₦airaland Forum

lordfalcao:
see guy man sense here.. .why would I remove costa reserve goals.. Are you telling me that lukaku doesn't have reserve goals too.

I don't care who made appearance first. You cleary said lukaku has outscored Costa which is lie

The fact that lukaku who have played More EPL and costa who have played 1/4 still have half of the goal lukaku have speaks volume

Obviously when we are discussing who is better, we focus on top leagues. How can you bring goals from Segunda division into the discussion? Why not add his goals from monkey post and coal tar?

Diego Costa started playing football when Lukaku was in Jss3, and the only difference is 15 goals scored in the la liga reserve league, and you're using that as an 'example'. I don't know where they find you people sometimes.

Lukaku is better than Diego Costa. If you had any shame, you would close your laptop and find a dark corner of your room, where you can kneel down, hands up, and face the wall.

timbros:
Haba Nihilist, you don pass this level nah...

Lukaku made his senior appearance in 2009 and has played more than 200 matches. His career league goals is not up to 100. It's 93.

Meanwhile, Morata debuted in 2010, playing just 100 matches so far.

Bar Chelsea, Lukaku is the main striker in all his clubs whereas Morata constantly fights for shirt. How do you expect Morata's goal ratio to superior Lukaku's?

You haven't told us about Lukaku/Costa yet...

93 >>> 25.

I should have said Career totals though.

I've already started

diggz:
Lukaku is older by roughly 5months or so

Lukaku was born in 1993. Morata 1992.

lordfalcao:
it's a lie... Costa have a career goal of 140+ while lukaku have 130+

If you remove the 15 reserve goals for Costa there, then you realise that Lukaku is on par with Costa for Career goals.

When we focus on League goals only, you will see that Lukaku actually has more league goals than Costa.

When you realise that Diego Costa made his professional debut when Lukaku was only 13 years old (12 actually if I want to be nitpicky), the true picture will become apparent to you, and maybe if you have a small modicum of shame, you will beg for forgiveness.

lordfalcao:
costa fights a lot but still score Good goals... that's true but lukaku plays lackadaisical football any day anytime. the truth is still the same lukaku is no match for Costa. like I said earlier put costa in Everton team and lukaku will become 2nd choice.
there is nothing lukaku has done that costa haven't,can't do x10

Actually Lukaku has regularly outscored Costa for most of his career.

timbros:
So tell us, how is Lukaku better than Morata?

Ditto Costa.

The easiest way to compare strikers is to check their goal stats.

Morata has 25 career league goals. Lukaku has over 100.

Lukaku is younger too.

timbros:
Your opinion.

Stats says otherwise.

How is Lukaku better than Costa?

There is no stat in this world and the world to come that would suggest that Morata is better than Lukaku.

Ditto Costa

timbros:
Generalising things how? Fact remains that Morata has those medals in his cabinet, Lukaku don't.

It is noteworthy how you conveniently overlooked their goal ratio for both youth and NT. Was those not the areas you claimed Lukaku was greater?

If Lukaku was that good, then let Barcelona or Real Madrid come for him and let him play 8 minutes and get a UCL medal.

I don't see how you can use youth team footy to compare Morata and Lukaku. The reason Lukaku played so few youth games is because he made his NT debut aged 16.

Lukaku is better than Morata, Mr Morata and Uncle Morata combined. Even Morata's mum would slap you for saying such blasphemous things.

Lukaku is better than all male descendants of the Morata dynasty.

Morata is only lucky that he has been a member of some title winning sides.

That la liga title that timbros is referring to is a good example - Morata played only eight minutes of league football that year.
Copa del Rey 2010/2011 - Morata registered 13 minutes only.

At Juventus, it's safe to say that a 10 year old child, wearing a Juventus shirt and roaming the streets of Turin has a better chance of winning the league than AC Milan.

5 Serie Titles in a row for Juventus says more about the moribund state of affairs in Italy than it does about Morata.

Lukaku is Morata's God. No Argument.

p.s Lukaku is better than Diego Costa IMO.

nateevs:
Sorry but that is a flimsy example. Kurt Zouma came in at £12m. That's the same amount (inflation aside) that we paid for Arjen Robben. As a matter of fact, Zouma will be given an acid bath if he wasn't closer to the first team than all academy players. And so will Jose for not playing him. Why did he cost £12m ?


And also, you bringing up this example, means you didn't digest totally the crux of the argument. Loan player vs permanent.

