whoklldredrobin

Thanks...I leave you all to make your unnecessary points amongst yourselves. Cheers.

Everyone is wilfully missing the point here – OF COURSE it is not our actual league position, of course we don't have to worry about relegation, of course it is hypothetical hahahaha... but it does show where we actually are in terms of form, and where we stand as a club. We probably knew it already but I thought it was interesting to see it in black-and-white as it puts things in perspective. I also made the suggestion that establishing a clear direction as a club and communicating it effectively could be beneficial to making progress on the pitch and building bridges with disaffected fans off it in what could prove to be a few difficult years ahead.

For the avoidance of doubt – this is our true league position, once points deductions are removed – two points off the bottom three: 17 Derby 41 -7 49 18 Cardiff 40 -14 49 19 Birmingham 41 -17 45 20 CITY 41 -21 45 21 Hull 41 -11 44 22 Reading 41 -29 43 23 Barnsley 40 -29 29 24 Peterboro 41 -48 28 This gives a clearer picture of where we are as a club. With a mooted points deduction and lack of money to spend in the summer, our Championship status is very much all to play for next season. Surely the powers-that-be (whether they are intending to sell or not) don't want to be saddled with a League One club, especially as that could well mean we are on equal footing with the other lot for the first time in a couple of decades. How we respond as fans – whether that is backing the manger or calling for his head, renewing our season tickets or throwing them at the directors box etc – is down to us. It also begs the question of whether we would less 'passive' in our play, or as a club, if we are actually were in a relegation scrap. Personally, I would like to see clear direction from the top down. When Pat Lam took over at Bristol Bears he famously got everyone at the club in a room and showed them Bristol's results over previous years and asked them whether they were good enough. (Spoiler – they weren't). He publicly stated his plan was to take the club into the Premiership, get them playing Champions Cup rugby, produce Bristol-born players for England and be a positive presence in the community. He said to achieve that dream you had to have a plan, because without a plan, there is no belief. Although the rugby club's league form has dipped this season, almost five years later they have won promotion, lifted their first European trophy, topped the league last year (albeit lost in the play-offs for the second successive year), have two players in the England side and currently have a good chance of reaching the last eight of rugby's Champions League. While our chance of playing Champions League football are next to non-existent, and our financial clout in football will not be equitable to the rugby club, we can still dream, we can still plan and still believe we can achieve success on the pitch*. But we have to define what that success is and communicate it properly. If we have no money to spend that is fine; if we have to play homegrown players that is fine; if our aspiration is to slowly work our way up the Championship table and incrementally improve that is fine; if our plan is to play entertaining, attacking football (yes, please) that is fine too – but if we have to have a measure to work against. That builds clarity and allows us as paying supporters (as well as those within the club) to fairly judge whether we are going in the right direction. Of course, there may well be a plan, but I haven't seen it communicated clearly. At the moment, it feels as though we are drifting passively waiting for something to happen – with a non-existent board, and an experienced manager who is rapidly turning into the man who shouts at the clouds while the world is falling apart around him. To quote the fans on Saturday: 'That Is Embarrassing'. * The stadium and training ground, branding, community programmes are to be applauded. They make the club a more attractive and saleable prospect and have improved the fans' experience in many ways. But in my eyes – and many others – we are not Bristol Sport but Bristol City, and the 'group's' success will always be defined by results on the pitch.

Although it was quite funny that the Birmingham fans inadvertently threw a flare at their own goalkeeper as he was about to take a goal kick – perhaps his flourescent kit made them confuse him with a steward.

Of course the guy was better off keeping quiet. But 100% agreed – you'd think that there wasn't enough violence in the world at the moment wouldn't you? What would make you start hitting someone because of that? It is pathetic, embarrassing behaviour. If you need to just give him a hard time with some banter. It's only a game funnily enough...

You obviously have had no experience of alcoholism, recovery, or AA – how dare you suggest a recovering alcoholic (or addict of any kind) has 'taken the easy way out'? An alcoholic IS always an alcoholic, whether they are in recovery or not. They cannot drink in moderation. One drink can lead to serious relapse. Their recovery is dependent on them hitting rock bottom and making a seismic change in their behaviour so that they are able to live their lives on a daily basis without drink It requires constant vigilance and hard work. It is NOT easy and they do deserve praise.

Not everyone goes - or wants to go - with kids though do they? It is not a case of ‘moaning’ it is accepting that post-Christmas - with all the expense that entails - and in a climate were fans queue to get scanned and then show a vaccine pass and watch what in all honesty is fairly turgid football (however understandable that may be) £23-25 plus the cost of getting to the game is a fair amount of money. And as for not playing their reserve side - it may be the subs bench but it is not personally a big enough draw for me. I accept your argument but please don’t patronise people for whom money is tight. If you think people are moaning about the price you are obv doing well for yourself.

