LondonBristolian

I find it interesting that Pearson is openly commenting on the situation. I realise he is someone who does sometimes just give very candid answers to questions - especially in the heat of the moment - but the unguarded moments tend to come in post-match reaction rather than pre-match press conferences. The fact he's openly talking about two clubs bidding (especially if @Davefevsis right that he is talking about a bid from a few weeks back) makes me wonder if the club are now expecting a move to happen and trying to encourage other clubs to turn it into a bidding war.

On the one hand, I think Semenyo is a key player for us and we don't have anyone in the squad who can directly replace him. He's utterly unplayable on his day and seems to get goals and assists fairly often even when it isn't his day. Yes, we have other forwards but I still think we'd really miss him if he went. But I also realise he is probably off at some point in the next 18 months and - whilst his value could theoretically go up with an excellent second half of the season, it is a gamble. But - from a footballing perspective - it would be better to replace him in the Summer than now. For me, the calculation is working out what he's likely to fetch in the summer, how that differs to what he is likely to be worth now and also how much it is worth to us to have him in the team for another half-season. That's obviously a bit complex but my shorthand answer is that I think bids of £8 million or £10 million are too close to what we could still get in the summer to be worth considering. A bid of £15 million is probably the point where the financial sense to sell might override the footballing sense to keep him. And £12 or £12.5 million is the point where we'd have to way up both factors and make a call.

To be fair, there's always discontent from a number of our fans when we buy a player a division below us too. I think there's a small but vocal element of any fan base that expects every their club to be signing Messi.

I’m not really sure what the distinction is but it was an all-ticket pre season friendly against Rovers where we fielded the first team or near enough. I don’t know the attendance but I suspect it was large for a pre season game but smaller than a competitive match. Compared to any other testimonial I can think of, I can’t see how it could be described as “half hearted”.

The big thing for me is speeding up the process and making it about clear and obvious errors. I am still a fan of the idea that any VAR decision can only be re-watched by the VAR team three times. If an obvious error has been made, they will be able to see that within three playbacks. If they watch it three times and still aren’t sure then it isn’t clear or obvious so the ref’s original decision stands.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that Massengo has made 99 league appearances for us. There's a possibility him being frozen out is at least in part due to us needing to pay additional money to his previous club if he makes a 100th. That would not be the case with Semenyo.

I do wonder how Vyner’s development impacts the situation with Kalas. Along with wages and injury record, it has to be raising further questions as to if we offer TK a new contract.

I must admit I had previously felt he needed a tap in or a lucky goal via a deflection to give him a bit of confidence. I really did not expect him to suddenly produce that. It gives him a fantastic platform to build on.

I know. I usually listen back to it at lunch with my Mum when I go to visit her. Now we're going to have to actually speak to each other!

I don't think there necessarily needs to be, depending on the trust between Scott, his agent and the club. In recent years the club have been transparent that they do accept players want to further their ambitions and we will sell at a point that's right for the player and the club. I suspect informally Scott and his agent have an indication of what a club would need to offer for him to move but, if the trust is there that we will not stand in the way of the right opportunity, there may well be no need for a formal contractual clause.

I agree with this. I think people fixate on the difference between a back 3 and midfield 2 and a back 2 and midfield 3 when there’s not really much difference a back 3 with the central player coming into midfield and a midfield 3 with the central player dropping into defence. That said, what I do think makes a difference shape-wise is playing with a front three rather than a number 10 behind a front two. This season we have tended to do the latter to suit - at various points - Weimann or Scott as a ten or Conway as a 9 but I do think a front 3 gives us more width, more options and more threat. Obviously this isn’t clear-cut either - last season Weimann ostensibly played behind Martin and Semenyo but the formation frequently shifted into a front 3 whereas I don’t think we have done that as much in recent weeks. So it is again about fluidity rather than rigid systems but an alternative attacking shape yesterday fees like a factor in the result.

Someone has a short memory. Saturn v Neptune in the SpaceX Interplanetary trophy last March. Utterly blatant dive by the Neptune striker but the ref pointed straight to the spot. Of course, the penalty was skied into orbit and Saturn went onto win 4-1, which may be why you have forgotten it.

Yeah - unless it is due to contract clauses and need to limit his appearances to avoid an extension, I feel he has been a bit harshly treated. He was not great at the start of the season and I would not start him but sixth or seventh choice seems a bit brutal.

I almost agree but reckon the next three months will determine whether O’Leary is number one next season or if we get someone else in and I think a lot will depend on his form, Bajic’s progress (i.e. can he be number two next season and number one the year after or is that too big an ask?) plus our transfer priorities over the summer and what goalkeepers are available. But like you, I don’t see O’Leary as the long term answer. But that said, I did not not expect him to both get and take a chance to be number one this season so he could keep proving me wrong.

