All Activity

I do not see such great performances. It was a good strategy and it worked to some degree with some clever counter-attacking which produce some changes -- they also had plenty of chances to score. We still lost all the same tho. We can discuss how much of it was their fatigue vs our good game plan. I have my own ideas based on what I saw on the pitch. 🤷‍♂️ You are also comparing a single-elimination clash with a league game. Do you think the preparation, effort level, and intensity are the same? There is also traveling involved in CL. Our game against City was not like a league game either, but we did not play OT and no travelling involved. Would totally understand if we are not 100% today, at least some players, but having a younger squad helps in this particular case. For ex both Cole and Fodden are struggling with fitness for pretty obvious reasons.

The Liverpool game we lost 4-1 and they hit the woodwork like 5 times. We were hanging on not to lose vs arsenal and city too. Awful performances

You keep repeating this to downplay our performance but ok let's say this is true. Real Madrid game was the reason this time. What about two league games? It was similar. Arsenal game also, Liverpool games as well... If you don't know the table and you watched any of these games you wouldn't know who is where on table...

That part of what will happen to everyone's job and he start discussing hologram. Around 30 to 35 I was left like wow....

Hi everyone, This online survey is part of my Football Business Management degree research project at York St. John University. The focus of this dissertation will be on the prevalence of racism at Chelsea FC football matches, with the aim to investigate and analyse if and how racism has an effect on match day experience of fans attending Chelsea home games. All participants will remain fully anonymous and answers provided will be kept confidential. In order to complete this survey, participants must be over the age of 18. It is linked below and would be highly appreciated if anyone can help fill this in. Thankyou. https://forms.gle/KYFJ7r78mkrtC4fx7

https://www.11v11.com/teams/Chelsea/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Arsenal/ CFC H2H VS ARSENAL CFC Games won: 66 CFC Games drawn: 59 CFC Games lost: 83 CFC VS ARS OVERALL GAMES PLAYED - 208 Since 17 September 2017 our CHELS has had a terrible amounts of draws and more losses.

love the confidence

I totally agree. Two full seasons is long enough to properly assess players to see if they're good enough or not. However, I highly doubt he'll be the leading CF for us next season. That spot will be filled by whoever in the summer.

Copa America is happening this summer, so.... All on the Spanish FA for being tight. I don't think they'll get away with no goal line technology next season after this decision, though.

We will smash them

Zero confidence, man. I hate arsenal so much that it scares me and I am terrified that they might actually go ahead and win the league. I also feel like we cannot do anything about it. SO frustrating. Can't even remember the last time we beat them. Sigh...

Nah. Gallagher LW.

Unleash Carney and casadei

Yeah, no Palmer, no chance.

Lets see now what we will do without Palmer.. My guess is, fucking mess and probably a miserable loss..

Quite a long but worth watching vid. Any politician that stands up for Palestinians is totally fucked by the Israeli lobby. They changed the definition of anti semitism to include any criticsm of Israel

This has been a painful season at times for Chelsea fans. Progress has been limited, and at times it has felt like the team is going backwards despite the entire squad being refreshed. But football always leaves you something to cling on to, and in Chelsea's case there are a couple of storylines which have […]View the full article

Chelsea https://thedailybriefing.io/i/143851085/Chelsea Thiago Silva’s future has been decided - full details in Fabrizio Romano’s exclusive column. Conor Gallagher to Newcastle rumours emerge, but what’s the truth? Fabrizio Romano takes a look in his exclusive column. Cole Palmer was not in training yesterday due to illness ahead of the Arsenal vs Chelsea game, while Malo Gusto is currently undergoing medical assessment. Christopher Nkunku is still in partial team training. Mauricio Pochettino on Nicolas Jackson following the difficult game against Man City: “Jackson is doing fantastic and he will always have my support. He’s doing an amazing job for the team: running, scoring, assists. It’s not easy on the first season. Nicolas fights for the club and he will be better next season, no doubts.” Pochettino: “It’s a good challenge if Palmer is not available vs Arsenal. If I were them, I would be motivated to go there tomorrow and show that this is Chelsea Football Club, not Cole Palmer Football Club.”

Not all footballers will make good managers, far from it. And in fact, not all those who have played the game even make good pundits. We have actually witnessed some former players become horrendous managers and pundits. Playing the game at any level does not automatically mean you have a good football knowledge. Some footballers […]View the full article

I found this website for sports chats and Livestreams for sports. Chelsea chats are here MAH/Matisse The big six YouTube channel and American sports watchalongs. https://www.playback.tv/ Also android and iOS apps - playback tv on android app you put your email and have 10 minutes to setup your username with your passcode number not password.

