Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About kit

  • Birthday 29/01/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:

Recent Profile Visitors

1,814 profile views
  1. Taking away from the topic of the united players behaviour, the decision to award the foul was 100% spot on. Van dyke makes contact with de gea after de gea has got hold of the ball, it may have been tight but he did. The rules of the game state: [a] goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when: the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save. [a] goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands. It may seem a soft foul, but it was a foul. De Gea didn't drop the ball onto van dyke, he was challenged by van dyke and van dyke made contact with de gea whilst the ball was between his hands.
  2. kit

    Set pieces

    I think there were at least two taken by him first half.
  3. This is probably the key point i.e. what was the sign off given by the f.a. I haven't seen anything that says with any certainty what it was. I also think if you have an independent valuation that can argue that the ground was worth that value and even if it seems high but the assumptions used have some sort of credence then I think it's tough for the efl to prove this. There just isn't a market for football grounds in derby to test the value against. The land is relatively easy, the stadium is not. I think there is wide spectrum of values you could land on, it boils down to poor legislation again it should have something along the lines of related party sales are to be reviewed by independent parties agreed by efl and club. Fix the legislation and move on.
  4. I have to say I think Derby have a case. It feels very much a case of the proverbial bolting of the door. It seems obvious that they have found a way around the rules but I don't think it has been swept under the carpet at all from Derbys side of things. Unless there its something more to this I would be very surprised if there was any retrospective punishment for Derby once it's all played out, they've been open and transparent taking at face value that the efl signed off their transactions at the time. It seems to me that the efl have little basis for the charge. Sheffield Wednesdays is a little different because of the timings as they seem to have commenced after their year end but who knows what conversations were had with the efl. It just seems barmy to me that a set of rules allow infrastructure expenditure not to count towards ffp but the sale of infrastructure does count towards ffp. Sort the rules out first then start punishing clubs.
  5. It's probably a case of lose the next two league games and you start getting a little more concerned albeit its still highly unlikely. Win the next two and its laughable to have even been concerned. I think if we were where we are now a month or so ago then it would be very concerning but we are in a much better starting posotion than when we fell like a stone in johnsons first full season.
  6. But we had weiman playing centre midfield and really had no shape whatsoever with zero bite in midfield. The moment Moore came on we had shape and looked defensively solid. It wasn't until the second sub that we then lost that shape and started getting ripped open again.
  7. It looked like it was yellow when the card was shown at the time. It's difficult to tell from the clip who said what obviously, but Johnson clearly lost his head a little still whoever started.
  8. We've been poor all season, we're regressing back to where we belong right now. There are a lot of performances this season where we have picked up points that were undeserved, I was hoping that performances would pick up and we would get points from them. Unfortunately performances are still poor but we're not getting points. For all the believers answer the question of how many points have we gained from games we didn't deserve vs. how many we've been robbed of. My view is that we are currently in credit by some margin and are lucky that we've probably got enough in the bank to avoid any chance of a real relegation scrap and instead just have to fear a real sizzling out to obscurity instead. I don't feel vitriol towards Johnson and I think that he has his plus points mainly being fitting in with the ethos of developing players and not buying journeyman, but he shows no signs of ever being able to set up a team to win and grind out results. The only time we've looked good under him was the run up to the Man City games but instead of thinking he just needed a deeper squad to continue that football he has just avoided playing it altogether and dishes up turgid displays most weeks instead. I'd sack him, not for the sake of any old manager, but the aim is premier league football and he is a mid table championship manager at best.
  9. I dont think they would have been relegated previous seasons with that deduction. It's just a season without European rugby unless their team is dramatically worse than the last few years. Their bigger problem will be finding a new way to circumvent the wage cap.
  10. I think I was about 30 miles from Grimsby when we heard about that one. Whatever the reason was it should have been announced a lot earlier than it was I seem to recall.
  11. I thought I was the only one who thought that too based on every other comment I've seen. Their guy is sat on the ball which should be a foul, Fam had two little kicks but doesn't have eyes in the back of his head to see the lino waving his flag for a soft/questionable foul and then the third is either at the same time or a fraction of a second after the ref blows his whistle. The last kick was aimed at the ball and a result of what the charlton player was doing, didn't look particulalry dangerious or over the top. The ref and linesman have been fooled by an over the top reaction from the charlton players, if they don't react like that its never going to be shown as a red. I'd appeal it. The game was still live as the whistle hadn't gone and if the charlton player was on his feet the way fam went in wouldn't have been a foul, so why should a player sitting on the ball make it a red instantly. He's not kicked him randomly or well after the whistle has gone.
  12. Why when I tried to update an ignored user does it come up with a message that says Something along the lines of "this user cannot be ignored"?
  13. Bamford as well which was a lot more similar to the Mitrovic one, Gayle was for diving for a penalty rather than trying to get a player sent off. I do believe that because no card was shown then no retrospective action can be taken.
  14. I was at the game. Indeed it's all about opinions just stating where mine differed...
  15. Could not disagree more with some of those ratings. Hunt only getting a 5 is harsh, as soon as he came on we actually started getting some traction attacking down the right. He also wasn't really troubled defensively. Nagy and palmer were head and shoulders better than brownhill. Just watch the highlights and pretty much every chance we had was through palmer, plus he put in a shift defensivly keeping shape and tracking a lot. The biggest problem in the middle was no real running to get ahead of the man on the ball and also to provide options which is surely what brownhill should have done and didn't. Weimann was well below par and ineffective as well, didn't offer much threat and nothing really went for him all game 5 at most. Wright and baker 6 is probably about fair, but they both did like to lump it a lot if they weren't passing sideways to each other. Rowe was a tough one to call, positionally he went wondering a lot and nagy did end up in that left back position quite often, but on the ball he was ok and didn't waste possession too much and also when defending he looked ok. But another negative were his set piece deliveries that were awful (although he wasn't the only culprit today). Agree with crowly being the most noticeable player for brum, he seemed to be involved with a lot going forwards for them.
  • Create New...