing GK value ratings.

      Mainly I'm in it for the articles (especially those by Neale & Lateriser). The team feedback sessions that Tom runs on Friday afternoons are also handy, even if I mainly use it for Villa questions or queries about their predicted lineups.

      But most importantly, ignore the new members area & use the old one for your stats & player comparisons! This is what drew me to the site in the first place. Some of this data might be available elsewhere but I'm not sure exactly where & all together. Get to know your useful underlying stats, from the obvious ones like xG to the more detailed stuff - e.g. for me, the balance between big chances conceded & shots conceded when choosing a GK

      1. Deulofail
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        There is no new members area. They took it down. I used it for the fixtures because it had more features which have now been taken away.

        1. TheTinman
          • 10 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          The new members area was an absolute trainwreck when I used it. The old one was pretty darn good for comparing players.

        2. Andy_Social
          • 13 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          My membership expires in 3 days and I've decided not to renew. I feel like there's nothing I'll be missing that I don't see in YouTubes for free.

          1. The Mentaculus
            • 5 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Fair enough. Just realised the price has almost doubled from what I'm paying

            1. g40steve
              • 8 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              Economy’s booming don’t you know, not.

          2. g40steve
            • 8 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Join the unwashed 🙂

          3. Szob Story
            • 7 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Really disappointed what has happened to this site over last 3-4 years, used to be a must have at a great price!!

    3. mad_beer ✅
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      So you saw the train wreck of the front page and decided to pay for this? Tsk tsk

  5. David Slade
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 13 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Point 4 is very important.

    1. Fulchester's New Centr…
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      U.S. post war policy of technical assistance and economic aid to underdeveloped countries?

  6. x.jim.x
    • 11 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Biggest bargains in FPL based on Transfermarkt values vs FPL price:

    1. Enzo - £104.1m for 5.0m (95.2% discount)
    2. Rice - £100.3m for 5.5m (94.5% discount)
    3. Maguire - £74.8m for 4.5m (94% discount)
    4. Fofana - £69.1m for 4.5m (93.5% discount)
    5. Lukaku - £97.2m for 7.0m (92.8% discount)
    7. Pepe - £68.8m for 5.0m (92.7% discount)
    8. Grealish - £101.1m for 7.5m (92.6% discount)
    9. Van Dijk - £72.8m for 6.0m (91.8% discount)
    10. Ndombele - £53.5m for 4.5m (91.6% discount)

    Great selections for any serious player, I'm sure you'll agree.

    1. Defcons are for Kinnear
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      This is the kind of information casuals would eat up

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        If you took the biggest bargains per position, you'd get:

        Kepa - Alisson
        Maguire - Fofana - Van Dijk - Cucurella - Dias
        Enzo - Rice - Pepe - Grealish - Ndombele
        Lukaku - Nunez - Isak

        14.5m ITB anorl - get me on a podcast pronto.

    2. Fulchester's New Centr…
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Kepa in goal.

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I actually skipped over Kepa at #6 for some reason - save 92.7% while stocks last.

    3. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Helpful post...

    4. Sure You Did
      • 3 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Wow, that is a list of average players. Apart from 9 and maybe 8.

    5. The Knights Template
      • 12 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I’m not going to lie, I’d really like to stick mine fingers into those nostrils!

    6. TheTinman
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Chelsea with 4/10 and Mudryk must be pretty close.

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Mudryk apparently 23rd with 89.2% - Transfermarkt only have his fee at €70m though but I'm sure it was more than that...

    7. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Just shows what you can do with stats.

    8. LangerznMash
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      This is the sort of content we come here for.

    9. Herger
      • 4 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      😆

  7. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
    • 9 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Just noticed the set pieces section says Reece James is on penalties for Chelsea.

    Surely that can’t be right?

