Silvio Dante

I *think* it’s based on your academy category, and you have to be Cat 1 to go in. As most premier league sides are Cat 1, if they want to take up the invite, they tend to use all the spaces (I think only Fulham are in from a championship level this year). So I think the invite hierarchy is: Premier League (Cat One) Championship (Cat One) Premier League (Cat Two) Championship (Cat Two) Now, obviously Brentford aren’t eligible fullstop, some teams may decide not to partake (European football IIRC) and you have others whom it wouldn’t be plausible for (eg I think Derby are cat one but they’d decline an invite I’d imagine!) So, we need to be Cat one and most likely in the Prem for this to arise

In other news, it’s the Wael Derby tonight…

Box 1 - 20 Acres Box 2 - 43 Acres Box 3 - Combine Harvester Box 4 - Key

I got it. VCM said that it was the most impossible thing that’s been on there and she was amazed it was got For those who don’t watch “Only Connect”, you have to guess item 4 as it naturally follows 1-3. As a clue, think what another name for 43,560 sq ft is…

It’s a no, because, as your other posts confirm, you must have been happy to be in the fight to start with. I’d have hated to impinge on your activity. Frankly, if I was you, I’d be annoyed that the CSF had joined in without asking.

Well. As your question was And you believe… Then, by your own words, they weren’t kicking lumps out of just anybody. So, using your logic, I’d be on safe grounds to assume the following: - You’d happily entered into said fight with said Walsall fans - If I walked on by they wouldn’t start on me So, I wouldn’t want to break up your pre arranged shindig. After all, they don’t kick lumps out of just anyone and it’s generally pre organised. That’s the only logical answer to your question if I’m not in your firm (you must be in a firm to be in the fight by your logic). The alternate is that the CSF worship is just bollocks and they were as bad as anyone else, but that seems to be a very inconvenient truth.

Weetabix?? That means you must be gas. I’m coming for you!!* *But only if you agree, we meet at a pre-ordained place, and nobody who doesn’t want to fight doesn’t get caught up and we let them walk past unmolested. Unlike those ****s from The Cornflakes Hit Squad, The Ready Brek crew and The Shredded Wheat boys, the FSF (Frosties Service Firm) stand alone in the breakfast firms as not punching innocent fans. Obvs.

Imagine if you liked Frosties but owned a Spaniel. You’d be punching yourself in the face constantly.

I was merely pointing out what I’ve pointed out consistently - that this isn’t fisticuffs between like minded people (as your first note said it was), but mindless thuggery disregarding anyone who got in the way (as regrettably happened to you in the second note). Your second note disproves the first theory, as do a lot of recollections on here. Nobody denies CSF protected you. But if you’d have been Walsall fans and the CSF emerged from a pub, at that time the self same would have happened unless - again, by some miracle - CSF were the only “firm” in the country who didn’t go after any other fans.

I think you can relate this quite nicely to a “Credit Score” using the accuracy argument and see how something, if “wrong” has a different impact there. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t all have a “credit score”. Each company (Experian, Equifax etc) consider factors in our credit file, and use their own grading to come up with their own score. The people who provide the data to the bureau (the lenders) certify it as correct and have controls to ensure accuracy. Lenders then get the score/bureau credit info but don’t use that in isolation and overlay it with qualitative factors to decide whether to lend. Applying this to players, let’s say the score is out of 100 on an “accepting club” dataset - where they’ve taken the proveable MI (goals per game, distance covered etc) and then overlaid the factors that they consider important (DNA for example!). A small mistake/different interpretation in the quantitative data is unlikely to change the overall decision - a major mistake is however likely to do so. But it’s also far more difficult on this data to make a large scale mistake because it’s based on a number of games and not a “one and done” (Parallel: If a lender states you’ve missed your latest mortgage payment in error, that will harm your likely credit acceptance currently. If a dataset for a player says they ran 10m and not 10km on a most recent game that will just dilute the data that’s correct and not cause major damage). I think the point for me overall there is data does have to be ethical, but the potential for a mistake to be made and that mistake to cause harm to the player is minimal. It’s also the case that people may define things like “dribbles” differently - it’s not an absolute proveable. So, if it has low potential to do harm (unless wholesale inaccurate - in which case it should be picked up - eg if Rob Atkinson won 1 header all season you’d see that as an outlier), is a part of (but not all) of any decision and could be interpretative On that basis, I’m not sure how it could be argued there is a negative impact. I also think it’s not really in the spirit of what GDPR was intended for. Interesting subject though!