This example is very valid.Zouma's price tag is irrelevant. Afterall the likes of Filipe Luis and Baba cost more and did not see shirt.

I'm just pointing out that the excuse that the manager did not know Chalobah is irrelevant -how many managers know the players they get? Does Conte know him now?

So why should you say that he was psychologically damaged because Napoli manager did not know him?

So once any manager knows Chalobah, he will start to play well abi?

nateevs:
I am not ascribing Dele's PFA success to Pochetino. I am saying even though Suprs bought him for £5m and loaned him back, when he came back to Spurs, it was down to Pochetino to some up the confidence to play him.

Neither am I calling Dele an academy player. I am only comparing him to our own 20-year-olds.

It will be of no use continuing to argue this point. We will go around in circles until a one manager comes through who has the balls to take one young player and make a pro out of him. Then I wonder what you would say. Did Charlie Musonda not go to Spain and become their best player in half a season? Was he not here playing under Jose's nose for two seasons? If Charlie was playing for MK Dons and Spurs bought him for £5m and then went on to the first team and did wonders, you will be saying the same thing.


Why are you mute on Kalas?

I thought we were discussing Chalobah and Alli. Musonda and Kalas is a different discussion. I didn't not know you were trying to have a wider discussion about youth players.

In Alli's case, this is not about 'having confidence to play him'.

Alli scored 16 goals for MK Don's in his final season from midfield and made PFA team of the year.

It is not Pochettino's 'confidence to play him' that made Alli displace Bentaleb from midfield and later push Eriksen out of the number 10 position.

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made him contribute 19 league goals in his debut season.

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made Alli score a long range Golazo against France on his first start for England

It is not Pochettino's confidence to play Alli that made Alli the PFA Young player of the year and the youngest member of the PFA team of the year in his debut season.


It's like buying Diego Costa and then saying Jose had confidence in him that's why he scored 19 goals in his debut season

When you're good, you're good.Pochettino did not give him a chance - look up the interview- Alli turned up to the Spurs training ground already better than the people there. Poch would have been foolish not to play Alli sef.


Alli is better than Colket Baker and any other name you mention from that academy. That is that.

I would also like to point out that Jose had never heard of Zouma when we signed him. Look.up his interview.

Zouma made sure thar Jose knew who he was. Zouma was 19.

Ori yato si Ori mehn. Forget story.

Dele AllI was in tge PFA team of the year before he even went to spurs sir. So you cannot ascribe his success to Pochettino

Alli is not an academy player. He was a first team member of the MK Dons side that romped to the league 1 title that year. The same team that put 4 past a Manyoo side in the FA Cup.

OK Alli does not have more talent that Colkett, Baker and even my mother. Yet Alli is an integral part of a Spurs side that doesn't have a single academy player outside Kane in the first team. And he met Kane as a star there. The manager reputed for developing Young players could not develop a single academy player. Alli leapfrogged the likes of Bentaleb and Mason in his first season, and those are academy grads who were playing first team footy for spurs the year before...is it beans?

I don't see how a loan to Napoli is a blow to any serious player's self esteem. Napoli are not even on the same spectrum as Chelsea. If you can't handle the mental pressure there, is it now at Chelsea that your head will be correct?

Nateevs please please please like James Brown, take a chill pill.

If you've got it you, you've got it - there's nothing simplistic about that. You guys said the same thing about Bamford. You even said he was a crespo kind of player. He shined at championship level, moved to two EPL teams and flopped like a high jump.

I'm sure it was the psychological effect that kept him from scoring goals too.

If you want to make an argument that Chalobah is a late bloomer like Drogba, then you might have a point.

I suppose the question in that case is how long should we wait for him to bloom? A year? 2? 10? A lifetime?

Ori yato si ori sir Nateevs. Alli is better than anything you can see in that academy. That's a fact. Give that boy his props.

nateevs:
Like I said, you are not saying about RLC that no one doesn't know. What is surprising is denying the talent he has.

I'm not sure how to answer this one bros. I've said repeatedly that I don't watch reserve games so I haven't seen RLC at his 'best'. When I've seen him play in the league, he has occupied a spectrum ranging from utter crap to meh.

I mean if the most diehard proponent of youth integraton on our thread had this to say, then who is nihilist to say different.

bigkesh:
Rlc is a disgrace to the academy......
I mean tackle and be serious,that's not confidence but stupidity.......

Colkett,Ake,Musonda,Boga,Solanke and co are dying for this.......

