Silvio Dante

I am liking that I went for the next pitch and you went for the next county. I’d like to see other forum users continue the pattern on this thread and see how far away from onside we can get Tommy to be by the end of it.

Prior answers are right but as with anything VAR wise there needs to be more common sense. Tommy wasn’t just offside yesterday - he might as well have been on the next pitch down at Greville Smythe. There is literally no benefit in letting play go on there as either he scores and it’s disallowed or he misses and there is a chance of something contentious when the game should be stopped already. No issue in holding the flag on marginal calls, or even say 60/40 that they’re offside but that was 99% certain from the time Bell played the ball to everyone in the ground and it was a nonsense.

Yep, I’d put money on it. Personally don’t care if it’s Lez, Londoner, Cardiff Red or whatever name he wants to call himself this time. It’s bloody tiresome and says more about him that he feels the need to come on threads that have nothing to do with the matter at hand and spout bollocks, assumedly because he can’t find anyone to talk to in the real world. Those of you engaging with the belter, just be aware he gets off on any reaction - quotes, facepalms etc. He isn’t someone to reason or debate with in the 24 hours before his next inevitable ban and then signup from another IP address like a bloody weirdo. Ignore him - I’m certainly not engaging with him on any posts - and hopefully he’ll crawl back under the rock he came from.

Yup. I personally couldn’t care if he goes home and drowns kittens. I don’t need to like him, I need him to deliver for the football club. The fact is that had this article been published after we’d been pumped, then people would have picked up on the Army/Saatchi and Saatchi part as being very similar to something LJ once said, and also that having only 9 training sessions (assumedly sessions not based on other teams as opposed to 9 sessions fullstop) is just a function of being appointed mid season - and again speaks to why changing too much too quickly was probably a misstep. The truth as ever is somewhere in the middle - he’s not LJ and he has only had 9 “sessions” but in a loss that would have been viewed as an excuse and not a reason. I thought he managed that well today with the little tweaks like Knight dropping in and we pressed with purpose as needed. The result was more than merited and with my glass half full that’s four good performances in the last six. I don’t think anyone will be objecting if that hit rate is maintained for the rest of the season and that’s probably the time to decide whether it’s “impossible not to like/dislike him” as opposed to the euphoria of a top notch performance and result at a premier league club.

Not that it will matter in the stats at season end (and they still need to be put away) but it’s notable that the goals against all three of those teams were from the spot. It could equally be spun as two goals in open play in the last 12 which would look far less impressive. (NB for avoidance of doubt I think the suggestion to cash in was mental and Tommy is a more than good enough striker at this level with capacity to develop still further)

I wouldn’t count chickens if I was them for that one. Unless Liverpool and Arsenal go to a replay, our game against West Ham will be first pick for TV looking at the replays to date. We’ll play whenever the TV companies want us to, and if they want it to be Tuesday, Rovers will have to move.

Sides:

Or…maybe the players we signed under McInnes from Scotland confirmed that the general quality of players in the SPL was below that needed for Championship standard? Richard Foster springs to mind and let’s not forget Jody Morris was his captain who came with him! McInnes looked a good appointment at the time but the level was too much for him. And his comments since about it being like Rourkes Drift with the number of players we had (then adding more quantity not quality) just smacked of excuses. It’ll always be a graveyard if you’re not good enough. Thats the story Mr Wilson. (NB hoping Ross McCrorie breaks the trend!)

I think this is more about needing to put content out as opposed to thinking TC has done anything spectacular. It’s a bit underwhelming for sure but the fault is with the need for content as opposed to the quality of the content of that makes sense

I remember in the pre season community game at Hallen Smodzics was exceptional playing behind a front two. Granted the standard of the opposition was not great, but I thought I could see a plan of either him or Pato behind the front two. KP signing changed that and SS got pushed down the pecking order - and when he did play for us (I think I remember Swansea home) he looked miles off the standard. In short, we didn’t help him but when he did get opportunities he didn’t look ready. My criticism of the club is not not keeping him, but signing Palmer which without that, would have given more time to see if he could develop. I don’t see the need to hang the club on this one for any reason other than poor recruitment outside of SS

That has all the signs of a club folding.

I’ll be at Yate Tuesday (providing it survives) so will be able to see how Taylor pans out. The striker was hugely needed as the Bluebells do have an aversion to scoring…

Might not just want to clean it off boots afterwards

Did nobody come up and see him?