    1. Sure You Did
      • 3 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      It will be Nkunku.

      1. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Yeah sounds realistic

    2. Taking them from the physio's table will be tough.

      Seriously though I would say the Chelsea penalty taker is "TBC"

    3. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      There has been discussion about this, and I don't mean on FFS.

    4. Hairy Potter
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Probably left over from last season. Wasn't he listed as a possible given some manager comments. I'm guessing the other players on the list ahead of him have left. Nkunku seems the most likely penalty taker.

  8. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
    • 9 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Thoughts on this?
    Set piece and attacking threat galore!

    Pickford
    Trent | Gabriel | Estupinan
    Salah | Bruno | Saka | MGW | Andreas
    Haaland | Wissa

    Areola | Baldock | Beyer | Woodrow

    0ITB, thanks

    1. AC/DC AFC
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Is Pickford in for his assists?

      1. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Probably the keeper with most attacking threat for 4.5!

      2. toerag
        • 16 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        😆

      3. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Just looked - he was joint highest assister last season amongst the keepers lol

        1. AC/DC AFC
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 10 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Yep

          He got 1...

    2. LangerznMash
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      needs Son.

      1. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Think I prefer Bruno & MGW yo Son & Enciso

        1. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
          • 9 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          *to

  9. Deulofail
    • 10 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Just wondering if anyone's seen the Barbie film. I'd love to know what the crowd on here think about it 😀

    1. The Knight likes to put a shrimp on the Barbie.

      1. Deulofail
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        his shrimp?

        1. A shrimp would only need a small helmet

          1. Deulofail
            • 10 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            A small purple helm is all a man of great power needs

            1. The Knights Template
              • 12 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              Do any of you know the farthest point from the centre of the Earth?

              1. The Knights Template
                • 12 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                Tis Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador, due to the bulging of the equator and rotational axis of Earth. Mine codpiece bulges and rotates in similar fashion.

                1. The Knights Template
                  • 12 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  And never use the word shrimp in Australia, that is Bubba Gump guff, they are called prawns, as in ‘don’t come the raw prawn with me fella’ (ie. don’t try to pull the wool over mine eyes, mate!).

                2. Fulchester's New Centr…
                  • 9 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  Think I've heard that somewhere before.

                  1. The Knights Template
                    • 12 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    Tis outstanding knowledge I am happy to share!

              2. Andy_Social
                • 13 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                a pulsar?

                1. The Knights Template
                  • 12 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  We drive Hyundais Andy, not Nissana!

    2. x.jim.x
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Thought it was ace if maybe 20 mins too long. Gosling is hilarious.

      1. The Mentaculus
        • 5 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Pretty much this. The resolution was bit long-winded/preachy but for the most part it was good fun & Gosling cracked me up

    3. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Not me, but I hear they slip in a woke message about all men being a**hats. Is that really what pre-pubescent girls should be learning?

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Ignoring the nonsensical Piers Morgan esque part of your comment, the film isn’t aimed at pre-pubescent girls. It’s written and directed by Greta Gerwig film ffs.

    4. toerag
      • 16 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      not seen Barbie but oppenheimer was pretty good

    5. TheBiffas
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Woke misandrist garbage

      1. x.jim.x
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Have you seen it?

        1. TheBiffas
          • 5 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Yes mate

          1. x.jim.x
            • 11 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            I know you disappear when asked to elaborate but please explain what part of the film is “misandrist”?

            1. TheBiffas
              • 5 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              Similarly to last time you asked me to elaborate, if you couldn't see it for yourself then you never will, and I don't have the energy to get into a catfight with you

              1. x.jim.x
                • 11 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                Translation: “I saw someone say it on Twitter and it sounded clever.”

            2. Andy_Social
              • 13 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J7aJtGphVs

              You say it isn't aimed at pre-pubescent girls. Are you seriously telling us young girls who love their Barbie dolls won't be pressing their parents to take them to the film?

              1. x.jim.x
                • 11 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                Loads of young girls will want to watch The Idol because The Weeknd is in it - it’s up to parents to do their research.

