Silvio Dante

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.

And to be clear Phil, I totally respect that point of view (and again, if it was the majority I’d totally acquiesce to that). This isn’t now about me or anyone else stamping our feet. This is simply about the forum being set up without consultation and then a trial period having occurred, and the results of that trial being clearly in favour of re-merging with only c20% in favour of retention when the mods confirmed if it didn’t work the forum would be re-merged I’m kind of of the mind it’s been discussed to death and the mods now need, to either re-merge or simply state they don’t want to.

Thanks - all I’m really trying to do is establish now the trial has ended (and two months seems to be long enough), the forum view on whether it should stay. And the answer is one of two things: - The majority of the forum don’t want it to stay so it should be remerged in line with @Maesknoll Reds post (I’d reiterate that as no “success” criteria was laid down in the trial then the only thing that can be used to gauge success is the forum view) - The mods are of the mind it should stay, even though the majority don’t want it. And there is nothing wrong with that but it does draw a line in the sand as to who the forum is being run for and I’d imagine that will be a consideration when paying members come to renew Either way avoiding the question is really disrespectful - not just to me, but to the majority of the forum who have expressed a view. Phantoms “answer” wasn’t an answer in any way as it just said “many requested it” with no quantification particularly when we do have an opinion gauge now. Again, avoidance of doubt if only 20ish percent of people expressed a strong desire for it to go I’d happily go with that majority view.

I think you’re both crediting him with more intelligence than he has.

It doesn’t even make sense as a sentence even if he’d spelt “Technician” right. Absolute belter.