Never liked him anyway...... The problem is if he fails then he will affect the others

Easy big fella

On that subject, do you know Nathaniel Chalobah Nihilist? If you did, he's probably on your "he's not special" list. However, this video below (I have posted this once here) shows you what Nathaniel was doing at Zola's Watford 3 seasons ago until he was not integrated by Jose and sent out on a series of useless loans.

Well I watched Watford a couple of times that year. I watched that playoff semifinal against Leicester and watched Deeney break my heart live. Now let me ask you something. Do you remember Almen Abdi? That was Watford's main playmaker that year and the season after. They got promoted and he cant make the team. Ikechi Anya was one of their superstars that year...now he's lucky if he sees a shirt at Left Back. Joel Ekstarand was a defensive mainstay that year and the year after. I don't think he even played last season. Matej Vydra was arguably their best player in thier last season in the champo. I think he's still rotting in the watford reserves.

By Contrast Troy Deeney made the jump. Huerlho Gomes made the Jump.

Chalobah got his chances. Napoli are a big side competing in Europe - what happened? How come he didn't make the Jump? How come did relatively ok in the championship with 3 different teams but floundered when he got to the big boys?

Sometimes, the Championship is where certain players belong.

Tell me Chalobah cannot do a job on this back of this video. Has Dele Alli shown more technique, composure and talent than Chalobah? If Dele was a Chelsea player, would he be in any first team now?

These are the kind of yarns that irritate me. Dele Alli is not an academy player. Dele was playing in the lower leagues as a professional. When he got his chance he took it. When spurs played madrid in a friendly that year, Alli sharply went to nutmeg Modric. Pochettino said that he was very surprised when he saw Alli in prseason that year because he was fitter than all the Spurs players. Please don't insult Alli by comparing him to Chalobah.

You know how many player of the month Alli has won? You think it's beans to make PFA team of the year in two consecutive seasons?
[img]http://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgWgJictf0TSfLXJf13XUwzTiDr4KsQiVagr-AJxlUFCxqnunY[/img]

SailorXY:
How much longer will you lament the fact Wasiu Ugochukwu Martial shat on your predictions of failure for his career?

Oga Makinwa take back seat & watch real talent next season, not that jam-body you keep sampling upandan.

If no be say na you talk this thing...

When did I make any such prediction?

Dadehmola:
@Nihilist

Why the hatred?

Is it because Martial shat on your Scruffy-looking, Jam-body Ojota motor park tout last season?

Hatred has nothing to do with it.

This is funny af.

You cant see the comedic value of the situation?

Plus I would like you to elaborate on the bolded please

Pataki:
Lol...when lord ibra sneezes, who are you to gbemu?

Mehn that was cold blooded as fvck.

It's been a rude summer of awakening for Anthony. After all the hype of last season, he realised that he actually aint shitt at National team level.
Then he came from that disappointment only to find that he aint even shitt at OT. I hope he doesn't go to his parents house and finds that they are having another kid

Imagine after martial don go do all the media branding with the number 9 - AM9. Martial_9. Spread it all over his website and Instagram.

Then Ibra just strolls in casually and says "I chose number 9"



Ibra too cold. Why you gotta be so gaddem cold nigga?

Make dem no talk say person shoot bird, the mama fly.

IbraGod. Fvck Martial Law.

BraniacX:
Jon is as much a stark as ramsay a bolton ..... Sansa to lyanna mormont

You're a son of ned stark and a stark to me ............... Sansa to jon

Point! Sansa's desire for the strong arm of jon to take up the leadership of the north is an open secret so she and the stark name wasn't passed over without concern, her wish which she made obvious on more than one occasion was only respected

I rest my case

Again all of this is story.

Bastards cannot assume titles. That is a legal precedent. Sansa's feelings(questionable) are irrelevant in this regard. The legal chain of events there according to precedent would be - Sansa is officially recognised as the only known surviving Stark, and thus lady of winterfell, and possibly queen in the north. She would then promote Jon from bastard to full blown stark. I should not have to remind you that that was exactly how Ramsay Bolton became Warden of the North. And I believe even Robb promised to legitimise Jon.

Yet standard procedure was completely ignored in Jon's case. Historical traditions and legal precedents as seen in the show were completely discarded in favour of Jon and to the Sansa's detriment.

Instead what we have is a Snow(and possible targaryen) leading the Starks. This anomaly is precisely what baelish is using to seduce Sansa..

The Starks are DEAD.