              2. Deulofail
                • 10 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                I'm not a fan of this Youtuber nor reactionary conservative media, generally (as am more lefty kinda guy), but I have seen this video, and I tend to be generally more in agreement with him than not in this case.

                1. Andy_Social
                  • 13 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  I think my politics largely align with yours. I agree about the 'tuber - he overly stresses "The Message" all over the shop, but yeh, this critique makes sense to me. I haven't watched it though, and I'm still hopeful our 10-year old lass won't hear about it and hassle us.

                  1. x.jim.x
                    • 11 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    The fact that fella admits he was "duped" into believing the film was "just another colourful, light-hearted, easy-going family comedy ... capped off with a blandly inoffensive female empowerment message" should tell you that he is at best someone who doesn't bother researching films before seeing them, at worst a moron.

                    1. Andy_Social
                      • 13 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      See my comment below - he's speaking on behalf of normal parents.

                    2. TheBiffas
                      • 5 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      Nope. The marketing campaign actually did a perfect job of disguising the true agenda of the film before the release

                      1. x.jim.x
                        • 11 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        The marketing campaign that had Greta Gerwig, director of Little Women and Lady Bird, all over it?

                      2. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        You clearly don't use Tiktok 😀

                      3. I would guess 95% of the population have no idea who Greta Gerwig is.

                      4. The Abyss
                        • 13 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Lady Bird was rubbish.

                      5. The Abyss
                        • 13 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        I’m sick of that lefty snowflake tree-hugging child.

              3. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                • 5 Years
                3 years, 18 days ago

                That's not exactly the same thing though is it? A movie can be aimed at one audience while another has an interest in it. It's rated 12A here so anyone under that age shouldn't be seeing it

                1. Deulofail
                  • 10 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  The A means that people under that age can see it, though.

                  1. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                    • 5 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    Yeah, with parents. If parents aren't going to do due diligence over what their kids are seeing then how can you place the blame on anyone but them for their kids seeing content that they don't wish them to see? It takes but a few minutes to watch a trailer and see what content a movie has.

                    1. Deulofail
                      • 10 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      So the producers (incl Mattel) can aim the film at pre-pubescent people. Otherwise, a 12 rating wouldn't bother them.

                      Films essentially apply for their rating and edit to ensure it gets what they want to increase their audience (which can include getting a higher rating as well). Barbie wanted a 12A so that people younger than 12 could go.

                      1. x.jim.x
                        • 11 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        The fact that it's not a U might be a clue that it's not aimed at children?

                      2. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Did you expect them to get a 15/18 rating? What do you think was taken out of it to reduce it to 12A? I'm not in line with your thinking / viewpoints on this and I'm not going to be so probably best we leave this here

                      3. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        U is for 4 years and over. You're involving yourself for the sake of it right now. 12A exists for a reason.

                      4. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Natedog: 12 is also a possible rating

                      5. x.jim.x
                        • 11 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Right, and if Barbie wanted to attract children and people younger than 12 (according to your logic), why wouldn't they go for a U rating, so everybody could see it?

                      6. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        No

                      7. x.jim.x
                        • 11 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        BBFC haven't used 12 (without the A) for cinema for over 20 years now.

                      8. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Okay fair point if true. But the point I make is still valid. The producers have aimed for and secured a 12A instead of a 15 certificate so that 12-15 year olds can see it unaccompanied and under 12s can see it accompanied.

                        I'm not making any claim besides that these people are included in their target audience.

                      9. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Why would a company push for their movie to be at a higher age rating than what's required? Would you purposely try to sell a product you made to a smaller market than one that it is viable for and regarding regulations and rules is perfectly in line with? I wonder if you feel the same way about movies with strong nudity, drugs, violence.

                      10. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        I "feel" the same way about all movies, because that's the way it works. You might want a higher rating to encourage people to see it who don't want to see a 12... or 15... film. It depends on the film and the producers.