Something doesn't add up for me. I get that in normal circumstances pitch invaders can be a bit of a laugh... and in this case it was thankfully. But unfortunately we live in days of a heightened terrorist threat. We all had to wait and queue up to get into the ground so we could be scanned by a metal detector in case we were carrying a weapon (or worse)*. Despite this home fans still managed to smuggle in a flare. And an away fan manages to stroll nonchalantly on to the pitch and wander around for the best part of a minute before anyone reacts. In this case, he was just an attention-seeker. But as Dollymarie rightly says in this thread, what IF he was carrying a weapon? What IF he actually wanted to cause harm to a player or anyone in the stadium? Either the security is tight, or it isn't. Either fans are allowed on the pitch, or not. If we are searching for weapons on entry then surely we should have plans in place to stop their possible use inside the actual stadium. If stewards aren't allowed to stop intruders then who exactly is?! Do we wait until a player or supporter is actually harmed before doing anything? (Maybe it is because we don't want a large police bill, and don't want to ask young people on a minimum wage to risk their safety – see the Euro final chaos at Wembley - I don't know). I don't have the answers, but it all seems a bit half-assed and about ticking boxes rather than actually providing proper security. And worryingly – God forbid - seems set up for something to go badly wrong at some point. * Next week, in addition to getting scanned we will also have to be separately checked for a vaccination pass – imagine someone telling you that would be part of the match day experience just 24 months ago! This isn't a political comment btw, if it keeps us all safe then it is the right thing to do. It does feel strangely dystopian though.

We do realise he’s not actually wearing a skirt but a pair of flared shorts? I remember the same reaction when Beckham wore a sarong, and Kevin Keegan’s perm. No doubt there were people spilling their cornflakes over George Best’s long hair in the 60s. It’s fashion, darling! I personally like it, I don’t want all our footballers to be automatons running round with buzzcuts - having characters like that is all part of the game. The gender debate is a separate issue, but we’re living through a transitionary period when attitudes towards accepted gender norms are being debated and challenged. I liked the reaction from an old lady when someone complained about Doctor Who being played by an actress: ‘It’s for young people, not for old fuddy-duddys like us.’

I'd argue this was the most telling quote of them all. From BBC Sport: Gould refused to be drawn on changes that might be made to the squad during the January transfer window, but praised the level of investment the team receives from majority shareholder Steve Lansdown. "The investment that goes in already is genuinely exceptional. Our salary bills are probably twice the level that what we would otherwise be able to afford if we were relying on media revenues and gate income," Gould said. "The amount of investment is not in question, the issue is we need to get as much of that on the pitch as possible at any one time. We need to make every pound count. "There are clubs above us in this league currently with much smaller wage bills and they are simply managing to get more of their paying talent on the pitch performing and that's something that we now need to make sure we're doing."

I think the clue is the word ‘news stories’. I can read your posts - if I wanted commentary or analysis. I am not suggesting Piercey is not a good writer, or shouldn’t publish his view. I am arguing against the description of it as ‘top journalism’ as the local sports editor his job it is to move the story on - to find out information that is not currently in the public domain. To create clarity out of what is a very uncertain situation.

Of course. My point was that - nicely written as it is - the piece doesn’t tell us anything new. It is commentary not journalism.

Why is it ‘nonsense’?

It is not top journalism at all. If he was a top journalist he would be finding out exactly what the situation is regarding Nigel Pearson's health and its ongoing effect on his position as manager. It is in situations like these, when official information provided is vague and uncertain, that traditionally reporters step up to the task and provide clarity for its readers (or supporters). For example, 'Nigel Pearson has been given an indefinite period of leave to recover from xxx which has left him unable to xxx. The club have / or have not a plan B in place should he not return'. It is not his job as a reporter to toe the party line, make snide remarks about internet rumours and wait for an official club statement. Simply sitting back and providing an 'analysis' of the situation is called punditry. It can be done by anyone with a blog. It is lazy journalism and merely contributes to the opaque atmosphere surrounding the club at this moment in time. In fact, allowing that nebulous atmosphere to continue merely fuels the rumours he is so quick to ridicule. (And yes, the club and Nigel Pearson may not want certain details made public. It could be argued in NP's case that is the morally right thing to do. That doesn't mean that scenario not be challenged and properly investigated. It may make him unpopular but journalists have never been, and should never be, official mouthpieces).