Steve Watts

As someone who had twins from IVF I would say that people requiring IVF to start a family are not the people who need restrictions put on them. People who just pop out 4 or 5 so they can pick up the benefits are where the problem lies in respect of kids in particular, in my opinion. Getting the squad to McDonalds once a week for their happy meals with plastic toys (i realise they've stopped them now), and other less green lifestyle choices etc. Anyway......bringing it back to the shirt before this gets shunted to the non-football forum....those sleeves just leave me wondering how long they'll take to load..... (when you know, you know).

Could've been a solution to many a problem over the years though! Yep. It's a sweeping enforcement of a law that already exists. If you leave grey area them people will exploit it.

Haven't had a 10% discount for years. It's 10% goes back onto your card to be used against future purchases. They've still not announced the "rewards" for this season, however I was told when picking up some things last week that the 10%'s will be included and will go on the card when then system is sorted. So basically keep any receipts to prove you got it as there's a strong likelihood there's going to be some problem with the balances.

What sort of legends mural is it without the biggest legend in their clubs history? Or does Dean Windass have a wall all to himself elsewhere in the stadium?

Is he good mates with Le Tissier...?!? https://twitter.com/cotterill_david/status/1549074386237415424?t=7YEI-WFb92XryONSHfcMIQ&s=19

From this I can only conclude that Toby Osborne is commentating...!

With the announcement only made yesterday, with details not yet finalised the I would be very suprised if the GFA aren't invited to form part of the trial, which I would imagine filter down to Avon Youth and Hanham Minor leagues accordingly. I presume it's not for the individual leagues to propose and vote for it, but will be mandated by the local FA depending on participation. It's an interesting one. As coaches we do attempt to get the kids playing football rather than sending it long, but these are developmental ages where football should be fun. If a team is not as good defensively and struggle to bring the ball out from defence, then a long kick up field is sometimes a good way of relieving that pressure. I've seen teams get battered in matches because they are up against much stronger opposition. The demoralising effect that can have on a young kid can be massive. Kick off, lose possession, concede...rinse and repeat ad nauseum.....We would still be trying to put an emphasis on playing good attractive football, but that can't come overnight with such varying degrees of ability and potential. Certainly a challenge that we'll be happy to try and tackle....we've certainly been given work to do at under 11's if the GFA do take part in the trial. Already getting the kids used to 9 a side and offsides for this season! One more thing to add to the mix. I should imagine "Playing out from the back" will be a drill that is deployed even more in training over the coming weeks and months. No information on the penalty for deliberately heading the ball either. Direct/Indirect free kick? I would presume the latter, as with hand balls, but does that also therefore mean that players could in theory be sent off for a headed clearance for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity..... Will be interesting to revisit this once all information is released.

Rovers will be announcing attendance as percentage of capacity this year. Therefore their attendances will be soaring up this year with the loyal and true and prowed Gasheads getting behind their team....!

About a year....maybe more! Seen so many people drive down there.....nice little earner for the council.

Only 13 miles shorter distance.....which surprises me as I too thought it would be more.

Don't we usually play horrifically when we have the mates rates games? I may be wrong, but it always seems to tempt Sods Law into action!

Exactly the same for much of the last 5 years.....but for different reasons!!

It's just that to me, the Junior Reds should be a supporters club for junior supporters. Not just a rebranded membership scheme that we've had for years. As indicated earlier in the thread the absence of a proper supporters club for the kids in a similar vein to the one John and Clare etc ran is bewildering and this does nothing to change that.

In my opinion it feels like a massive missed opportunity and just very lazy. Engagement with the young fans is so important and this just seems a clumsy way of paying lip service to that. We could have launched a proper Junior Reds as discussed earlier in the thread, with an area of the upper Lansdown concourse dedicated to it in the way that we used to have the building opposite the Williams stand back in the day. Run membership specific events on a match day etc. Maybe I'm feeling negative because of my general mood today (which is what 2 hours on the phone to Virgin Media does to you!!!).

So a Junior supporters club for non season ticket holding junior reds.....Excluding the 3000 u-19's that have already purchased season tickets..... The club don't do themselves any favours when it comes to thinking these things through properly. It's just a standard membership that's been rebranded, isn't it?

I guess the argument here would be that if you had kept you finances fair then you possibly wouldn't have finished 6th. If you've extended yourself to the extent that you've violated FFP then it would be strongly argued that you've gained an unfair advantage. Of course, where the EFL leave themselves open to appeal with all this is where they failed to punish Bournemouth in the season that they got promoted to the Prem for a massive overspend. If they had applied the punishment before the club left membership of the EFL then that would be different. But I believe they've possibly shot themselves in the foot a little there. Certainly left lawyers a thread to pick at I'd have thought...

Norwich away on a Wednesday night in September, followed by Burnley away on the Saturday. Where, oh, where is the logic in that?!?

They may be the team that comes on strong in the second half of the season after they sack Bruce at Christmas I suppose.

It'd be harsh on Page if he didn't at least get the job to the end of the year after guiding them to qualification.

You know what? I quite like that!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61838916 Looks like Rosenior will have to wait a little longer....

Still annoys the hell out of me. Carling's cousin, John, was much more deserving of a stand being named after him!

This jumped out at me as well. We know he could sell ice to the Eskimos but when the penny drops with the new owners that he's sold them a duff financial model, Ipswich is going to be royally in the shit. If the Snake oil salesman could suck himself off we wouldn't see you again......?

"WELCOME TO KHALIFA (CISSE?) INTERNATIONAL STADIUM STADIUUUUUUUUUUUUM! LET'S GET READY TO MAKE SOME NOOOOOOOOOISE!" As an announcer he really isn't very good at the whole announcing part of the job description!

The trouble with this, and it introduces a fundamental problems with the kick in as well is when does the 5 seconds start? If it's as soon as the ball is kicked out then the proverbial row z will be hit every time. If it's from when the thrower picks up the ball then they'll leave it on the floor. If, after 5 seconds no kick in is taken then it reverts to a throw in which opens more time wasting opportunities. Like most proposed changes, it's worth undergoing a feasibility test at least, not necessarily a trial. But the most important "change" that needs to be made before anything else is consistent implementation of the existing rules. Bringing it back to throw ins briefly, as @Silvio Dante will attest, seeing some of our under 10's taking throw ins makes the kick in sound like a positively wonderful idea! ?