                        In the same way that Barbie wouldn't push for a U because they don't want to take out the sex jokes and other a material - because they are making a Greta Gerwig film that parents aren't planning to endure with their 6-year-olds. This isn't a controversial "opinion" I have. Why are we arguing? hahaha

                      11. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        We're not arguing we're discussing, but I can't make sense of a company deciding to alienate a viable audience grouping for the sole reason that some people won't want to see a movie because it isn't a high enough rating? If such people they have to be in a ridiculously small niche so it's not a decision I can see any company or director making unless they like to have less successful movies.

                        You said "Barbie wanted a 12A so that people younger than 12 could go", but you don't know that if 12A was simply 12 then that may have been enough for them. By your logic with Twilight, the directors and company "wanted" under 13s to be able to see a movie where they'll be exposed to the sexual themes and violence of those movies, or that the director and company behind Casino Royale (12A) "wanted" under 12s to be able to watch people being killed and a man being tortured.

                        I just find it funny that this movie of all movies is one that people would nitpick that on

                      12. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        Barbie is a toy that a company wants to sell to children, so I can see why people would "nitpick" about the themes and age rating. That's not what anyone seems to be doing here though. I think the nitpicking started when you said: "That's not exactly the same thing though is it?"

                        But yes, Casino Royale will have likely agreed on a target age certificate before it was even funded. Bigger budget productions from big studios, especially, will be more deliberate with their targetting, and for James Bond, that includes capturing the imaginations of children.

                        But if you want an adult experience, for example going to see scary, scary horror or a sexy, sexy erotic thriller, you might be put off by a 12 or 15 rating, as you are unlikely to get what you are looking for. A lot of horrors wear their 18 certificates as a badge of honour in film posters and trailers. It's going to make them more money that way.

                        But I think you really are nitpicking a throwaway line I used simply to acknowledge that producers don't necessarily always want the lowest rating. It's pretty obvious. If Barbie was a U, for instance, I wouldn't have bothered giving it a go.

                      13. Deulofail
                        • 10 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        At 12A, I was on the fence about paying to see a Barbie advert, but I went because a friend chose it over Oppenheimer. If it was an 18-rated film, I probably wouldn't have needed any persuasion to check it out, even gone by myself perhaps. I'd have been very intrigued about how they managed to warrant that with an IP relating to childrens' toys. The audience would have grown in a certain demographic and shrunk (probably much more so in this case) in another demographic. It's not just a case of wider net = bigger catch.

                2. Andy_Social
                  • 13 Years
                  3 years, 18 days ago

                  If you're a busy parent who isn't on top of current pop culture, and your kids points to a TikTok ad for the film, there's a good chance you assume it's like an innocuous Disney film and take the kid, unprepared for the line it's going to push on an unsuspecting audience.

                  1. x.jim.x
                    • 11 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    Can't wait for Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek to come out and all the parents 'too busy' to bother parenting kick off.

                  2. The Mentaculus
                    • 5 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    I find it a bit ridiculous that people are scared of the message / line. Its not hateful towards men or even that radical. Just a lot of the jokes aren't really for kids & a lot of it would go over their heads

                    1. TheBiffas
                      • 5 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      I usually agree with most of what you comment here mate, but I'm baffled at how you failed to see the oppressive and radical message of the film

                      1. The Mentaculus
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        There's a difference between a critique of patriarchy & a (misandrist) view of masculinity as inherently oppressive..? Which the film doesn't cross for me since the critique comes from the social-structural differences between the two worlds rather than its very endearing male characters

                      2. TheBiffas
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        The patriarchy, shown in the film as 'the real world', consists of construction workers catcalling and boardrooms without any women. At the same time, the film tries to talk about how women aren't stereotypes, yet the same stereotypes of men apply in both realities? Go figure

                    2. x.jim.x
                      • 11 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      The ridiculous thing is assuming these people have actually even seen the film rather than just parroting Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro tweets.