Interestingly enough (and it may be just James Piercy wording) in a post article recently re TGH he stated and as part of his season long loan technical director Brian Tinnion negotiated an option to buy which is believed to be £1.3m I have noticed JPs articles have given a bit of credit (not flowering up things but it’s noticeable tonally) to Tinnion recently and at times when you wouldn’t expect so this may be an example of that as opposed to knowing that Tinnion did the negotiations but if true it suggests his role is blurring into financial

It does require a bit more work as it requires the thread to be read and determined what it is (as opposed to just shifting a thread based on title) and there will naturally be subjectivity but if you guys are happy with that it seems to be the most pragmatic solution, absent a remerge.

Finally (and this is my last word on it - promise!) as the mods want to keep the forum, can I suggest that similar to the matchday archive that no threads are moved to the Ex Players forum for 24 hours. This would allow posts to be engaged with, stop the ridiculous scenario where we had threads being continually started and moved when LJ was sacked by Fleetwood, and allow it to be determined if it was a “memories of ex player” thread (moved) or relevant to the context of the club currently thread (thinking the Cotterill /Nige threads last week) where it can reasonably stay put as the thread develops that way.

Thanks. So the answer is the mods want to keep it so it stays. That is all you needed to say and now everyone knows where they stand and how any decision is reached. Incidentally, the numbers MR quoted weren’t relevant without further context - we know members lurk so saying “only 15% of people engaged with this post” means nothing unless you can say how many percent of visitors engaged with any post (and I’m guessing it’s not high) so please don’t hide behind “data”. This is the mods prefer it this way so won’t change it. No issue with that but own it.

Just an open question to people supporting Tinnion. If he resigned would you take Louis Carey (played more games, coached youth extensively, failed as assistant at FGR) as his replacement. Thought not.

Ultimately you’ll never know so you have to look at logic. Tinnion was the most senior “football” man in the organisation. For Jon Lansdown not to have consulted him would have been odd in the extreme bearing that in mind. However, it is nonetheless plausible that Tinnion was consulted but Lansdown didn’t agree with him on the biggest footballing decision at the club. But - using logic - if that were the case, and Tinnion didn’t agree with the board strategy, why would the board then expand Tinnions role to make him more important in delivering that strategy. That wouldn’t happen in any organisation as it would naturally lead to conflict, which was one of the issues with NP. That point is further relevant as Tinnion appears to be under qualified for the “growing into CEO” position and no business would appoint someone who both didn’t agree with the strategy and didn’t have experience of delivering the new role! So your answer which passes logic is that even though the final say was with Jon Lansdown, Brian Tinnion had to support the decisions to justify his expanded role. Any other reading is blinkered in wanting to support Tinnion.

I think you’re missing the point, potentially willingly. The forum appears to have been set up because some (unknown as the mods won’t say how many so I assume single figure) users asked for it. All anyone is trying to do here is gauge of the people that care about the issue how many people want the forum to stay or go. Nothing to do with the mods being volunteers. Everything to do with a non transparent decision, and your last point is exactly why it came about as opposed to the gotcha you think it is.

Autokorreckt I think you’ll find…

Thank you. So you also acknowledge that less than 3% have asked to keep it. And it still hasn’t been established what percentage of the forum asked for it to start with so we’re back to whataboutery (I assume less than 10%) With respect, I also volunteer for free and have a life as well - but if I went back to the organisation I volunteer for and said it takes as long as it takes when asked for a decision then I’d consider that unacceptable. If you want to keep it for personal preference you’re the mods and that’s fine - just say so and don’t kick the can Finally, It’s not about my POV. As I’ve said numerous times, it’s about the majority view and you confirmed that the forum should be remerged if it didn’t work. This again smacks of avoiding the question and I believe you’re better than that.

I can answer that, with something I posted on the Finn Azaz thread on the transfer forum. You may notice that we appear to have been in for Azaz - which I’m pleased about, very good player. However, to be in for Azaz, and as rumoured Twine, we appear to have money to spend. That money came from Scott being sold. That money came from the work Pearson did. And if Jon Lansdown wanted to sack Nigel Pearson, with the input of his technical director Brian Tinnion, I can accept that. As we’ve been told, it’s their club. But what I can’t accept, and what no city fan should accept, is wilful sabotage of this season because they didn’t like the manager and didn’t have the balls to sack him in the summer. So they said there were no funds, we ran on fumes for half a season then magically funds became available having not been generated since the point we were told there were none. He lied to you. He was part of a wilful sabotage of our chances this season. So I’ll be judgemental of our “club legend”. Because if he cared about Bristol City Football Club he wouldn’t have been complicit in this shitshow.

They are, and again, the job they do is appreciated. But that is whataboutery. This is simply mods stating there would be a trial of a forum (after it was implemented with no consultation), that trial now having results confirming it’s not wanted, and then asking the mods to either remerge in line with their statements or confirm they don’t want to. And again, either is fine. I volunteer unpaid. It doesn’t make me unaccountable.