Why Are Voters Worried About Biden's Age? It's all about appearances. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/why-are-voters-worried-about-bidens In seeking re-election, President Joe Biden has been haunted by voters' concern with his age. Their concern is not strictly medical. Biden's opponent, Donald Trump, although only three and a half years younger, doesn't elicit the same worry from voters. According to a March New York Times poll, 73 percent of voters thought Biden was "just too old to be an effective president," while only 42 percent thought that of Trump. In fact, unless voters are asked specifically about Trump's age by a pollster, they don't think about it, but they do think about Biden's. Biden's advisors seem to believe that Biden can dispel these concerns by appearing feisty in speeches and by touting his accomplishments in office, but the problem runs deeper. It begins with Americans' expectations about how their presidents should appear, and these go back to America's founding and its conception of the presidency. In designing a new government, America's founders rejected Great Britain's monarchy in favor of a republic. But while insisting otherwise, they mimicked much of Britain's structure of rule. They divided the national government between a president (aka king or queen) and a bicameral legislature (aka Houses of Lords and Commons). The president was to be elected, but as envisaged by the founders, by electors who would decide independently what candidate to support. The president was an elected monarch, albeit subject to re-election every four years. As Great Britain's system evolved, the king or queen has become primarily the head of state—the symbolic representative of the British people—and the duties of running the government have been taken over by the prime minister. The United States has gone, if anything, in the other direction, as the president has absorbed more of the responsibilities of foreign and domestic affairs. The president has taken on the duties of prime minister, but the regal aspect of the job remains very important to the success of American presidents. Biden has had a problem effectively playing the role of elected monarch. There are two kinds of ways presidents play it effectively, ways that are often combined in the same person. First, presidents can appear as father figures—the nation itself as the ultimate extended family and the president as father. George Washington was described as the "father" of his country, and other presidents who played this role included Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan. Secondly, they can display a version of what social theorist Max Weber called "charismatic leadership." The president can appear to possess special gifts of courage, intelligence, wisdom, and eloquence. He can have succeeded spectacularly in war or business. He can be seen as a hero. He can have movie idol looks. Presidents who exercised charismatic leadership include the same cast of father figures, but also Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Presidents can be judged on their accomplishments—in their role as prime minister. As Weber noted, if charismatic leaders visibly fail in their stated objectives, they can lose their magical power over their followers. But a president's success in playing the monarch can also enhance the perception of his accomplishments. In polls of the public and of historians, John F. Kennedy is rated more highly as president that a host of presidents who could boast far greater accomplishments in office, including Jackson, Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson. A recent poll of political scientists ranked Theodore Roosevelt our fourth greatest president, even though his accomplishments in office are dwarfed by those of Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Andrew Jackson. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt were profoundly charismatic figures—so much so that voters then and generations to follow have overlooked personal flaws and shortcomings in their records that are deemed fatal in other presidents. If these comparisons seem preposterous, consider the comparison between Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Scorned today largely because of his reputation as a racist, Wilson was responsible during his two terms for the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (which temporarily at least quieted the debate over antitrust), the income tax, tariff reduction, and the framework of foreign policy that America followed after World War II. Roosevelt, admittedly one of the most colorful and brilliant people to reside in the White House and seen by the contemporary public as a war hero for his exploits in Cuba, was also a champion of Indian removal and Anglo-Saxon racial supremacy and provoked and prosecuted a six-year colonial war in the Philippines. Biden possesses none of the qualities or the background that have enhanced the presence of other presidents. He is not a father figure. At best, he is "Uncle Joe." He is not associated with qualities that have characterized father figures—strength, wisdom, and authority. He does not appear to be an energetic leader—a quality that Alexander Hamilton associated with the presidency. He cannot claim any of the attributes of charisma. He was not a war hero, or a wildly successful businessman, but a lifelong politician. He does not appear brilliant and is certainly not eloquent. He does not possess matinee idol looks. His life story, punctuated by personal