                    3. Nate(U)dog(ie)
                      • 5 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      There are unfortunately always people that will view things in this manner even when it isn't there. The most ironic part of this for me is that Gosling's entire Ken character is based around his insecurities regarding Barbie and how much he wants her attention (it's literally said in his introduction), and this is followed up by a fair few people whining about how men are depicted and teaching women to dislike men. If anyone needs a reason to dislike men, men will (and generally do) give them that, don't need to pretend a movie (a movie based on a fictional world, with a humorous intent, at that) is the only reason why anyone would feel that way

                  3. Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo
                    • 5 Years
                    3 years, 18 days ago

                    99.99% of kids under the age of 12 have been exposed to much worse stuff than the Barbie film. When I think what our class (boys and girls) had watched by the time we were 12, it would make parents cry. And we didn't even really have Internet and phones at that point. Kids nowadays know it all, and have seen it all.

                    P.S. In the main, Disney films probably push more damaging messages for girls than the new Barbie. Sounds like you've just latched onto whatever new thing the culture warriors have told you to hate.

                    1. Deulofail
                      • 10 Years
                      3 years, 18 days ago

                      Sorry Joey but you should watch the film first before involving yourself in the debate and taking sides in the culture war. You would surely tell others the same 😀

                      1. Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo
                        • 5 Years
                        3 years, 18 days ago

                        I have read a lot about Barbie (from multiple points of view) and generally read around film and tv as it is a big hobby for me. But you are right, I should see it first to avoid being a hypocrite.

    6. Nate(U)dog(ie)
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I enjoyed it. Thought some of the humour was a little too on the nose but it was still funny and I did like the messages of the movie (even though at first the way some of it began I was worried it was going to merely be a bit preachy). Gosling stole the show though (although I'm a big fanboy of his so I can't say I'm not biased)

      1. The Mentaculus
        • 5 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        "Beach off" didn't really land with (/translate for) the Norwegian audience; we were the only ones laughing at that 😀

        1. Deulofail
          • 10 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          I literally put my head in my hand at that part. Such embarrassment that not even Gosling could pull it off. (Phrasing!)

          1. Deulofail
            • 10 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Oh sorry, I didn't get that you found it funny. Oops, no offence. I didn't!

            1. The Mentaculus
              • 5 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              None taken 🙂

          2. The Mentaculus
            • 5 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            I think for some reason I'm most amused by jokes that are either extremely subtle/obscure or the complete opposite & not so much those in between

    7. Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Watching it next weekend and Oppenheimer tomorrow. Both should be good. Gosling was utterly hilarious in the Nice Guys so I'm hoping for more of the same.

      1. Nate(U)dog(ie)
        • 5 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I bloody love The Nice Guys, people seem to be discovering it after Barbie which is great

        1. x.jim.x
          • 11 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Place Beyond the Pines is brill too

          1. Nate(U)dog(ie)
            • 5 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            Loved that too, starting to rewatch some of his movies lately so those two are definitely going to be on the list

            1. x.jim.x
              • 11 Years
              3 years, 18 days ago

              I was originally worried when I found out he was starring in the Blade Runner sequel, but what a brilliant film that is too.

      2. Deulofail
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I'm quite surprised by the positive response to Barbie tbh. Leaving aside the politics - as I'd have too much to write - I was just bored watching it. It didn't seem to even make sense on its own terms and some of the jokes were real facepalm moments for me. Though I will say that I did like moments and laugh in others. I wanted to like it but in the end I really didn't.

    8. Riverside Red
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 7 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      No...but saw Mission Impossible on Saturday night and thought it was superb

    9. GENERATION X
      • 12 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Hot topic this - then close the site down...

  10. MoSalalalalalalalalah
    • 8 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Best 6.0m mid?

    1. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Ramsey, but he's injured

      1. MoSalalalalalalalalah
        • 8 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Thoughts on Buendia?

        1. The Mentaculus
          • 5 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Ousted by Diaby potentially? Not 100% sure on Villa's tactics yet though - really need to see some friendlies to figure out how they'll set up

        2. Hairy Potter
          • 11 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Looked good against Newcastle last night.

