Silvio Dante

Not sure about that. If we work on average ticket price being a tenner (some more, some less) for the West Ham games then across the two ties it’s about 800-900k collective gate receipts. That gets split 50/50. Deduct the costs of putting on the games (policing, staff etc) and obviously we didn’t make money from the bar last night(!) Think TV was about 40k I read and then there’s prize money. Reckon we’ve netted nearer 1/2m. Still not to be sniffed at.

Ah got you - misread what you said and I think we’re saying the same thing, stacked payments and £1m for a final loss.

(shivers) Tyreeq Bakinson In a not at all characteristic move he started superbly at Newport and the fans loved him then became a waster.

Not totally correct - the table shows runners up get £1m. You do, however get the money each time. So if we got to the final and lost we’d get a total of £2.9m

Couldn’t see it earlier in the thread, this is the incident: For me, that’s a VAR red but not a red if you get my drift. He gets the ball and the ball influences his follow through onto Ings. Slowed down, it looks worse - but I think it’s one that isn’t given as a foul without VAR (as it correctly wasn’t). Id say we got away with one but more about the moronic way VAR is utilised as opposed to getting away with a bad challenge.

To be fair I tried to pay and then when it failed and I offered again I got told to take it for nowt! There were people walking up and going “is it free mate” before ordering as much as they could carry which was slightly taking the piss!

Unexpected bonus of the night when heading down saw the queues by E30 were bigger than normal. Thought it was day trippers taking their time then an announcement was made that they were having technical problems. Expected to have to walk off with no drink when people started coming back with full carriers of pints. The kiosk were trying to see if cards would work, but if they didn’t (and they didn’t for anyone) letting you have the pints for free. On an even more bizarre basis, they kept pouring and didn’t limit it to the pre poured or perishable stock - people were getting chocolate etc for nowt. Was it just that one kiosk or did anyone else get lucky?!?

Yep agree with this. There was one about 70 minutes in when the shot was on and he overplayed. More pertinently, he has a tendency to “hold” his run a lot - Cam went a few times and expected Anis to be ahead of him but he had to check back as Anis hadn’t seen the run that was needed and was static. It’s all part of a theme of reading the game. He wasn’t bad tonight by any means (and the levels of others have to be considered) but he was the worst of the midfield group and I’d say considering he’s been fairly poor in the most recent batch of games, and we want Twine to focus on attacking so maybe can’t have both, he’s the obvious contender to drop out.

The best thing about that is it was deserved. Sometimes you get upsets and they’re grubby, but it wasn’t. The period 25-40 we looked in a bit of trouble but were the better side for the remainder - clearly a red card helps but you’ve still got to play against it. And the subs were the right ones at the right times so credit to the bench as well as the players. Great stuff and now need to carry it to Watford.

5-3-1-1 with Mehmeti behind Conway?!?

What it does show is options - as you say you’re missing out players, most notably Sykes who has arguably been our best player since the start of 2023. As we know, Twine played his best football as a 10 behind the front man at MK. LMs press conferences have indicated he’s also sticking to 1 up top. I think playing a “2” behind Conway is likely to stifle Twine as it naturally takes him less central. So I’d view him in this setup as akin to a central striker who drops deep (tbf Knight gets up with TC a lot currently). I’d go with a lot of your side but in the absence of RA being fit (will be a while), I’d see a setup of 4-4-1-1 being more likely with Sykes and Knight unofficially wide men but operating with a degree of fluidity and pulling central where needed So something like MOL RM - ZV - RD - CP JK - TGH - JW - MS ST TC Cant stress enough I’d see there being a lot of fluidity in the midfield and fullbacks (bar JW) in that setup

It’s been bugging me. I know Alf Garnett was a West Ham fan but does anyone know who Warren Mitchell supported?

I think he’s certainly erring towards it, and again I’ll say I think it’s a function in part of availability. GK and defence largely unchanged, Mehmeti pretty much a constant for the last month despite a run of poorer games, Conway only missing from the start for one game in the last 12. More rotation in CM (bar Knight) but there is continuity in a lot of selections. And for avoidance of doubt I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, particularly if you’re trying to shift style of play, but we have been wedded to a style and to largely a personnel. —- And yeah, totally. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Twine isn’t a good player and won’t add to the squad. I do think the argument we’ve used AWs wages on him is a bit of double counting (as that also appears to have been used as leverage on the TGH deal) so base assumption has to be we’ve spent some money here. It’s probably with loan fee no more in total net outlay than 1/4 -1/2m tops so that’s not the biggest problem in itself; it’s more in the sense of a loan with no option which if it is a success ends up costing us more money in eventual fee (but I also note if he gets TC firing we may up his value for an anticipated summer sale). Again - if we were fighting the drop/for promotion, or had an option I’d be all for it. The main difference of opinion here is that we all agree it seems to be a good short term move but a lot are unconvinced as to the long term sensibility of it.

