NickJ

Could Steve also have a quiet word with Liam?

The Alamo

All will be revealed in the gobbledygook session.

Funny thing is he's still able to respond with an emoji. Funnier still, his emoji of choice is "confused". Confused with life in general I should say.

Yes Harry, I'm particularly looking forward to the modules on self promotion, man management, grass measuring, optimum strategies for blame deflection, the role of drones (remember that one?!), everything I learnt from Pep and everything Pep learnt from me, how to be "brave", and an introductory session in gobbledygook. I'm signing up, he knows how much I love him.

I'm assuming "Travis" has been removed but maybe now is the time to let he/she/it know the Dolman wasn't built until 1970 and the schoolboy encosure was a few years after that.

I said this would be fun. Not in 1967 I didn't, no. I don't know anyone that did, then. My dad sat me on a wall at the Open End behind the goal. I don't reckon you did in '59, either. I mean, you'd remember if you did, or didn't, wouldn't you? Stand in the schoolboys enclosure in front of the Dolman, that is. Don't recall too many ticket stubs in those days either, surprised you'd even be thinking there would be one, back in '59. Surely you recall the days of paying two bob at the turnstile?

But definitely not the schoolboys enclosure in front of the Dolman?

You didn't need to. The comments you refer to were several months ago - before "Travis" was a member. That game against Liverpool, where did you stand, schoolboys enclosure in front of the Dolman?

Proper charmer aren't you. I've mentioned the issue of new members once on this thread, and not on any other current ones. Until the last couple of weeks I hadn't been on here much for quite a while, probably several months ago, certainly well before you joined on 31 December. This being the case the posts you refer to are before you were a member of this forum. So you are saying that you were an avid reader of this forum before joining, and of all the thousands and thousands of posts from hundreds of posters you recall a handful of mine from several months ago about new members popping up on here, usually with a complete opposite narrative to the majority view? Or did you keep a notebook, "posters on my radar"? Seems odd, bordering on unlikely, that either is the case, "tbh". (See what I did there). That game against Liverpool, back in '59, how was it for you?

I don't mind the attempted patronising comments. Here's your sentence I don't understand: Deny all you like I see you the whole how long someone was a member was mentioned numerous times. Are you saying that I've referred to how long somebody has been a member, a lot in previous posts?

There you again, "simple" - abusive/derogatory. I'm not, but anyway. We were told this manager would have us playing front foot football with the existing top 6 quality sqaud, I think 22 games is ample time to demonstrate he's capable of doing that. But from his own admission, the post match interview, he's not even trying to achieve that - front foot - let alone capable of it. I'm trying to make sense of the first sentence, are you saying that I've referred to how long somebody has been a member, a lot in previous posts?

Fixated? I've mentioned it (thats not fixated) because it's a known fact that club employees have signed up on here, masquerading as fans, to defend club positions, which is quite sad and a tiny bit sinister. As I say its odd that your first ever posts are to be very vocal in defending such a negative approach from our manager. Very odd, as is the fact that you have taken such an agressive stance on the issue with some of your replies. I dont see how anybody could argue that yesterdays game was mind numbingly boring and the tactics of our manager - as stated by him - was a large part of that. A fundamental problem is that you are interpreting criticism of the boring style of play as meaning that we expect City to win every game.

Not being superior, I just noticed that pretty much all of your replies have been abusive/sarcastic/derogatory, there's no need. If you back this manager to serve up dross like yesterday thats fine but its not just that it was dross, but from his post match interview it was actually the game plan to serve up dross, for the first half at least. We won't ever agree that a manager with that attitude should be backed.

You see, as I said originally, you feel the need to be abusive/sarcastic/derogatory. It's odd that you seem to have started posting exclusively to defend the indefensible, a complete lack of effort by entertainers to entertain. Out of interest what was your first City game and how many City games have you attended? Mine was a thrilling 0-0 draw home to Middlesborough in 1967, been to hundreds home and away including most of the 92 and quite a few more no longer in the 92. The entertainment being served up by this guy is up there with the worst of all managers.

I've explained, and demonstrated, that I havent misunderstood posts. The difference in your length of being a member is that I'd suggest that you and the other guy almost certainly barely knew Ashton Gate prior to a few months ago, which may or may not be significant. Except to say, the posts for both of you are exclusively defending a boring game and a boring manager which the vast majorty of other posters are extremely pissed off with. Said it was going to be fun!

But once again, as I have already explained, I'm not judging BCFC's performance, I'm judging the game, and both teams were culpable in serving up dross masquerading as entertainment. City's 2 strikers didn't travel more than 10 yards over the half way line in the first half, allowing Swansea to pointlessly pass around their own half. Taking us paying punters as mugs. Except you've (predictably) misquoted me. What I said: Again, I've looked through this entire thread and haven't seen one moan about winning. Granted, a couple have said winning was bad because they hoped a loss would have resulted in Manning's sacking - which in any case I very much doubt would have happened. That isn't moaning about winning, its a couple of posters lamenting the fact that because we won we are faced with similar boredom to come. There is a difference. Sparring with one poster who joined this week and another who joined less than 3 months ago is going to be fun, but at least I can be sure Liam is going to get the message.

Looks like you were right, although as you will see I don't agree Birmingham was worse. Don't agree Birmingham was worse. I'm talking about entertainment, from both teams, not the performance from Bristol Cty. Birmingham fans would have been happy. The game against Swansea was dire with no effort from either team to entertain and frankly an insult to people who are paid a fraction of the so called entertainers. Yes, exactly. Front foot, thats what weve been told, from a top 6 quality squad. That isn't a conclusion you can sensibly reach from posts on here. We won, that isn't the issue. The issue is the dire "entertainment". Again, I've looked through this entire thread and haven't seen one moan about winning. Granted, a couple have said winning was bad because they hoped a loss would have resulted in Manning's sacking - which in any case I very much doubt would have happened. I can honestly say that game was even worse than some of the dross served up under SOD, although I suspect you probably didn't see any of that, count yourself lucky. From what I've seen from your other posts, you are probably going to respond with an abusive/sarcastic/derogatory irrelevance.

Which ones?

My arse. Never been so bored.

Cotts was slated for just having one game with one too few subs

Stupid comment

Give me Colin over our Lee frickin Johnson or the current bore any time of the week, proper bloke, knows how to man manage

Problem is, he did. Actually said, we can set the players up for free kicks, corners, thrown ins etc, but when on the pitch he can’t affect it. He’s clearly not saying he can’t affect a game with substitutions or changing formations etc, but what he is saying is, we’ve set the players up and it’s not our fault if they don’t do it. So he’s blaming a top 6 quality squad of players, to divert failings away from himself. Shades of Johnson, as is comments like the processes are more important than the outcomes. He also thinks we are going in the right direction (in terms of processes not outcomes, obviously). In other words he’s saying that he’s improving the “processes” that the previous manager had in place. I’d really like the interviewer to drill down into that and ask him what he’s improving relative to the previous manager. I do agree with @Jimbo76 some of the criticism and negativity is OTT, but fact is blaming players and talking in coaching manual riddles is not a great way to win over the fans.

Well you're not very bright are you, "covid struck". What, just us? Moreover, Lee fricking Johnson was 38.7% and NP was 32.1%. And see post of the decade above as to the best, but of many examples as to why NP did a great job, and as to why Lee fricking Johnson will 100% never ever be manager of a Championship club again.