    2. Amartey Partey
      • 6 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Gibbs-White

      1. KAPTAIN KANE SERVES THE PAI…
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        This is who I’m on, bad fixtures but who knows would be nice to be ahead of the curve with him

        1. Bobby Digital
          • 8 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          The curve that never comes 😛

    3. TheBiffas
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Benrahma

    4. AC/DC AFC
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Michael Olise when he's back or transferred possibly.... As long as he's not at Man City.

      Probably Luiz for £5.5 or go to £6.5.

      1. Birds of Prey
        • 12 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I saw Oppenheimer over the weekend (great), and Barbie opened same Friday night. Man the lobby was filled with fruitcakes.
        I slipped in for ten minutes and it seemed like the same gimmicky joke was likely for 2 hrs.

      2. Crunchie
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 8 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Olise's out until October (2nd IB). He doesn't have a Release clause. He did. Fabrio got that one wrong.

        He signed a deal last summer without it.

        I think it is agent talk to get improved wages now Zaha has gone and was offered 200k with a big release clause), or hopefully Man City do get him (and not Chelsea, but he would cost around 70m. He could be 100m +.

        The same goes with Eze's agent. and they are best mates

  11. apprehensivepipe4
    • 5 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    RMT:

    Johnstone (Areola)

    Chilwell, Stones, Saliba (Henry, Udogie)

    Fernandes, Son, Foden, Saka, Eze

    Haaland, Jesus (Archer)

    A) Chilwell, Saliba, Eze

    B) Colwill, Botman, Martinelli

    1. The Knights Template
      • 12 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Tourney - join.

  12. Merlin the Wraith
    • 10 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Hmmm!
    Salah & Rodri or KDB & Foden?

    1. Amartey Partey
      • 6 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      A

    2. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Latter

    3. cravencottage
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 15 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      KDB and Foden

  13. Amartey Partey
    • 6 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Are Luton any good, or will they be the whipping boys this season?

    1. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Check out the quality of their incoming transfers

      1. Amartey Partey
        • 6 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Mbappe?

        1. The Knights Template
          • 12 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Neymar unfortunately.

    2. TheTinman
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I imagine they are going in with the expectation to earn money from this venture, enjoy the parachute payments, possibly have another go next season. They don't want to break their wage structure at all.

      Almost feels like they're relegated and they know it.

      1. TheTinman
        • 10 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        ** but everyone associated with the club is going to enjoy the ride

        1. Andy_Social
          • 13 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Which is entirely the right and responsible attitude to take.

          1. TheTinman
            • 10 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            I agree. They should use it to really help the club grow. Invest in infrastructure, youth etc. Try and build themselves into a club who can challenge at the top half of the Championship year after year.

      2. Amartey Partey
        • 6 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Nice. I’m going to stick with my 3 Brighton players.

    3. x.jim.x
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Give it until the first international break before the Derby comparisons start coming out.

    4. Riverside Red
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 7 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      They have a good defender

  14. WVA
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 9 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    A. Ramsdale Shaw
    B. Onana Gabriel

    1. TheTinman
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      B

    2. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      B

    3. JBG
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      B

    4. Stranger Mings
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      A

    5. UnluckyXI
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      B, think Gabriel is a must

  15. The Knights Template
    • 12 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    By mine reckoning JACKBRO FC is the 200th member of the Hall of Shame Tourney and is a most welcome contestant for the jousting to come! He wins the Kentucky Fried Whelks franchise business. Yes, the entire business!

    1. Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      The big question is whether enough Shanes have registered to have a separate Hall of Shane cup.

    2. AIRMILES
      • 15 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I thought you were going to bed?

      1. The Knights Template
        • 12 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        It’s hard when all the fun posters are here. So hard. But I have moved to the bedroom. Mine head is on the pillow and we are close.