Although I agree with point one, we have seen a bit more increasingly from Liam an approach of “you have the shirt you keep it”. I don’t have an issue with that tbh and it is in part a function of squad size so there is a natural conclusion that if you add player A (Twine in this example) then it means less game time for player B (Mehmeti here) And again, I don’t have an issue with that as competition is healthy and it may cause AM or whoever to up their game - but it is factual that Twine coming in will mean less game time for others. The challenge is on them to rise to that. Again, bottom line for me is that I’m not sure the terms of the deal make sense, mainly due to the lack of option and risk identified, but now ST is here, I’d certainly play him if he’s the best option - as I would with any available resource - and it’s up to the other players to respond.

Bizarrely, yes! If you work on the basis that we want him permanent come what may (which I think is a reasonable assumption), then the lower his value at end of season the better for us. Thats only achieved if he gets injured (which nobody wants) or he performs middling at best. It might be a cunning plan

Don’t think they were in for Twine. Your first part is the real paradox here. Twine is pretty much the Scott replacement - a creative spark we undoubtedly have been missing. I think if we’d have signed him on loan in the summer with no option to buy (irrespective of who was in charge) then the response to the signing would have been universally positive. It’s possible we weren’t interested then (although as we’re informed the recruitment is pretty much manager agnostic) he was likely on our list (especially as Harry would have made sure he was!). It’s equally possible that LM was a decisive factor on him wanting to come over. But, the bottom line here is that all anyone had any real problem with here is the nature of the deal at this time as opposed to the signing itself.

From the Hull end, the rumour is they wanted Benson and this enables the loan space/frees up wages From a Burnley perspective it isn’t going to be about how close or otherwise we are to a permanent deal. It’ll be whether they were getting enough financially from this deal. Likely we’ve covered wages and paid a loan fee akin to what Hull were for half two of the season, so for Burnley it’s cost neutral but they also get Benson loaned out and money for that if Hull whispers are to be believed. The thing with Burnley is that they are a massively trading club over the last two years, without too much coherence. That more than anything may help us get a decent permanent deal in the summer as opposed to anything else.

I’d probably concur. As I’ve stated earlier, I think however well or not ST does that LM will want him in the summer - he knows the player, knows the personality and would be confident of the fit. This isn’t an “audition” and I don’t think the residual 20 odd games will sway LMs thoughts. The main issue here will clearly be Burnley, whether Twine wants to relocate or not. As we know from Wallys ridiculous musings, gentleman’s agreements aren’t worth anything so the name of the game has to be paying Burnley as little as possible. Which is why a solid but unspectacular loan spell is probably the best long term outcome overall!

For some reason, this just sprang to mind:

Thats fair. I think there are again issues there - as noted elsewhere, Conway has a contract on the table unsigned and if it remains so the balance is he’ll go in the summer. If we then have to replace both him and Twine, then it does mean that the patterns of play need to be established with new players so it might get us more comfortable with LMs ethos, but still isn’t a marked step forward in a longer term. Don’t get me wrong - I am pleased he’s here and I rate the player. I just struggle to see there is massive long term upside here - and for avoidance of doubt if this was start of season or we looked set for a promotion push (Matt Smith) or were fighting relegation (Lee Tomlin) I have no issue in loan without option. I’ll (hopefully) enjoy ST for the rest of this season but I think as a long term strategy, it does seem odd. Obviously circumstances demand and, to be fair once more, that negotiation and signoff on the deal, is at Tinnion and Lansdowns door - irrespective if LM wanted the player, they could have said no on the basis of long term strategy

On a bizarre basis, the “best” result for us may be Twine not performing well for the rest of the season (my feeling is that how he performs won’t make a huge difference to if LM wants him permanently in the summer as he knows him well enough already). As noted, barring some bizarre turns, we aren’t going up or down so ST being “indifferent” probably doesn’t impact that. If he is, then it’s unlikely others will be interested and the price will remain depressed. So, the best long term result may be a solid but unspectacular loan spell.

I was enjoying Yate getting some of Tauntons players as well as it was desperately needed!

Seems an all round bizarre scenario - the player owned a company that could help with the drainage issues and therefore the cash flow and therefore ensure that the players got paid, but it took a Mexican standoff for all parties to get together. Good it’s resolved but just seems it could have been sooner with some pragmatism.

Something I would do that I’ve never done and that can be evidenced. Ok then…! What a bizarre train of thought.

You are correct - it’s more sarcasm than irony. I blame Alanis Morrisette. But if you can find me somewhere where I’ve called another poster arrogant on here then please do. I haven’t and it’d be appropriate to retract.