Sometimes, this thing writes itself…

Thought for a minute Rovers had solved their striker crisis - with a decent signing for once: But no, he’s selling them Tumeric…

My initial thought on this is that they’re stretching. The key thing here for me is that all the information is already “public domain”, and has been obtained by records which they freely partook in (ie games). It isn’t really parallelable to performance data from a job as a warehouseman, accountant etc as they aren’t pd info. If you apply GDPR and the “right to be forgotten” to the data, by logic you can’t just delete the data for the one player, you have to delete it for the game (to use an extreme example here, if Weimann objected to his data under GDPR, records of the Cardiff game would show we lost 1-0..) If it was training data or sensitive medical data (ie not that they’d missed a game with an advised hamstring pull, but the full history) I’d agree. But this references goals per game, and I’d guess it goes down to distance covered, key passes, xG etc. And those appear to be public domain, so are to me just a natural extension of Rothmans..!

Quiz question waiting to happen:

That seems harsh - rebuilt side and in touch. It’s not a Paul Cook/Ashton shitshow there. For my Saturday without city I’m watching Yate Town vs Chesham. The Chesham skipper may be the fattest footballer I’ve seen. For a moment I thought Tomlin had found a new club

I agree.

“The plural of anecdote is not data” What you’ve done, inadvertently, is prove the point. You’ve said that a Cardiff “fan” (Speech marks intended) was stopped by CSF. Again, fair play to them. But then to leap that CSF won’t do the same to other fans is naive at best. Again - were either the exception or we did it. I don’t doubt your story occurred. But as data, it’s frankly bollocks

Tbf I’m not trying to fight you, and apologies if it comes across that way. I get very annoyed on the “csf” piece. They aren’t super fans, they’re worse fans when you see the impact on the average joe. I think my bottom line is I can’t, and won’t, respect CSF or any other organisation that has hooligan tendencies. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, but I separate that from a “non intent” chant ( a la Lockyer) I think we can agree that it would be a simpler world without CSF, and I think you agree that without them it’s better. What I don’t get is people (not you as far as I can see) being wedded to this sub-culture

And Tbf mate, I don’t think we’re far off the same page. I don’t have an issue with a chant of CSF in theory (again, we may chant that Palmer can shag our wives, but that doesn’t mean we mean it). My point is that I have an issue with CSF actions not words. Apologies if that didn’t come through, that was the point I was making. Inherently - Chants no issue. Justifying violence - issue. The problem is when the chant is intrinsically connected with the violence, and I think CSF hits that. Again, we’re all city. I don’t think protecting my kid from violence is wrong, and that’s why I’ll stand against CSF. I don’t expect agreement, but hope you understand the stance.

Mate. I’m far from a snowflake. I go away a lot, I’ve done 2/3 of away games this year. I just think that I, and probably 99% of fans don’t need idiots “protecting us” when they are the people that cause it. If following city away 66% of games, having a season ticket and wanting my kid not to have to put up with thugs is a snowflake, I’ll take that any day. But you play your own game.

Yep. And I’m never going to build a bonfire and put Cardiff at the top, Rovers in the middle and burn the lot. I’m also not going to hit Tom Lockyer with a brick. But I’d be expected to be called a ***** and be arrested if I did, and be banned for life from all grounds.. So your point is?

I’ve just come back to this after a few hours and….In what ****ing world is it acceptable to stand up for this shit? I go back to my earlier point - if we admit CSF protected people like me who wanted to just watch the game, then we have to admit that CSF also intimidated and drove away fans like me from the game from other clubs. Look at the average attendances if you don’t believe that. We’re better off without these pricks, who just want a fight under a banner they’ve misappropriated. My sons 9. If he never hears the initials CSF I’ll be delighted. Let the dinosaurs die. I’m happy they protected people, but if they didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be needed. They we’re the cause not the cure. And they should be ashamed of how, as a football fan, they led to me, led to us, being treated.

I don’t think it’s racist but I do think it’s intentionally diminishing. As was said further up, ALM was a response to BLM - in effect saying “yeah they do but we do too”, in effect spiking the grievances that BLM may have had. I don’t think anyone disagrees that all lives matter. The question is whether it needed to be said at that point - it immediately moved the spotlight away from the very real problems people could see under BLM and into some kind of culture war. As a socio-economic group, Black people do have less advantages, more discrimination etc than white people. That’s just a fact. But what you do is try and fix that, you don’t say “yeah but” which is what ALM was at that stage.

The paradox with the CSF (and all “firms”) is this. Speak to any of them, they’ll tell you that they never went after people who didn’t want to get involved, and it was one firm against another. However, in the next breath they say how they protected all fans. Hell this was stated in the old Paul Lumber thread, and has already come up here (“glad they were there” etc) Unless, by some miracle, the CSF are the exception to the rule and didn’t go after people who just wanted to watch the game, and every other firm did, then both of those things can’t be true. So, the only logical deduction is a load of thugs who wanted a fight with anyone. That’s not football, and I’m glad they’re not a part of our club anymore in any great way. The cenotaph incident was hopefully the last gasp of an outdated culture. And I for one do not believe a word they say in view of the logic above.

Pretty much the Newcastle view.