    3. toerag
      • 16 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      yum :sick:

  16. GoonerGirl
    • 6 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    I've chopped and changed so much recently, I started with 4-5-1 now I'm thinking I like 3-5-2. So many options it feels like at the moment.
    What do you think?

    Onana (Areola)
    Gabriel Stones Estupinan (Mings) (Beyer)
    Saka Rashford Mitoma Fernandes Martinelli
    Watkins Haaland (Archer)

    1. UnluckyXI
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Got 8 of the same players.

      I like the team and have had most of them in a version of my team already.

      Lack of Liverpool worries me but the martinelli, Saka, Watkins combo means you should be able to get which ever of Darwin, gakpo, diaz and jota nails down a spot

  17. jamichael
    • 12 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    A) Saka and Mbeumo
    B) Foden and Maddison

    A or B, pls help. Thx

    1. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      A

    2. notlob legin
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      A for me at the moment too. Maddison (and all Spurs) are a wait and see for me

    3. UnluckyXI
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I'm on Saka & Foden.

      Of those id go for A as I wouldn't want to be watching Arsenal v Forest without Saka in my team

  18. UnluckyXI
    • 9 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    First time doing a RMT this season. 3-4-3

    Onana (Areola)
    Trent-Gabriel-Estupinan (Botman-Beyer)
    Saka-Rashford-Foden-Enciso (Anderson)
    Haaland-Darwin-Jesus

    1. notlob legin
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 9 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Love the Darwin pick, but with no real bench it could be problematic. Also Enciso not guaranteed. I think you might be unlucky with this 15

      1. UnluckyXI
        • 9 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Cheers, I'm thinking I'll likely downgrade Jesus 1.5-2.0 then slightly upgrade my first 1-2 bench players.

        My arsenal fan bias has kicked in with Gabi, Saka and Jesus

  19. NJ MetroStars
    • 5 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    trent/enciso OR stones/martinelli?

    1. St. Stephen XI
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 7 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I'd go with S&M

      1. Riverside Red
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 7 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I thought you were going to say M&S

      2. Herger
        • 4 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        I bet you would

        1. St. Stephen XI
          • Fantasy Football Scout Member
          • 7 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Those two can really whip in a cross.

          1. Herger
            • 4 Years
            3 years, 18 days ago

            😆

      3. Andy_Social
        • 13 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        The Marquis would be proud.

  20. St. Stephen XI
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 7 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    If your #5 defender is a certain Burnley player who you're relatively sure will remain affixed to your bench all season, shouldn't you be calling your team Beyer Neverusin?

    1. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Ha ha - my reply is banned!

      If it's the Luton defender, the team is "Be11end"

      1. panda07
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 13 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        BeIIend isn't banned though?!

        1. Andy_Social
          • 13 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Weird. My post was blocked when I wrote it.

    2. teddy.
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 17 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      If you also have a certain Fulham 4.5 FWD, is it Beyer N Muniz?

  21. Letsgo!
    • 9 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Pickford
    Taa estu shaw stones
    Saka mbeumo mitoma bruno
    Haaland watkins

    Subs areola maca baldock morris

    Gtg?

    1. teddy.
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 17 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Perfectly decent. No sign that Areola would be first choice so might be better to pick a low ownership 4.0 GK to try and avoid losing cash monies. I'm going with Hennessey.

  22. The Mandalorian
    • 13 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Anyone considering going 4 5 1 over 3 5 2 ?

    Forwards don't look good value this season.

    1. MJF
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I don't like paying 9.0 from the off for two non-playing forwards when I can pay 8.0 for two playing defenders, that's the only reason really.

      I am also not sure how many of the defences I trust outside of City.

      I reckon value will emerge up top.

      1. MJF
        3 years, 18 days ago

        *main reason!

      2. Birds of Prey
        • 12 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Why wouldn't you trust arsenal, especially with those fixtures?

