Any chance Gaspar features against Hitchin given he hasn't had the chance in any of the first team's friendlies?
We have no more friendlies left and only important games coming up, so it will be impossible for him to not throw him in to the team. It will be the same with any other signings we make. He'll have a week to view him in training, that's plenty (assuming he's not got any fitness issues).
On the other hand he’s been with us for five seasons and that’s the only time he’s topped 2300 mins (25 90s). In 12 seasons, he’s only topped 2300 mins 3 times.
It won’t be “impossible for him to not throw him into the team”. Maybe he will, or maybe he will want to have a longer look at him before throwing him in and stick with plan B for the first game. We always used to give signings a month or so of acclimatisation before they got on the pitch .
After Gosling saying we don’t use Video data analysis, I imagine we’re still out collecting leeches for the medical
He's got the green light from the medical team and he's now travelling over to us... That looks like 'Big Bazzler' as lead rower. Not long now, he might make subs bench for the Blades match.
Unless Priti Patel sees him first in which case he won’t be available until our pre-season tour of Rwanda next July!
I hear we're employing the same tactics used to get Jose Holebas over here. Keep you updated as I hear more.
He’s been training with the club for the past two days. He keeps failing the beep test though, as his hearing aid is not working.
An inside source tells me that he is booked in for a bloodletting session today followed by a visit to the local shaman tomorrow.
Thanks but I disagree (although I laud your impressive determination to incorrectly and in this case pointlessly correct others about everything). Would you say “my brother is less than two years older than me” or would you say “my brother is fewer than two years older than me?” As far as I know, if you use a plural noun to measure an amount of time, distance or money, you should use less not fewer. Because collectively they are forming one chunk of distance/time/money.
Yes that is often considered to be the case - but the reason behind why it is an exception is because the collective chunk of distance/time/money the statement is referring to is typically not properly represented by only counting with the figure of measurement used in the statement. e.g. less than £11 can be measured in pence - not only incrementally in counting £pounds - hence "less than" rather than fewer. Your use of years here is similarly fine, but it is a bit of a red herring and not necessarily exactly the same and doesn't work as a comparable example. Because when describing how much older Gaspar is than Femenia your statement was "less than 70 days" but I'm sure most people would refer to the amount being referred to as also being counted in days, i.e. no one would say "Gaspar is 69 days, 21 hours and 13 minutes older than Kiko", they'd typically answer also just using days as the unit of measurement. People typically count birthdays only using days - not using days, hours and minutes! Being super pedantic, your statement could still be acceptable/applicable under the time/distance/money rule exception as it is feasible to add hours to the counting, but it seems weird given that basically no one would likely do that. Also, strictly speaking using "fewer than" for time/distance/money is still considered by many to be valid (and the subject of a whole other discussio), even if it isn't used as frequently in cases where the "less than" collective chunk clause is valid (which I'm not sure it is when referring to a person's age in days). However, in checking the above point, I noticed that Gaspar isn't necessarily 70 days older than Kiko - counting using days he is actually exactly 70 days older than Kiko; so there's a potentially pointed correction for you. Now, if you knew at what time of day both of them were born, and you wished to be more pedantic than anyone ever actually is and also count in hours+minutes etc. when referring to someone's age, it could still be that Gaspar is less/fewer than 70 days older than Kiko, but similarly it might also be that he is actually more than 70 days older than Kiko! Grammarly are one of the places that do a decent job of explaining the issue here in the 'Fewer vs Less - Time and Money' section: https://www.grammar.com/fewer-vs-less/ Finally, here's a massive P.S. I truly did not intend to get in to a major discussion on this issue or even feel motivated by a desire to correct you, score points etc. - the whole "less/fewer" thing has been a long-running in-joke on this forum and I, along with I'm sure a number of others, have the immediate first instinct to write the opposite to whichever a person has written for the sake of just making the silly joke, however accurate or inaccurate it is. In fact the joke is often funnier when the poster makes it when it's clearly an incorrect interjection, thus signalling that they "get" and are continuing the forum's running gag. My first insticnt was to make the joke, and any consideration of whether it was valid was secondary (though as per above I still think there is an argument as to why the interjection was valid, even if the issue isn't necessarily conclusive).