Silvio Dante

One thing there can’t be is a downturn. I think most people would take similar results to achieved by Nige if performances improved. History has shown though we’re less patient to accept results if performance is poor (I’m thinking Holden). The QPR game was one where we expected a point minimum no matter who was in charge but the poor nature of the performance reflected badly. Summary: I think, unless results go through the roof with worse performance, we’d take performances improving primarily. If, however, results stay the same/marginally improve or worsen and performance takes a downturn, then I think that’s what causes the most potential issues

Full interview here:

Here’s the assist…played for and got…

Congratulations for not reading the post.

Theyve moved quickly to appoint a new manager who always delivers. Well, not always….

It may sound silly, but in a game of small margins I don’t think Liams demeanour will do him any favours (and again I’d note that what he is like with the players will be different to how he projects to the fans). If you read any Oxfords fans views the consensus is that he is relatively dispassionate in interviews and gives little away. It certainly won’t be “box office” like Nige, and although he wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, he was a character who many warmed to. I don’t want to rake over the circumstances of his appointment again, but it is a fact that he’s not coming in with a lot of “new manager currency”. A relatively dour interview style won’t be something that galvanises and gets fans onside - and I think he needs that positive on the pitch start all the more in view of that.

I’ve got an easy solution to that one, my sons the goalkeeper

I’ve long thought a team is a reflection of the coach at youth football. To me, of course I want to win, but it’s secondary to the teams development as people. We’re at U12 now and have had pretty much the same group since age 7/8 - one addition on each of the last two seasons because they were school friends of existing players as opposed to getting them in based on ability. It’s the whole “no *********” rule - they have to fit with the group ethos. It is difficult sometimes - I’ve turned away players (or said they can train only to start with until there is a space) when I know they are very good footballers and will improve the team. Against that, if I got them in it means less playing time for the kid who’s been with me since seven and is part of the team. So I come down on that kids side every time. I guess what I’m saying is that you can have a side in the higher levels of youth football where the kids/parents are still nice and play genuine. But it needs the parents to really buy into it and as a coach, you need to be totally up front with what you’re doing and why. It’ll certainly mean more to me if we win something with a group I’ve taken through than with a cherrypicked squad.

I reffed a game for one of our U11 teams yesterday - was more of a “development” level and you can’t help but see the difference - it’s part age and part level. Even though it’s only a year from where we play, the intensity and pressure is far less - and the kids were far more polite. Theres definitely a difference between - not even HML and AYL - but moreso the top 3 -4 divisions and the bottom 3-4. I think at the lower levels you tend to get more kids (and managers) playing for the love of football. At our level, it is more intense and you do end up with more coaches and players who are “win at all costs”. That leads into worse behaviour to officials from players and coaches alike, which is a shame. But if any of our lot ever get done for dissent, then I don’t think I’ll ever be more disappointed. It’s not how you do things.

As Frasiers father in law is a City legend, I think he has an open invitation

Did you deny being Robbored from the forum or have you stopped doing that to club representatives now?

In the studio tonight and BBCRB are soliciting questions. Unclear if fans will get the opportunity to ask in person, or if Liam will walk out in disbelief after Tony Wilkins gets through.

Is that Jon Lansdown and Dominic Cummings?

Apros of nothing, this gives me opportunity to give my favourite ever pop fact. Brian Harvey, erstwhile chavtastic lead singer of east 17, once ran over himself. Mr Harvey had, as opposed to taking too many drugs - he definitely hadn’t been taking too many drugs - had eaten three jacket potatoes for lunch. This was too many by far, so as he drove off he opened his door and leant over to vomit. While doing so, he disengaged the handbrake, causing the car to roll forward and run him over. And that’s still less comical than at least three things the gas do on a weekly basis.

Taylor would be an excellent appointment for them and far better than they deserve.

Any competent board at any competent company would know and expect at any time the questions they will be asked in such an environment and have answers to fall back on. If they don’t then it’s a question of either incompetence or arrogance.

I think the factor that’s been missed in the posts so far is Manning. His success (albeit over a short period) at Oxford was based on energetic box to box CMs AFAIK. For all of Kals qualities, he’s not that. If we’re building a side (as opposed to top six this season which was the noise when NP was sacked), you’d build from the back around Vyner/Dickie/Atkinson and perm two from three in view of age. I have a fear he may be an odd man out, not fitting into Mannings preferred midfield setup and age meaning he isn’t seen as a long term option at CB against the other candidates.

How about “Alan Dicks Autobiography - Would make a good Christmas present”

Just impressed by Niges use of crunches

Anyone with kids this is a great product. Got my 12 year old one and he scratched off every ground he’s visited from the poster on his wall:

The theory is right - you can invoke “the right to be forgotten” and then start again under GDPR (in effect arguing that as you’re not partaking the data is no longer relevant - before then partaking!) The thing for me is that if you choose to “re-partake” in the forum then your data/posts prior do become relevant - not as a stick to beat you with, but because by “re-engaging” you are in effect re-giving consent. So, we really end up in two places (and noting again I don’t think forum posts would have to be deleted under GDPR but people who ask are effectively putting mods/volunteers in a really bad position) - If you choose to leave under GDPR then you’re gone for good, and if you create another account, if in the mods opinion that is the same user, that also gets banned - The alternate is that if you rejoin all your prior posts are reinstated. However I see that as a technical nightmare and open to abuse, so I err on “1” I have been thinking on this over the last day or so, and I think what we have with the alleged “duplication” here is a relatively unique scenario and isn’t necessarily down to wilful misuse. IIRC, the user “Ralph Milnes left foot” was trans (I can’t recall if they transitioned fully or not). Trans people, when they do transition, refer to their prior name as “deadnaming” and consider that the person they were pre transition isn’t the same person as they are post transition. This would naturally follow to wanting any prior posts under the initial ID removed, and then denying they were ever that user (as they don’t consider themself to be the same user). So, I kind of “get it” on this case and I can see a valid reason for exception to the above.

I have some recollection about what happened at the time. There was a user, Ralph Milnes Left Foot, who requested their account be removed and all posts deleted under GDPR (ie the right to be forgotten). Data principles state that data should be, amongst other things, obtained with consent, relevant and only held for as long as necessary. The user robustly asked for their data to be removed (effectively withdrawing consent), and TomF couldn’t be sure that legally, not removing old posts could be classed as a GDPR breach. (Side note: it’s likely not to be as by the nature of what was posted, it’s public domain when posted - like on Twitter - but OTIB didn’t have the time or resources to have that legal decision made). So Tom deleted all of the old posts. I’d like to say it made threads unintelligible but based on the content of the poster, it pretty much improved all threads. Shortly after, a new user joined with a name that referenced Ralph’s. When pressed, they said that they admired Ralph’s posts/posting style and used the name as a tribute. All totally plausible, of course. Moving to @The Original OTIBs question, I would be of the mind that anyone who asked to leave and have their posts removed under GDPR should be considered permanently banned - they created work needlessly for the mods. I see no reason to treat posters of this ilk different from those who have been banned for other misuse. Deactivated/Reactivated accounts when people have a break and no ask for removal of data is fine. The Mods do a good job of finding accounts such as Waconda who try and circumnavigate bans. I’m sure they could add “self banned” users to the list.