        1. x.jim.x
          • 11 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Hologramsdale and Gabriel just had a mare in a friendly

    2. Andy_Social
      • 13 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I am considering it if either Joao Pedro or Raúl Jimenez become viable options to start at least 30% of games. Currently, that's not looking likely, though. A Balogan move would also entice me.

    3. keefy59
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Teams playing 4-5-1 with 2 x £4.5m forwards will get punished if Haaland no show due to injury or rotation .
      Also the game is about scoring points goals assists etc
      Seven attacking players is the way to go 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 in my opinion

    4. Arn De Gothia
      • 16 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Im going a combo from 5 - 5 - 2 Third fwd 4,5 and rest are playable most weeks

  23. Coast94
    • 11 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Too jazzy?

    Flekken
    Stones, Chilwell, Estu
    Rashford, Saka, Martinelli, Foden, Eze
    Haaland, Jesus

    Areola, Wissa, Baldock, Kabore

    1. Herger
      • 4 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      The template is not too jazzy, no

      1. Coast94
        • 11 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        A few template picks, but Foden, Martinelli, Chilwell, Eze, Wissa and Flekken are all low-owned.

        1. Herger
          • 4 Years
          3 years, 18 days ago

          Yeah, all popular in this community though I’d say - maybe Flekken a little less so. It’s a good team anyway. Very solid

  24. Wirtzle Gummidge
    • 13 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    352 with Martinelli and McAtee
    343 with Jesus and Nakemba

    1. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      343

  25. NJ MetroStars
    • 5 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    onana/martinelli OR flekken/bruno?

    1. teddy.
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 17 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Very strong arguments for both Onana and Bruno...

  26. Birds of Prey
    • 12 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Is it necessarily a bad move to pay 9.5 for keepers? Onana and flekken rotate almost perfectly for the first nine games, particularly after gw4.

    1. teddy.
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 17 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Might work like a dream, but the general consensus is that it is unlikely to yield much more than either a 5.0 + 4.0 or a 4.5 + 4.5 strategy

  27. AC/DC AFC
    • Fantasy Football Scout Member
    • 10 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    It must be the off season if there's a heated debate on here about Barbie!!

    1. Dunster
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Enjoyed reading the debate. Plus I learned a new word - a$$hat

      1. Andy_Social
        • 13 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        Good to know I contribute something positive around here.

    2. Deulofail
      • 10 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      I thought I might be triggering an Oppenheimer by posting it 😀 Muahahha

      1. teddy.
        • Fantasy Football Scout Member
        • 17 Years
        3 years, 18 days ago

        That would start a chain reaction

  28. ☈☾
    • 8 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Who is Newcastle's first choice left back?

    1. x.jim.x
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Burn unless they buy someone

    2. Hairy Potter
      • 11 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Probably Burn, but Targett could challenge him.

    3. teddy.
      • Fantasy Football Scout Member
      • 17 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Only target the Newcastle leftback if you have transfers to burn.

  29. The Mentaculus
    • 5 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    Just starting a replay of the Pool game. Interesting how they setup with Gakpo as an 8, TAA continuing as a 6.

    Alisson
    Konate VVD Robertson
    Bradley* TAA
    Gakpo Mac Allister
    Doak Jota Diaz

    *inverting from RB

    1. The Mentaculus
      • 5 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Trent's locks are gone! Mistook him for some academy kid

  30. Bigler
    • 8 Years
    3 years, 18 days ago

    RMT

    Onana
    Gabriel Estu Tarkowski
    Salah Martinelli Saka Mbeumo Mitoma
    Haaland Nkunku

    Areola Baldock Pau Archer

    Thanks!

    1. Bobby Digital
      • 8 Years
      3 years, 18 days ago

      Maybe drop Pau to 4.0m and upgrade Tarkowski? Other than that it looks solid. I like Martinelli and Nkunku in threre.