BraniacX:
You make a couple of miscalculations here, one being that sansa by right should be lady as is obtainable elsewhere which is right but then again sansa has never been groomed for the role at any point in time so making a claim for herself was somewhat alien to her (not wrong mind you) and the northern lords can't support a claim if the claimant isn't willing to make it so naturally they do the obvious and follow strength and leadership besides which, sansa has long been and been seen to be a puppet whose strings is being pulled by other people, an image she has done little to invalidate so while in their heart of hearts, the northern lords know sansa should rule, they are unsure what her rule will imply and the next best available alternative is jon whose agenda is in alliance with theirs, whose leadership is tested and respected so they rationalise his being a pseudo-stark and thus earn security for their concerns and this reasons are not irrelevant, every other character you mentioned to buttress your point always keep going of about how theirs is the rightful claim but sansa insists on "house starks" claim not hers being rightful and mentioned on more than one occasion jon being as stark as you can get as far as she is concerned so yes, she influenced the decision to crown jon as the northern lords can't force her into a role she clearly is shying away from.

Again this is all completely irrelavant. As the last known surviving Stark, Winterfell should be Sansa's by inheritance right. Indeed Jon alludes to this when he offers to set her up in the master bedroom.

The fact that she was passed over without a a single thought shows how little regard the nothern lords have for Sansa, and by the extension the Starks. Again, I will refer you to lady mormont who is 10 years old and cannot be reasonably expected to be a wise ruler,but there she is. The vale boy is a known nincompoop, but there he is. Joffrey and Tommen were terrible rulers, but there they were.

Inheritance has nothing to do with what the subjects think of their new rulers. They just accept it. I particularly raised this key point around a month and half ago when I was arguing that lyanna mormont as a lord logically makes no sense.

"The Starks are dead" - Lord Glover.

That's the only logical explanation for Sansa's loss of her birthright.

RuuDie:
To be honest, I really cannot say anymore. I stopped buying UTD shirts after Moyes was sacked... and this is after being a regular customer since 2004-2005.

Oh seen. You go like take Chelsea form?

BraniacX:
Hahahahahaha

You're determined to be difficult but check stark history, this is not the first time starks have been betrayed (the greystarks of white habour joined the boltons in rebellion against the starks) beheaded (one time too many) flayed (boltons used to wear the skin of dead starks into battle) or had winterfell burnt and occupied (it has happened at least twice before) but the starks always endure and the north endure as long as the starks! The starks are not followed for their name alone, they are an hardy and notoriously unyielding line (the north wasn't always one kingdom, the starks conquered and assimilated other kingdoms including those of the boltons, umbers e.t.c and became supreme). Some Other northern houses owe their lordships to earlier starks (e.g the mormonts, karstarks, manderlys) and that is not easily forgotten except in this rare instance of kinslaying (robb stark beheading rickard karstark) it is a popular saying in westeros that when you scratch a karstark you'll find a stark

This is all completely irrelevant to the show. The book and the show are now completely different universes.

The starks greatest failing was their absolute faith in the loyalty of their bannermen which mid you isn't misplaced because minus an ambitious bolton or two, the entire north has been very starky for generations untold, the bolton called roose was a proverbial kitten in a pigeon nest that unsettled the north in his quest not for northern dominance but bolton dominance irrespective of the cost! The boltons were heavily resented for it and even roose acknowledged the fact that only careful politicking could grant him security in the north gettit ? bolton rule despite appearances was never secure in the north from onset to end!

Also irrelevant as nothing here discounts the the fall of the starks...if anything, it explains it.

Sansa like i pointed out earlier wasn't recognised because she is female, regarded as weak and is seen as the only stark majorly susceptible to political manipulations of whose results need not necessarily be in the interest of the stark lineage and by extension the north, she was simply a gamble no northern lord was willing to make so they quashed the political ambitions of many a ambitious noble who wanted to use her apparent birthright as a launchpad to greater things and a bargaining chip! Even she herself wisely acknowledged this when she tacitly supported jon for elevation and turned down little fingers request. Her marriage to tyrion was coerced and to ramsay a miscalculation on her part not an insult to the starks! If there was no tyrion, tywin would have wed her to lancel and if jamie wasn't hung up on cersei and agreed to leave the kingsguard to jamie as the idea was to weld the north to the lannisters cause by westerosi law at least

Irrelevant. How can Sansa be seen as weak because she's female when theres a 10 year old female lord present in that very room? Catelyn Stark and her Sister were also political juggernauts in their own right. Yara, Olenna and Danaerys have teamed up with the Taylor Swift squad from Dorne, and they all have confirmed political clout.

