gunnersaurus

He hasn't taken off like we'd hope, that's for sure. But I do see more talent with him than I ever did with Lokonga. While Vieira can get bullied out of games, I do see good flashes when he comes on as a sub and doesn't overthink things. (He's more aggressive and progressive in those instances, especially when we're losing or tied with a lesser side.) To be honest, I think Vieira is also a level below what we want from our backups now (given our ambition and investments), but I see him as more likely to come good. At least he's probably retained more of his value than Sambi if we were to sell him -- though I would be surprised if we did this window.

Agreed on all counts!

I'm pretty sure that's what happened. City really spooked us, and we may have been surprised by Rice's level of interest in them.

It's just that of late we seemed to have a Plan B ready to go if a team played hardball with us (like with the Mudryk saga). This deal feels very different: we're letting West Ham kind of run the show here. Arteta clearly values Rice exceptionally high, but it feels like a real divergence from our recent deal-making.

It's a bummer he hasn't worked out, but I wouldn't slate him. The move to us might have come too early for him. I never really saw the talent -- he seems tidy at times but also has a lot of difficulty with positioning and plays timidly -- but it was a low-risk gamble and he's been professional to my knowledge. Things can of course change, but I would be fine with him seeking opportunities elsewhere. Hopefully we can get a fee that's not too much lower than what we paid!

That seems rather quick for such a high fee. I'd have to think that will make more transfers difficult this year and next (esp. getting another midfielder). We really wanted to get this one over the line.

I still have mixed feelings about this deal. Great player, no doubt, but this does feel like a win-now move with a lot of backfire potential, rather than the steady, shrewd, long-term squad building that has produced great results the past couple of years. Maybe we are at that level now where this is what it takes to continue moving forward, but I guess I just really enjoyed this past season and don't want to be hurt again by misplaced hope and expectation. :P

Linux Mint may look a bit outdated and doesn't benefit from the Latest and Greatest version of some programs (ala Arch), but it still provides an excellent out of the box experience. It's been my daily driver for a production environment for years, and I've converted older family members to use it as their daily driver without issues. (They prefer it over Windows!)

I did recently encounter a bug where it would fail to install the latest version if Secure Boot was enabled at the time of installation, but that was due to a key signing issue/expiration from upstream (Ubuntu) and the developers have already promised a new approach that would address and future-proof that in the upcoming version. It was my first time in years I hit a stumbling block on installation.

That aside, the onboarding process has only gotten better and is now outstanding. (It has a little Welcome program that walks you through setting up system snapshots, proprietary drivers, and even enable automatic security updates. It's accessible and actually helpful to newcomers.) The distribution upgrade utility is simple, works well, and does a good job of nudging when it's time to upgrade (without making you feel forced). It also anchors to Ubuntu LTS releases, which means you actually don't need to upgrade often if the feature set does the job for you. In terms of usability, I think we hit the Year of the Linux Desktop a while ago (for general productivity users).

In short, I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending Mint to someone who is either new or willing to give up some of the bleeding edge opportunities for stability, and I think it has been able to consistently deliver an excellent out of box experience for years now.

Okay, I'm not a fan of sportswashing, but...

Congrats to our lads on the USMNT!

But also, thanks to you all on the thread. It's been fun and I really like the friendliness on here. We might be few in numbers right now but I appreciate you all!

I wouldn't argue with that, but I don't see Eddie getting anywhere close to the same fee. And as Ron reminds us below, we can't lose sight of the midfield as our biggest need. Gotta fund those transfers somehow!

Very good point about midfield being our greatest need, and how funds need to be raised from somewhere to pay for that. Important not to lose sight of that!

If Balogun is willing to battle for his place, I wouldn't.

He's got a lot of natural ability, a good feel for the game, and the right athleticism. He'll be worth more if he's given the chance to contribute. (This is a case where I'd much rather see him loaned out again if management doesn't see him at least being able to work his way past Eddie.)

I say this as someone who was fine with us selling Willock, Iwobi, and the Ox. All talented players, but not ones I saw being able to carry us over the top.

If Balogun wants promises we can't make, I'd say push for a lower fee but include that buy-back clause.

And, if we find ourselves in a scenario where a buy-back isn't a possibility, then take the 40m. I still think that's too low for him but we're still at a phase in our team development arc where team cohesion is too important and fragile to not be affected by a disgruntled player. (Although maybe I'm just scarred from our not-so-distant experiences with that!)

Agreed. I don't think the fact he hasn't had much playing time is indicative of how management feels about him. I think the goal is to have him ready to hit the ground running instead of having lots of stops and starts. Arteta and company have shown their willingness to be patient, especially with players coming back from serious injury. ESR's profile matches what we seem to be working toward and the talent (and demonstrated productivity) is clearly there, so I would be surprised if he's shipped off or left to rot.