tragedy, inspires pity and sorrow but not admiration. He is not someone that parents pine for their children to grow up to be. His campaign has tried to portray him as a man of mysterious power by circulating a "Dark Brandon" meme, but to no avail. His being 81 years old and subject to illness is not a bar to exercising regal leadership. Andrew Jackson, one of America's most popular presidents, was a few weeks short of 62 when he was inaugurated at a time when life expectancy was about 47. Jackson was affectionately called "old Hickory." Jackson also suffered from a chronic cough and periodic illnesses that were feared to be fatal. Lincoln was “old Abe,” while Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks in office and spoke in garbled sentences in press conferences. If anything, the cause of Biden's public problems run in the opposite direction. His lack of regal leadership allows his constituents to focus on his halting gait, his malapropisms, and his occasional forgetfulness. It allows "being old" to become an issue. Some of the president's supporters seemed surprised when his feistiness during his State of the Union address failed to noticeably boost his approval ratings. Voters aren't looking, however, for displays of emotion, but for a commanding presence that intimidates would-be hecklers. (Reagan turned around the 1980 primary with his outburst, "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green," when the moderator tried unsuccessfully to silence him.) The president's supporters have also expected that Biden's success in getting three major bills through Congress would enhance his popularity, but voters have not seemed to notice. What they did notice, and which has reinforced his image as "old," was the administration's calamitous exit from Afghanistan. I have observed numerous focus groups among swing voters who had backed Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. During the groups, the moderators would often ask the members what comes to mind when they thought of Biden. Their answers displayed concern about his age, but in a way that showed how his of lack of perceived leadership had highlighted his physical disability and blinded voters to his accomplishments in office. He was "not tough enough," "slow," "too old," "uninspiring," "not strong enough to get things done,” and “not strong or forceful enough," the voters in the focus groups said. "I don’t think he gets anything done." "He is barely treading water.” In fact, Biden had already accomplished more in office than most of his predecessors, but it didn't matter. He didn't appear to have done so. Instead, he appeared "old." That perception has seemed particularly telling among younger and among male voters. It's important to note that many of these voters were not similarly put off in 2016 and 2020 by Bernie Sanders' age, even though Sanders is a year older than Biden. It's a question of a candidate's commanding presence and charisma. I would guess—I haven't any specific polling—that Biden's lack of regal stature accounts for some of his failure to win over black and Hispanic males. The voters' concern with Biden's age does not mean he will lose his re-election bid. Voters have sometimes preferred bland candidates to more charismatic ones. Democrat William Jennings Bryan, famed for his oratory, lost to Republican William McKinley in 1896. Segregationist George Wallace lost three bids for the presidency. Charismatic candidates have devoted followings but by the same token, they can also arouse strong opposition. And other factors can determine voters' choice of a president. A case in point is Joe Biden's defeat of Donald Trump in 2020. Trump was a darkly charismatic candidate and president. He had a regal, commanding presence. He was a stern father figure, but also in his public performances the life of the party. Many voters admired his having become a billionaire. Asked to describe him in one word, those voters who spoke positively of him described him as "strong," "great," "determined," and "leader." Like other charismatic leaders, he enjoyed a worshipful following that ignored his failings. Even Trump's opponents implicitly acknowledged his regal bearing by describing him as "arrogant" and "egotistical" and as a would-be dictator. That perception of strength has overridden any concern about his age, even among those who have opposed his candidacy. But Trump's brand of charisma also sparked intense opposition. For his critics, Trump's bloated ego and incivility magnified what were perceived as his failures in office and helped Democrats win back the House of Representatives in 2018 and helped the bland Biden defeat him in 2020. In the 2020 election, voters focused on his seeming incomprehension of the COVID-19 pandemic—epitomized by his gaffe about potentially injecting disinfectants to fight the illness—and ignored his role in speeding the development of a vaccine. In his first debate with Biden, he appeared to be an adolescent bully and extremist. It could happen again. If Biden is haunted by the complex of concerns summed up in worry about his being old, Trump is haunted by January 6, a history of corruption, a string of indictments, a casual embrace of bigotry, and responsibility for Dobbs v. Jackson. But the concerns about Biden's age, underlain by his own lack of a regal presence, could also help deny Biden re-election in 2024. John B. Judis is the author of The Politics of Our Time: Populism, Nationalism, Socialism and, with Ruy Teixeira, Where Have All the Democrats Gone?