There is absolutely no reason for the nothern lords to believe that she is 'susceptible to blah blah'. I will agin remind you that the vale serves a clear dimwit without question, and the mormonts follow a girl who is yet to grow pubic hairs.

Sansa is a Stark. Those who have pledged to follow the Starks would have followed her if they truly were interested in following the Starks. Instead they chose to follow a Jon Snow using the excuse that he has some Stark Blood. The Starks are dead.

Jon is a targayrean not stark bastard and we know this, howland reed knows this, bran knows this but nobody else does cheesy the northern lords worked with what they knew wink

Which makes it even worse. He is presumed to be a Stark bastard and pronounced king in the north regardless of the legal precedents that bastard cannot hold titles. By the time, the truth of his parentage becomes known to the world, it would serve as confirmation bias to those who already decided t crown him king. So what happens to the stark line and holdings when the king of the north is revealed to be neither a stark in name or in lineage? Do you see Jon being stripped of the title for say Bran? I most certainly dont

Bran is still alive, we know this, meera reed knows this, benjen stark knows this, jon and sansa hope this is true but nobody else does and frankly with him being cripple, they believe he is long dead! So again the northern lords worked with what they know. cheesy if bran should show up and make his claim, jon would willingly abdicate and support him and the northern lords would follow suit and jon would be the backbone of his kingdom and his pillar because both of them are wards of ned stark and if jon's parentage should come to light, the north would prop him up and support a bid for the iron throne by him and bran would revert to being lord of the north

Also irrelevant, because even if Bran manages to crawl back into Winterfell tommorow, his birthright has passed him by. Aint nobody giving it back.

We're not actually supposed to agree on everything but that's the fun of this thread grin
And please forgive my disjointed writing

Aye and amen to this.

RuuDie:
Meanwhile... David 'Tha Don' Moyes is back suckazzzz!!!

God help this thread if UTD venture lose to Sunderland at any point this season.

Ramdeuter, pataki, nihilist (you are invited and do solemnly swear to be witnesses to my declaration on this day)

Any excuse for a party at manyo's expense bro. Just say when and nihilist and sons faaji inc shall be there

Btw are you really a united fan? just asking

BraniacX:
I disagree with you, starks individually might not be held in the highest regards but when push comes to shove the name "stark" is worth gold across westeros and anybody with that name or affiliation gets audience from lords and commoners, has castle gates and halls open to them, gets men to rally behind their banners so scoff at this assertion all you want, the starks are stuff of legends and by comparism in westeros, only the arryns and the lannisters come close, the baratheons, tullys, tyrells, martells and greyjoys have their elevation to high lordship as a recent phenomenom and a quirk of fortune associated to targayrean conquest and rhoynar sojourn, the gadeners of the reach, the casterlys of the west, the mudd of the riverlands, the durrandions of the stormlands, maybe the harren of the iron islands, the royce of the vale were all ancient houses comparable to the starks but among these lot the starks were the longest lasting so saying that the stark name doesn't carry weight politically is simply laughable!

Man, please try to use better formatting. It's difficult to follow your train of thought when you write like this. The paragraph above for example, is all one sentence.

Anyway, I think that you are failing to differentiate between past and present. In the past, up until say the death of Eddard Stark, most of what you said there would have applied. After the death of Ed Stark, there has be a systematic decimation of the Stark Legacy leading to the point where even the Lord of Winterfell(The Stark Ancestral Seat) is now being held by a non-Stark.

Let me break it down for you.

1. Ed Stark, the highest ranking of the Starks is slaughtered in public and his head used to serve as a reminder of Lannister might.

2. Sansa Stark who was Bethrothed to the king, and arguably the next highest ranking Stark after Ed, had her engagement canceled in public. To further convince doubter's like yourself that this was yet another strike to the Stark prestige, she was then re-assigned by Tywin Lannister to marry the most loathed lannister of all - an actual midget. This was disrespect of the highest level.

3. The next highest Ranking Stark aka Robb was first disrespected by the Karstarks who decided to fvck him over and leave his cause. Then the Lannisters arranged for him, his mother, and his pregnant wife to be slaughtered like livestock in public. Robb's body was mutilated in death. They sewed the head of his dog to his shoulders and paraded the body in the street. To put it in perspective, even Abacha didnt suffer that much disrespect when he died.

