You’re eloquent enough. Just wrong. 
Do remember that this team so betrayed by his ripping a paper sign is the same team that bullied him mercilessly for likely years.
Did they ever adequately atone for that?
Agreed with @Banquet_Bear that the apology and the amends to Will mattered. And that his being abused by the team when he was kit man, along with his father’s parenting approach, were what set up him to become a bully.
And granddaughter of Apple Records CEO Neil Aspinall.
Huh? The bullies were Colin, Isaac, and Jamie, not the entire team. In fact, Roy goes to bat for Nate, leading to that awkward hug. Why ascribe that bullying to the entire team?
And that was indeed a missed opportunity in S2, esp in the arcs of Issac doubting himself (and Nate’s attempt at help, which was also an instance where Ted laughs at Ned and helps set up the betrayal) and where Nate returns the favor by buying Colin - and Beard tells Nate to “do better” rather than acknowledging that it’s payback and where it’s coming from.
Yes one player spoke up against the bullying. Everyone else were accomplices via passivity. Enablers. That’s how bullying works.
What an even better potential player discussion! And Nate’s first walkin.
The players come to the realization they should have done more and when Nate tries to apologize to the team, they apologize right back… Already a better episode than the one we got!
Exactly. They make a point of showing the BF being a jerk during the big game…and then he’s never seen again. It’s perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusion that he was booted to the curb.
I would’ve thought/hoped to see a Roy/Keeley wedding…did not expect it to be Beard/Jane instead.
Even more so, it was the writers saying “Ha! Psych!” to us viewers. We’re going “Whoa! Ted and Rebecca…!!” and then “What??? 3-way with Beard???” and then they pull out the “gas leak” explanation. Good on you, writers.
And I thought the “So long, farewell” song was hilarious.
Yeah, that worked for me. Especially because they’ve been skipping what I view as critical scenes throughout the season. I definitely did a double take, and then laughed.
Sorry to be late to the party, but I just saw the finale.
During the montage at the end of the finale there was a shot of a party in the front yard of a house. Jamie, Roy and Keeley were there, and then some people arrived on foot from the left. Anyone remember whose house that was and who it was who arrived at the party?
The only other series finale I’ve seen in the modern era was Mad Men. The closing of Ted Lasso reminded me very much of that - there was a montage of what came of key supporting characters, and IIRC the closing shot of a series character was a close up of Don Draper meditating (then the ad he supposedly conceived while doing so).
So, is that type of conclusion - wrap-up montage, closing shot of main character - a common trope?
That was Higgins’s house (he was in charge of the barbecue) and the people arriving were everybody and their families. The team, management, etc.
It was the Higgins’ house. It was a bit of a callback to the Christmas party they hosted there.
The people at this party are the Higgins family, various people from the club and their significant others.
I don’t know how common a wrap-up montage is, but I wouldn’t say it’s unusual.
And the significance was that before Ted arrived, no one from the club ever attended any of Higgins’ parties.
Exactly. In the Christmas episode (which I liked much more than some other fans of the show), Mrs Higgins mentions that they have many more attendees than usual. I think she said usually only one or two come to dinner.
I think I saw Rebecca showing up with the pilot as it panned out.
Just rewatched the finale. If you haven’t already, when Ted is at the newstand at the airport, pause on the cover stories of the magazines.
-Zava is making a comeback and joining LAFC; Shandy is the CEO of the hot new dating app; there is also a reference to Marcus Rashford, but I don’t know whether it makes specific reference to the show or is just football background
Well, local to me Molineux, Wolverhampton Wanderers stadium, the 21st largest in the UK, takes neatly 32000 fans, and while not filling it every home match, certainly will have 20 odd thousand fans every match. 3000 away fans would be visiting, or at least there will be space for them, So a lot of people local to a team will watch them (mostly) every two weeks for 8 months of the year.
Away matches are the ones they’d watch on the TV. And in a global super league, it might be an away match in South Africa, costing them thousands, rather than the 50 odd quid (or less with a bus organisation) to see away games. And of course, the price of matches would go up, with paid-per view pricing, that is for sure.
The thing is that you can walk into a sports bar in Hungary (like we did), and see the place full of Manchester United shirts. Other countries might favour other teams, Liverpool is the largest english side for that, Chelsea, unsurprisingly, does well in Russia. Most of these fans have been fans for decades, and it’s a massive market that the likes of the superleagues want to exploit.
And yes, these clubs would leave their current league to play in these. It might also be a static league too, with nobody entering and exiting them, so no route in (unless I guess a club goes bust).
Wait, seriously? That seems bonkers. I was under the impression that the proposal was to have an additional league to get even more money, but always an additional league. I find it hard to imagine that a club like Manchester United would ever even contemplate leaving the English Premiere league (and, I guess, the entire structure of English Football). Are you sure that’s what was under discussion?
Considering they play from August to May in the normal league, with additional competitions (which usually the best are in mostly), there isn’t any space for a super league to compete side by side with their home country league. Unless you’re talking about working your players all months of the years (and then there are euro and world cups).
@MaxTheVool is right. The plan was a new league to replace the Champion’s League and other European competitions, not domestic leagues. Basically the “founding members” would always qualify for the highest European tournament (the “Super League”) and thus always have access to more money than their domestic competition (who might, if lucky, sometimes qualify for the league).
The reason (well, one of many) it was opposed was because it would likely destroy any competitive features of the domestic leagues (not that most of them are truly competitive right now anyway). It also guaranteed the lion’s share of the profits to a small handful of clubs (as opposed to EUFA-sanctioned competitions which at least ostensibly spread the wealth a bit). The idea of a league that you were permanently a member of just doesn’t sit right with fans that are used to at least the theoretical threat of relegation and the requirement of proper qualification.
I think the final Super League proposal (not including the revisions made after the protests) called for something like 18 “group matches” followed by the knockout stages. So roughly 3x the number of Champion’s League matches (although I think that is going up too). Clearly something would have to give (likely domestic cup competitions, which aren’t the money-makers the PL and CL are).
Right. The direct victims of the proposal would not, for the most part, be the fans of the clubs that were “in the room”. It would be all the OTHER clubs and their fans. Which I thought the show did a piss-poor job of explaining. It was just “rich people want something, it must be bad”.