u/SmallAd7318

In my view the 3 best starting elevens in premier league history are:

1. 1994 Man United

2. 1998 Arsenal

3. 1999 Man United

That 1994 Man United side didn’t really have any weaknesses, it struggled in Europe because the 3 foreigners rule meant only 3 of Schmeichel, Irwin, Keane, Kanchelskis and Cantona could play, which realistically meant 1 if Irwin, Keane or Kanchelskis.

The 1998 Arsenal side lacked a genuine world class striker, Anelka was a great talent but scored 6 league goals, the defence was also already ageing so by the time Henry had settled in a couple of seasons later Bould was gone and Adams, Winterburn and Dixon‘s legs were going.

The 1999 Man United team had arguably the best back 5 and midfield in premier league history. however Yorke and Cole were a massive drop off in quality.

The Arsenal invincibles were a very good team but more if the right place at the right time with Man United having Tim Howard as their first choice keeper, Keane was 33, Giggs 30, Scholes was injured a lot, and with Ferdinand’s drug ban for the second half the season their centre back options were Brown, Silvestre and O’Shea.

The Man United 2008 team was OK but where they shone was more through squad depth rather than being brilliant.

The City treble team again was two top 4 starting elevens that rotated allowing a relatively fresh City team to compete against tired opposition.

Klopp‘s Liverpool were a great back 5 and unbelievable front 3 with a solid midfield 3.

Mourinho’s first Chelsea side were again a strong team that was in the right place at the right time with Arsenal have lost Vieria and Ljunberg, Pires, Bergkamp being in their 30s. Man United were in a similar boat, they still hadn’t sorted out their keeper issue. Keane was 34, Scholes and Neville 30-32, Giggs 31-33. Ronaldo had also grown about 4 inches in 2 years and was having to relearn his body.

Firstly, every aspect of the due diligence is on the buyer, who then has to commission and pay for a surveyor to come round, after an offer has been accepted.

Surveys are also quite often as non committal as you can get, everything is caveated with “an expert should sign off on this” and they also don’t move anything. The buyer is then responsible if a seller covered a massive damp patch on a wall with a sofa.

The searches also several weeks and suddenly it’s been 6 weeks since an offer is accepted and only now are the solicitors in a position to start asking the questions on what the survey and searches found.

Flats are even worse, I’ve never quite understood how the mortgage lender’s valuer can say a flat is unselleable. Everything about the location of the flat is known by the buyer beforehand, a town centre flat above a chippy will still sell, just for less than the identical flat 2 streets away above a JG Jones. Unless that TG Jones has permission to turn into a chippy/nightclub etc, in which case it’s now probably 10-20% overpriced I can’t see why the valuer isn’t legally required to just state the value of the flat.

This has all come about because my Australian in laws just sold their house and I took about 6 weeks from accepting an offer to completing. Before they could list they had to get a survey and valuation done and the equivalent of the checks, they then had to decide whether to sell as is or pay for the improvements the survey found, either way the property is then listed at a price that reflects its actual state.

I ended up being a reluctant landlord as 2 offers fell through on my flat, the first one was for a less than 50% LTV mortgage and the valuer rejected it because it’s above a coffee shop, the second one was because the ground rent was £350 a year and increased by RPI every 10 years (and as it’s in London I couldn’t guarantee the ground rent would be below £1,000 in 30 years time). Those then caused a chain to fail, in any country other than England and Wales neither mortgage would have fallen through.

My daughter turned 1 at the end of April and has been ‘in’ nursery 5 days a week since the beginning of April.

She’s not had a fever for 7 of days in the last 7 weeks. The nursery has a policy that if a baby has calpol or a fever they can’t come in for 24 hours, so she’s only managed 3 full days.

She’s now refusing to eat or take calpol or nurofen, it’s got the stage that when we Try to feed her or give her calpol she’s hysterical and twice has got so hysterical she’s made herself gag and then throw up everything that’s in her stomach. We’ve been to the GP 6 times since she started nursery and each time it’s just she’s got a cold and is teething. It can’t be normal to have a fever for 2 weeks straight, be fine for a day and a half and then have another fever for 10 days.

We both work full time, we could just about afford for my partner to not work and be a stay at home mum but she’s Australian so that would mean no trips home to see her family. We can’t keep juggling caring for a baby that has a fever, refuses to eat and won’t stop crying with work but it won’t be too long before we run out of annual leave.

Harry, Lupin and Hermione all said Voldemort multiple times in Grimmauld Place, and with the taboo the Death Eaters would have known they were in there, or at least that somebody was.

The idea that the place is under a Fidelius Charm makes sense until you remember that Snape was a secret keeper after Dumbledore died. If only to tick it off you’d have thought Voldemort would have forced Snape to reveal the location to at least him, if not all of the remaining Death Eaters.

My partner is back at work full time next week and our daughter has just started nursery full time.

Previously I’ve worked from home 4 days a week and on those days I’ve done all the feeds (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and the bath and bedtime. So that means from 5ish to 8ish I’m with the baby and my partner has done some cleaning.

Obviously this has to change, any tips on how we split chores going forward? bare in mind that I’ll have a day in the office a week and my partner 2, which is a 1.5-2 hour commute each way.