Is Tikay the one at the back?

Happy birthday. So nice to see you enjoying retirement.

The Rock was one of the first people I watched. Saw him play many Single Table Tournaments. Tight aggressive style in those days-incredibly tight. Which worked when most of the rest of the table were incredibly loose, many of whom had no idea how to play.

How times have changed.

Both the M-word and the S-word have been common terms of abuse for at least 50 years.

It is true to say that the term "spastic" was a common medical term until the 1990s. It is also true to say that, at the time Scope chose to change its name to The Spastic Society it was medically proved that a considerable majority of CP people did not meet that definition. It is also true to say that in 1984, some 10 years before Scope got around to changing their name, their magazine made the choice to remove the name "spastic" from their name.

The last Charity report for Scope makes interesting reading. Full of stuff about how well they are doing in difficult times. And how they have rewarded their 7 Senior Executives (CEO, CFO and 5 Directors) with pay rises, meaning their combined pay (18 months ago) was roughly £1 million.

Fast forward to 2025. Announce that they are closing 90% of their shops. Placing 33% of jobs at risk. Intend to make 20% of jobs redundant this month. Together with lots of volunteers. Freely admit that many disabled people will lose their jobs.

I have in the past carried out lots of these sorts of reviews. Made thousands of people Redundant. But surprisingly few CEOs, CFOs, or Heads of HR (in this case someone who has been promoted from Head of HR to "Executive Director of People").

Charities are marvellous things. Sadly all too often run by less marvellous people. Who might care to sort out their own shortcomings rather than picking on an uneducated Actor.

Not strictly a politician, but wanted to highlight the stupid pronouncement of some senior official at Scope, the Charity.

He has been referring to the suspension and then dismissal of the Eastenders actor, Jamie Borthwick. Who has been dismissed for the one-off use of the offensive ableist word "mongoloid". Regardless of the fact that not only was it a one-off, it was not in any way connected to his employment as an actor on Eastenders.

If we are all liable to summary dismissal for using one unwise word, not sure how many people would be in employment. But language changes over time. Words that were once in common usage are now deeply offensive. Which, IMHO, requires education. Not dismissal. But it was the attitude of Scope that particularly rankled. The quote started with:-

"Attitudes and language like this are never acceptable".

So. A word that once had medical connotations relating to Down syndrome. That, over time, became synonymous with an offensive slur that it ceased to be acceptable. Something that not everybody always appreciates.

If only I could think of another word referring to people with Down syndrome. That, similarly, is now no longer acceptable. Which, presumably, that man at Scope believes "are never acceptable".

Scope. Known for 90 years as the Spastic Society. Might have hoped for a little more understanding.

We live in a time where we are far too quick to judge. And to hold others to standards which we would never maintain ourselves.

Rayner? Definitely unlucky.

Starmer as PM? Certainly not made a good start. But when the Daily Torygraph praises his reshuffle, then he must be doing something right.

There have been plenty of good PMs in recent times. It's just been that our terrible Press have always sought to undermine them.

To sum up the most recent PMs:-

Cameron. Very good. Effectively forced out by the Right Wing of his own Party
May. Like Gordon Brown, an effective Politician. But not a good PM. Appointed at the nut worst time-when we most needed a diplomatic PM
Johnson. Good abroad. But at home one of the worst PMs of all time
Truss. Rival to Johnson in the buffoonery stakes
Sunak. A safe pair of hands. Suspect that if he had succeeded Cameron, the World would be a better place. Not given the credit he was due for reversing the terrible immigration policies in relation to legal migration under Johnson
Starmer. Too early to be sure. He is going to be better than Johnson or Truss. I suspect history is going to mark him (like Sunak) as a bit average. His big advantage is that, if that tw@t Farage is the next PM, people will long for the good old days under Starmer and Sunak.

Amorim reminds me a bit of Postecoglu. Only worse.

He, like Ange, has a Plan A. and no Plan B. Except he doesn't have the players (even when fit) to carry out that Plan A. And, unlike Ange, he throws his players under the bus-those he hasn't already forced out. One of those Managers that take the credit in victory, and blame the players in defeat. And spent squillions. Can't keep hiding behind a squad that is very much now his choice.

Worst of all. he hid during the Penalty shoot-out. Shameful. Lead. Or go.

For any Man Ure fans out there, I vividly recall the last shock result for Grimsby. When they beat Spurs. And, strangely, it helped us a great deal. Cos we threw on a kid while losing. Aaron Lennon. Hope he is keeping well. On a similar note, hope Andy Sinton is recovering.

Man Utd, even with their current squad, should be 6th-10th. And will be. Once they get a decent Manager in.

Yes. That's the one.

The one who was promised a bigger role when Citeh came sniffing.

Signed that contract. Hasn't started yet and plays in the same role as Eze

Dowman genuinely looks exciting.

But, before you get carried away:-

Last season, the young Lewis-Skelly looked to be the real deal. Now-out of the team, and looks fragile
Season before, Nwaneri looked the real deal. Out of the Team, rumoured to be looking to leave

1 thing brought it home to me the other day. Because I still think of Celtic as a massive club. And, of course (and I include Rangers in this) in various senses still are

Celtic's record signing is (I believe) £11 Million.

The 3 teams that have just been promoted to the Premier League are all predicted to go straight back down. And, this Summer alone, have between them signed 13 players for more than that amount.

[would]

I get that you don't understand why I am trying to explain my point. It could of course be that I just like the sound of my own voice. Or it could be that you don't understand the point I am trying to make. But please feel free to be confident that you know better than me what point I am trying to make.