4. The Stark traditional title was given to the Boltons. Even Theon fancied his chances against the Starks and actually took their castle, though he was just naturally stupid in the end.

5. The next highest ranking Stark in Bran has been forced in exile. Arya too. Rickon was kept captive in his own ancestral home and then shot down like a dog.

6. When Sansa and Jon went to gather support in the Stark name, the truth about the Stark political influence was brutally laid bare. Lyanna refuses to join the Stark's political war until Davos tells her about the White Walkers, and Lord Glover categorically tells Jon to his face that the "
Starks are Dead"

7. The King in the North is NOT a Stark.

my point is in normal climes the name "stark" was sufficient to assemble all these houses without threats, coercion or bribes, the name "stark" is the name they'll all answer to no matter how powerful they are individually so that says much for your assertion that house stark and the name stark is politically irrelevant

This are not "normal climes". Like I said earlier, there was a time when the Targaryen ruled Westeros. Nobody reckons with that name now. This does not mean that these names cannot be used to provide some legitimacy of course. Danaerys for example, will be relying on her name to legitimise her rule AFTER she has conquered, with the excuse that her ancestors were once kings anyway. That was the same gameplan that both Stannis and Renly had intended to execute.

It's important to note what was said about Jon before he was crowned King in the North. Lyanna points out that Jon is a bastard but the blood of Eddard Stark flows through him. This is actually quite different from 'He is a Stark'. The 'blood of eddard stark' was only used to provide a tenous connection to the Starks that was plausible enough to justify their personal faith in Jon, rather than thier fealty to the Starks. If the were going on blind allegiance, they would have been compelled to swear an oath to the actual Stark who was sat right there in the very same room, right next to Jon in fact.

The Starks are dead.

It's cool if you don't agree sha. We can't all see things the same way.

Gbola5:
Not really, no.

Read again

Nihilist:
Where are the Baratheons? Or the Tyrells? Or the Boltons? Or the Freys
Or even the targaryens? I would argue that the targaryen family line is completely dead otherwise Danaerys would be able to stroll into kings landing and just demand the throne by virtue of her name. But she can't because, really nobody reckons with that family anymore....hence the massive invading army, and her plan to marry some local nobility.
Forget story. Stark is dead. Snow rules now.

Gbola5:
Why would she able to stroll into King's Landing otherwise ?

I'm pretty sure the answer to your question was in the post you quoted

BraniacX:
You make it sound as if the decision to prop up john to northern kingship was a purely political and strategic one! refusing to back him in the bastard bowl was mostly strategic and partly political hence their reference to him not being a stark, making him king of the north and acknowledging his blood ties to Ned was half strategic half emotional! Most northerners would follow a stark and by extension Neds blood to hell and beyond when their emotion is appealed to especially if that person exhibits all the traits they expect from a stark and a ward of ned, traits like dutifulness, loyalty, honour, courage, a strong sense of morals and justice, leadership in the battlefront, excellent swordsmanship albeit a little naivety is thrown into the mix but you'll agree these accurately describes ned, john and to a large extent robb

Story.

Valour in battle is clearly irrelevant when assuming hereditary titles in Westeros.

I mean Lyanna was at that meeting, and Baelish was representing his yoing lord there too. Robb had little military experience and Bran has been lord for a day.

When you factor in Joffrey and Tommen, you realise that people will automatically follow you without challenge once you have the right name.

Jon doesn't have the right name and we've been repeatedly told that bastards cant lords. In any case, before Jon came to power most of those lords expressed little regard for the Stark name.

After Jon appears to defeat the royally appointed ruler of the North, these lords all suddenly remember that they are pledged to House Stark. Curiously enough, they pledge their loyalty to a guy whose name is actually not Stark, and who legally cannot assume office anyway....and all the while, there is an actual Stark sitting IN THE SAME ROOM.

Mehn these guys ain't send no Starks. Even if Jon wasn't a Stark bastard, they would have invented a connection to legitimise a very clear decision to sideline the Starks anyway.

raumdeuter:
If Obesere dey Yankee na transexual or crossdresser dem go call am. I still think sometime in the future, someone would say Obesere was gayy and he pioneered cross dressing in Nigeria
I believe he did it just to be funny but he mgiht go down as a legend in the future for cross dressers

Obesere is definitely a hero and a pioneer....he introduced Cossy's mammary glands to public consciousness.

I personally can never thank him enough.

Wijnaldum signs for Liverpool.

We could have used that lad.