Even in the 70s though, you had people being very easily offended. It was just by different things. I find it hard to believe how of Life of Brian, or the Sex Pistols swearing TV had anywhere near the impact it did. And people might have not get upset then by homophobic abuse but something as banal as two men kissing each other would have caused uproar in a lot of places. Even a black person kissing a white person in many others. I honestly don't think it easy to portray a society upset by people kissing each other as less "easily offended" than one that doesn't really like people screaming abuse at each other.

That's a risk but he's got two and a half year's left so we certainly don't need to factor that in within this window. You could argue the Summer is the ideal time to maximise value though.

I think if you're in a public place loudly screaming homophobic abuse at a straight person, it is extremely likely that there will be some LGBT people within earshot who will be affected by that abuse. If it's not acted on, it also tells kids that it's okay and they'll then start abusing LGBT people at school. It seems a bit daft to see someone publicly shouting abuse at someone as something isolated that will have no impact on people around them.

This may shock you but I didn't actually write the Equality Act. If you want to campaign for a change to the law, by all means do so.

The law changed in 2010 so there is now a concept of “discrimination by perception”. It was brought in specifically because straight people who were perceived as homosexual were experiencing abuse and discrimination and had no legal rights up until that point.

Potentially. You are basically describing racism there. The Equality Act covers nine protected characteristics. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics Literally the whole point of it is to protect people from abuse and discrimination relating to aspects of themselves they cannot control.

To be honest, I've always thought that's one of our most tedious chants. It's not particularly witty or imaginative, the tune is an utter dirge and frankly, if that's the best we can direct at Joey Barton, then that shows an even worse lack of creativity than the displays we frequently see on the pitch. On top of which, why on Earth are we chanting about a small team who haven't been in the same division as us in the last two decades?

Except that's not true, is it? What's actually happened if you've made a comment and someone has disagreed with you, which is not surprising on an internet message board. Someone has expressed an opinion different to yours and your response has been to claim that, because someone disagrees with you, "agreeing to disagree is dead" and "free speech and free thought is being shut down". Perhaps taking a long hard look in the mirror would be the best way to identify which poster on this thread is trying to shut down disagreement and speech and ideas different to their own? (Spoiler: It's you). You don't strike me as an "ultra left minority" but I guess I could be wrong.

My immediate question would be "how do you know you've called people worse given the article doesn't actually tell us what he said?" I honestly don't believe the police have got the time or resources to go around arresting everyone who says anything and everything inappropriate at a football match. The fact it says it was aimed at players and fans makes me suspect it may not have been something someone said once but someone aiming a fairly constant barrage of abuse. I don't know what that abuse was exactly but I'd not expect someone to be allowed to shout homophobic abuse at a stranger on the street so I'm not quite clear why we're expecting it to be accepted at a football match.

I really hope Bentley gets a loan move, for his sake as much as ours. I think the club's approach is the right one, in that he was in poor form when he was dropped, he is likely to be on a salary well above what we'd now want to pay and we need to find out whether O'Leary can be number one or not. However I also do think he is our best keeper and, whilst inconsistent, he's demonstrated a considerably better level of performance at his best than O'Leary has to date. I also don't think he's done a huge amount wrong - he had a couple of poor performances but I don't think they would have warranted dropping him were his contract situation different. I support the club's approach as I think it better for us in the long-term but I think he is a victim of circumstances as much as anything and it's obviously in his interests as much as ours for him to go somewhere where he can play.

The thing for me is I can certainly understand why fans are annoyed about performances and I can understand why people want Pearson out. I feel on balance there's more to be gained with sticking with the particular manager and seeing through a culture change at the club but results have not been good enough and I've certainly waivered on Pearson at points in recent weeks. I can also understand why people think the owner and the board have made poor decisions in recent years. The reality is we had a strong platform to build from in 2018 and 2019 and we've squandered that with a series of poor decisions, even before the impact of COVID on our financial situation. BUT I don't really understand the "we want our club back" mantra. Obviously football ownership models are massively flawed and I'd love to see more scope for fan-owned models and fan input within football clubs but we're no different to every club in the league in that regard and, bad decisions or not, Steve Lansdown is a far less toxic owner than the kind of owners who usually inspire these protests. You could certainly say he's made poor decisions and failed to seek out and take on good advice but I certainly get the impression he's tried to succeed, rather than simply profiteer out the club. Meanwhile I think our community, fan and player engagement is considerably better now than a decade ago and I think, whatever Pearson's faults, I struggle to think of another manager whose so clearly and transparently been trying to put the long-term future of the club ahead of quick results to boost his ego and reputation. I also think a demonstration only makes sense if you have good reason to believe the majority of fans want a change of owner or management - otherwise you're a small group of people trying to shout loud and pressure the club to act against what the majority of fans want - and I just don't see any evidence base on here, at games or anywhere else to suggest the majority of fans share the sentiment. So I just don't get the point or logic behind this protest.