With regard to you disagreeing about the make up of the Top 4, that's perfectly fine. I would expect more people to agree with you on that-just not 35 out of 35 out of people who are paid to be pundits.

In relation to the probability, you are completely correct. In reality, the bookies make profit via the Probability exceeding 1 by a considerable margin. Typically, using my 35 number, the total would be about 50/35. Which, as you rightly say, makes the Probability of the Top 4 being the 4 favourites considerably less likely (although still more likely than anything else).

The question posed to these 35 experts was not who is most likely to be Top 4. It was who, on their opinion, would be Top 4. Which is a different question. With a much more individual answer. If 20, even 25, pundits said those 4, completely understandable. 35 is just plain wrong.

The question of Top 4 is, of itself, highly misleading. Financially, for years it was the be-all and end-all. Not now. 5th gets Champions League, too-which is why Newcastle are there. And for the 17th-placed Spurs who, with Man Utd gave up on the League with several games left. Which I detest-but that is the new financial reality

If you look at the Odds for Top 5, rather than Top 4, they are massively different. Let me give 2 examples.

Chelsea are 1/3 to be Top 5, rather than 4/6 Top 4. Why? 3 reasons. Firstly, no-one will care whether they are 4th or 5th-any more than they used to care whether they were 3rd or 4th. Secondly, a deep run in Europe may mean incentive for league position will drop. Thirdly, Chelsea face a really tough run-in. Their last 11 games include Arsenal, Villa and Liverpool away, and Newcastle Man City Man Utd and Spurs at Home. Because those odds of 4/6 and 1/3 would normally make no sense together. But the Bookies clearly feel it likely that Chelsea may well ease up in the League at the end.

Man Utd are best priced at 5/4 to be Top 5. Not odds I would touch. But for none of those 35 to take a punt on a Top 4 prediction is bizarre. And I know football should not be tribal. But when, for example, Rooney won't say Man U could be Top 4, Shearer won't say Newcastle will, and Walcott tips Liverpool to win the League, it just seems a bit sad.

Let me try and explain.

We can all see the likeliest Top 4. We can go on to various sites, like Oddschecker, and see that. For free.

The BBC has used our money to pay 35 experts to provide an opinion. To provide insight via their professional knowledge and contacts. To provide supposedly informed opinion. Not to read Oddschecker and charge me for the privilege.

You provide informed comment about Tennis. You give opinions. You don't just decide who is going to win based on the odds. Similarly, if 35 Tennis experts were asked to provide their 4 tips for likeliest Winners at Wimbledon, I expect you would be pretty p1ssed off if all 35 just picked the Number 1-4 seeds.

The bookmakers odds seem clear to me. Roughly speaking-

Liverpool have a 33/35 chance of being Top 4.
Arsenal have a 29/35 chance.
Man City have a 28/35 chance.
Chelsea have a 21/35 chance.

Which means the other teams, between them, have a 29/35 chance. Which is a lot more than 0.

When Leicester won the Prem, number of experts predicting Top 4? 0
2 years ago, Aston Villa? 2.

To give last season as an example. Liverpool ran away with it. But close after that:-

Arsenal 74 pts
City 71 pts
Chelsea 69 pts
Newcastle/Villa 66 pts

Season before that, both Villa and Spurs above Chelsea. And Man U have spent squillions. That 0 out of 35 put any of them in a Top 4 is daft

Chelsea are 4/6 to be Top 4. When you add in the "round" realistically they are an Even money shot. 35/35 is ridiculous

Used to rant about this every year next door. But this year the BBC Sport "experts" have excelled themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx27rrrz2nko

That's 35 "experts". Total number of those experts who have had the remotest success as Managers? 0.

Here is their considered opinion as to who will be Top 4 in the Prem this year:-

Liverpool-35
Arsenal-35
Man City-35
Chelsea-35.

The other 16 teams?-0. That is 0 for Aston Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs et al.

Imagine if every horse racing tipster in the Press only ever tipped the favourite. People would-quite rightly-regard them as a waste of flesh.

It's only fun.

Tony and I have sniped about our respective teams for years. It's a North v South London thing We both enjoy it, and don't really take it that seriously

To quote my Wife, at the end of the day it is only about 22 overpaid blokes chasing a bag of wind

On the assumption you support the team that bears your name, it must be disheartening to be both head and shoulders above all other Scottish clubs, with a massive level of support and an awesome history, yet only have the budget of a bottom-half Championship club. A British league would transform the finances of your club.

To return to your point, Spurs got ridiculously lucky in Europe. More so than they were unlucky in the League.

I am 62 years old. And Spurs have not won the League in my lifetime

I would have cashed out at 4/1, too. Nothing to do with this "Spurs-y" nonsense. Quite a lot to do with what Tikay said-Spurs were bound to sit back, and PSG were awesome going forward. The other point was that Palhinha wasn't fully fit. When he went off (together with Kudus and Richarlison) we lacked the ability to fend them off and counter effectively.

Love the idea that fans of various clubs feel able to believe Spurs cannot win things. To be in the Super Cup you have to win 1 of the 2 big European competitions, and to have won it in the last 50 years.

Arsenal have, like Spurs, played in it once. In 1994. Under George Graham. And got beaten as easily as PSG beat Arsenal in the Champions League last year.

Played as well as we could. Which is probably why the PSG Manager felt Spurs deserved to win.

We've no longer got Aussie Idea-less at the helm. Lovely guy. Deserved a chance after doing well at clubs in small leagues. But I am more confident than for years.