Eddie Hitler

I wasn't saying you were wrong, it's a question of definition. If you look at the wiki link they are throwing into the big cities towns which most people would think were separate and, more germanely, have their own football clubs. That's why I flagged that the total for Sheffield included Rotherham which has its own league team so for the purpose of potential support should really be excluded. I understood that Bristol became the sixth biggest city in England, taking over that place from Liverpool when it fell into decline in the 1980s. Or more succinctly: whilst I may have posted that wiki link it was to highlight a different basis fir calculation. I don't actually agree with it.

Or even eighth per wiki. But it's all very much down to definition of the bounds. Sheffield is bigger than us in this list but only if you add to it Rotherham. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_urban_areas_in_England_by_population

Yes. It has been a masterclass in getting the timing wrong. When a few extra quid would make all the difference the purse strings stay closed. At other times it's "Yes Mark, buy up all these high waged players". I accept FFP is there but that just serves to limit the duration of each feast or famine period.

The power of a two second internet search. Stephen Lansdown: Bristol City owner 'embarrassed' by spending 31 July 2013 Bristol City owner Stephen Lansdown says he is no longer willing to pay excessive player wages after spending an 'embarrassing' £50m on the club. City were relegated from the Championship last season and posted a record loss of £14.4m in 2012. The backing of billionaire Lansdown, 60, means they are not in financial difficulty, but he is determined to make the club more sustainable. "I'm embarrassed by how much I've spent," Lansdown told BBC Points West. "I daren't add it up, and although I have no regrets in doing it, it's probably over £50m. "We started paying out bigger wages because we felt we needed that extra class, and it hasn't worked for us. "I look back and it was a mistake." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/23501929

SL said he spent £50m in that ultimately unsuccessful promotion run under GJ and confessed that he felt "a bit silly" for doing that.

Maybe. It's a question of timing it right. Gary Johnson was backed to the hilt and if we had won that promotion play off against Hull then things would have been very different. Since then the money tap has been turned on and off with rather baffling timing. I wouldn't disagree with your C+ but that's still a pass grade.

The only duty of the owner of a club is to leave it in a better position than it was when they took it over. For all the "might have beens" can anyone seriously argue that the Lansdown family has not improved the club under their ownership?

How can people tell that they are fake?

Yes, whilst my views on getting to the premiership hover between not being bothered to active dislike I think that partly a result of my having seen City play (once) at the top level. The sheer pleasure of promotion to the top league for all those fans who have never seen us up there far outweighs the negative feelings those of us who can remember football before the premiership started have about the current state of the top division.

I don't see how it's unfair. I know from how difficult a background Dele came and how well he did despite that but he has entirely lost it now. That's the parallel, he has no future in higher league football because of his own actions.

Nah. I remember years back watching my local team and there was a player, Spencer somebody, who played like Lee Trundle had somehow turned out for a school team. He had superb close control and the only way for the opposition to negate him was to always have two players marking him. I asked the obvious question of a regular supporter - why was he not playing at a higher level? - and the answer was bad attitude. He had had trials at several league teams including Bristol City, I asked about that and he said that when he went there he was told to play out of position in the trial game. He said he didn't play out of position and just went home. There is no way back for these players and they bumble around the non league being the big fish in the small pond, a future which I expect awaits Delli Ali.

I missed that but know that you have the inside track on the media deals through attending AGMs and following any related news.

What a generous offer @SecretSam. I know we have some keen collectors on here so it will be going to a good home.

Spot on. People get hung up on the headline numbers but fail to bring into account the multiple adjustment factors that have to brought in in order to transform that headline number into a correct, albeit theoretical, attendance figure. When correctly adjusted, as you have just done, they have a genuinely awesome away support. We are very much not worthy.

The fatal, 34 people died, 1952 Lynmouth flood was thought to be caused by hamfisted attempts at cloud seeding by the RAF. The rebuttal at the end doesn't entirely convince me. A theory has spread that the flood was caused by secret cloud seeding experiments carried out by the Royal Air Force (RAF) between 1949 and 1952.[6][7][8] The theory was fuelled by a 2001 BBC Radio 4 documentary, which suggested that the events of 1952 were connected to Project Cumulus. The programme alleged that "the infamous Lynmouth flood disaster came only days after RAF rain-making experiments over southern England", and that secret experiments were causing heavy rainfall.[6] According to the programme, "classified documents on the trials that Project Cumulus contributed to the conditions that caused this flood have gone missing".[6] A few days before the disaster a seeding experiment was carried out over southern England. Alan Yates, an aeronautical engineer and glider pilot who was working with the operation, sprayed salt in the air and was "elated" to learn of a heavy rainfall in Staines shortly after.[9] "Survivors tell how the air smelled of sulphur on the afternoon of the floods, and the rain fell so hard it hurt people's faces."[6] Meteorologist Philip Eden has said the experiments could not have caused the accident: "it is preposterous to blame the Lynmouth flood on such experiments".[10] Eden also said "The storm which caused the 1952 disaster was not confined to the Lynmouth district."[10] while in reality "The East and West Lyn rivers, which drop rapidly down from Exmoor, were swollen even before the fatal storm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynmouth_Flood