Must be an election looming. Nothing but an election stunt. They would need over 300 planes immediately just to cover the current backlog. Funny how they never mention there is a reciprocal agreement with Rwanda. It will be delayed by the lawyers and unelected Sunak can blame 'lefty woke lawyers'. The governments one aim is to have one plane fly there before the election, as nothing but red meat thrown to the gammons. On a more sombre note several drowned today in the channel trying to get to the UK

The post mortem will tell us. Meanwhile I 'm going to have a small bet. They offer 6.00 - should have been 2.90. The relative probabilities are in my favour.

Rwanda bill passes: Detention of migrants can start in days The legislation has now formally passed after the Lords decided not to table any further amendments https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-rishi-sunak-house-lords-peers-rw78c9vb8 Rishi Sunak’s new Rwanda legislation will pave the way for the detention of migrants within days under plans to get the first deportation flights off the ground by July. The prime minister said that the government has reserved 2,200 detention spaces and already chartered planes to ensure flights can begin in ten to 12 weeks’ time. He promised that planes would depart for Kigali “come what may” and that there would then be a “regular rhythm of multiple flights every month” over the summer and beyond. The Rwanda bill has now formally passed after the Lords decided not to table any further amendments. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the bill passing through parliament is a “landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats”. In a video shared on Twitter/X, he said: “The Safety of Rwanda Bill has passed in parliament and it will become law within days. “The Act will prevent people from abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals. And it makes clear that the UK parliament is sovereign, giving government the power to reject interim blocking measures imposed by European courts. “I promised to do what was necessary to clear the path for the first flight. That’s what we have done. Now we’re working day in and day out to get flights off the ground.” Crossbench peer Lord Anderson said that his amendment had been the last one standing. He said that the purpose of parliamentary ping pong was to persuade the government to agree a compromise but they had refused to do so. “The time has come to accept the primacy of the elected house and withdraw from the fray,” he said. After the government’s treaty with Rwanda has been ratified — expected later this week — the government will be able to detain migrants in removal centres. They will remain at the centres as long as there is a “reasonable prospect” that they will be removed. The government is refusing to say when it will begin detaining migrants amid concerns that they could abscond. Officials have identified 150 people who arrived in Britain before March last year who are considered “legally watertight” cases. They have already been screened by Rwanda before their planned removal. Speaking earlier from Downing Street, Sunak said: “Enough is enough. No more prevarication, no more delay. Parliament will sit there tonight and vote, no matter how late it goes. No ifs, no buts. These flights are going to Rwanda. “The success of this deterrent doesn’t rest on one flight alone. It rests on the relentless, continual process of successfully and permanently removing people to Rwanda … with a regular rhythm of multiple flights every month over the summer and beyond until the boats are stopped.” • Trevor Phillips: Rwanda vote shows dire need for House of Lords reform • What is the Rwanda bill — and how many will be deported? After Home Office figures showed small boat crossings were up by a quarter so far this year, Sunak argued that only the “systematic deterrent” of deportation to Rwanda would ultimately stem the flow across the Channel. Under the legislation, migrants can appeal against deportation only with “compelling evidence” that they will face serious and irreversible harm in Rwanda, rather than on general claims about the country’s safety. Migrants can appeal to the Home Office and then to an Upper Tribunal in a process that is likely to take at least six weeks and could leave some cleared for deportation in June. The final resort is an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which blocked the last attempt to send flights to Rwanda in 2022 by issuing interim injunctions. However, the court has since increased the threshold for blocking deportations to proving that they would pose a threat to an individual’s “life and limb”. The prime minister said he was “confident” removals to Rwanda would be compliant with international law, but that he was prepared to tell ministers to ignore interim injunctions if necessary. He also declined to rule out leaving the ECHR, although he would face a cabinet revolt if he did so. “If it ever comes to a choice between securing our borders and membership of a foreign court, I’m of course always going to prioritise our national security,” he said. The Safety of Rwanda bill led to a late-night stand-off between the Commons and the Lords as MPs rejected the two Lords amendments that have been the final sticking points. Michael Tomlinson, the illegal migration minister, said the government would not compromise and accept the two main amendments being pushed by the Lords. He said requirements of independent verification of Rwanda’s safety and exemption for Afghans who helped British forces were “unnecessary”. Late on Monday evening the Lords dropped the Afghanistan amendment. • Revealed: UK targets four countries for Rwanda deal • Labour ‘jitters’ emerge over migration policy Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, rebelled to back both amendments, while Sir Jeremy Wright, a former attorney general, voted for one. Lord Carlile of Berriew, a crossbencher, said that Sunak wanted parliament to “say that an untruth is a truth”, calling the bill “ill-judged, badly drafted, inappropriate, illegal in current UK and international law”. Ministers could be hit by legal action as soon as next Tuesday. The FDA, a union representing senior civil servants, is expected to convene its executive committee next Monday. The union is likely to launch a judicial review the following day, arguing that ministers’ new power to disregard interim ECHR rulings would mean telling civil servants to break international law. Government insiders admitted they are nervous about making public when they would begin to detain migrants to be removed, given the fear some could abscond. The Rwandan parliament last week passed legislation to improve the country’s asylum system. Home Office insiders said they were hopeful that ratification of the treaty with Rwanda would be completed by the end of the week. A blame game unfolded in Whitehall after internal government documents disclosed within moments of Sunak’s press conference showed the first Rwanda flight was “provisionally scheduled for June”. The papers were believed to be old but brought by a minister to Sunak’s Downing Street press conference and then left under their chair when they left. Five ministers sat in the front row for the speech. Sources close to Grant Shapps, James Cleverly, Victoria Prentis and Michael Tomlinson denied them being the culprit. Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, did not respond to a request to comment. Labour blamed Sunak for delays in pushing through the legislation. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said Downing Street could have brought back the bill before Easter but chose not to “because they always want someone else to blame”. Cooper called the Rwanda scheme an “extraordinary gimmick” that would fail to stop small boat arrivals. The prospect of flights commencing within months could put some airlines at risk of criticism by the UN. Three special rapporteurs warned earlier this month that commercial airlines and regulators could be “complicit in violating” international human rights by facilitating removals. “If airlines and aviation authorities give effect to state decisions that violate human rights, they must be held responsible for their conduct,” they said.