LondonBristolian

Why don’t we turn our TVs black and white and go back to only one channel whilst we’re at it?

In that case, I suggest you prepare yourself for surprise and disappointment.

This is it. If a woman or person or colour gets the job then - whoever they are and however capable they are - you just know the easily offended brigade will be up in arms and bleating about it and will immediately decide they could not possibly be the best person for the job. But if the producer’s best mate gets it then - as long as they have a penis and white skin - they’ll immediately assume that person got it on merit.

What I find weird is we have had scores of mediocre white male pundits over the years and nobody ever questions how they got there. Merson, Le Tissier, Mark Lawrenson, Phil Neville and Andy Townsend had impressive careers as footballers but none of them has shown an iota of aptitude for TV punditry - beyond being mates with someone who could get them a job - yet they get a free pass whilst every black or female pundit is constantly under the microscope. Personally I welcome attempts to widen the talent pool because we sure as Hell weren’t being offered a consistent standard of quality before.

Wasn’t there today but it sounds like it was a baptism of fire. Bottom line is he’ll either learn from it and get to the standard needed, or he won’t. But we got the win so no harm done from his learning curve. Hopefully he will now understand a bit more about the step up in quality required and use that to develop and push himself forward.

I think he has done a very good job and I wish him well.

All the poor dudes carry the news…

With our home form as it is, I’m just relieved we are playing a team with absolutely no track record of last minute goals against us…

I get what you are saying but I think there's reasons why it is not possible. I've no idea where you work but, if you are employed rather than self-employed, you can probably imagine what would happen if your employer started giving public running commentary on every decision made and everything you and your colleagues had done behind the scenes. It would quickly get messy, leave no room for confidential conversations and almost certainly result in resignations and some form of legal actions. Asking the club to do all their HR publicly just isn't a reasonable ask.

Sounds wholly plausible

Bottom line for me is that we need pace in the team from somewhere. For me, that means we probably have to give Sam Bell a start.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the problem is: a) Our best team is reliant on at least one of Williams or Massengo, both of whom have been injured. b) Games come thick and fast. Flogging our best team week in week out hasn't worked. Martin and Weimann lose impact when starting twice a week and we don't have the strength in depth within the same system. c) Our best team isn't actually that good. I also think King - when not injured - and Simpson have pretty much done what they've been brought in to do. I think the fact that two veterans brought in to add experience on a relatively low wage but not necessarily play much have brought in experience on a relatively low wage but not actually played much is the least of our concerns.

Holden had a long professional career but the issue wasn't that he was appointed as a coach but that he was appointed manager. With Holden, you're talking about someone appointed to a job they've never previously shown aptitude for. With Ball, you're talking about someone appointed to do the exact same job as they are already doing but at a higher profile. That's a completely different thing. Personally 'm neither convinced nor unconvinced on Ball. How can I be when I know nothing about him as a coach? But I'm not going to start claiming someone with multiple years of experience as a coach who I have never personally seen coaching anyone is the wrong appointment just because he's come from inside the club rather than outside.

Maybe Ball is a quality coach? I have no idea but - regardless of his playing experience - he's been coaching for a long time. It might be that the reason he is being promoted - or at least being given a chance to work with the first team for now - is because Pearson and others at the club have seen that he has the attributes to drill and organise the squad. I'd far rather we appointed someone with years of coaching experience than a "name" player in the hope that they can coach.

I think at the moment we are basically waiting for players' contracts to end and our hands are tied until that happens I imagine the plan is to try to use what budget we have to improve key positions with Atkinson/Tanner style signings who can improve with us over time (and potentially ultimately be sold at a profit) whilst making low-cost stopgap signings (a la King and Simpson) to flesh out the squad where needed. As for next season, I think Tanner, Atkinson, Pring, Massengo, Scott and Semenyo will hopefully get better whilst Conway, Bell, Pearson and Towler might get closer to challenging for a place in the squad. O'Dowda and Martin are out of contract at the end of the season and that might free up the wages to get players who'll complement the squad. I don't think we need big money signings so much as more balance. If we got a bit more pace and creativity in the squad that would immediately offer a little more than we have now.

That sounds fair

Personally I think the fairest thing would be to be allowed three tactical subs but also to be allowed as many injury subs as you needed, with the proviso that anyone brought off as an injury sub cannot be selected for the next game (to prevent injury subs being exploited)

I agree about the over-use and not using him in the best way. The other thing I'd say is that, as the article suggests, Martin likes to drop deep but that only works if players run on beyond him. Partly through injuries, partly through weaknesses in the squad and partly through the over-use of Weimann, we lack players who will run past him and get in the box. I'd really like us to get to a point where our 2 "wide" midfielders play a bit narrower and are a bit more willing to operate like forward players. At the same time I think that Semenyo and Weimann (who is better in the centre) are the only two first team players that really suits. It's not the natural game for O'Dowda, Pring, Scott, Williams, Massengo or Palmer.

We don't need to know but they need to be able to freely and comfortably talk about it. A lot of it is just the little things, such as if someone wants to talk about what they got up to at the weekend. Usually you'd say "I went to x with my wife" or "I saw such-and-such with my boyfriend". Way harder if you feel the need to hide their gender.

Indeed. Obviously you never know exactly what's going on internally in a club and why decisions are made but it seems very strange on the face of it Mendy was able to play on. Mind you, I'm also a bit confused by the fact that Mendy was arrested in November, not charged until August and the implication seems to be at least some of the alleged offences happened after his arrest so the picture is confusing as to how he was allegedly able to be in a position to allegedly commit more alleged offences. If he is convicted there might be a time when questions are asked about whether the fact the club took no action was part of what enabled him to be in a position to do that. I know he wasn't a senior player but we obviously moved Sesay on pretty swiftly when he was arrested.

Anyone who employs anyone who works with children or vulnerable adults IS liable for undertaking reasonable checks into the background of those they employ and putting the necessary safeguards in place so that potential predators cannot use their position or role to abuse or exploit people. The issue is not simply whether the club employed a paedophile. It is that, according to the claimants, a scout who was sanctioned by the club to go out and approach children on the clubs’ behalf abused and exploited children and the club did not put the measures in place to check into that scout’s background, to enable people to raise concerns or to prevent that scout from getting away with abuse and exploitation. The question is not whether the club employed the guy so much as whether they enabled him to abuse children and get away with it.

You know full well I could. I replied to the post in question at the time. Stop being disingenuous.

To be honest, it is far more law student than lawyer. A lawyer would know that juries are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between the way the meaning a word is defined in a dictionary and the way meaning is understood by society. No lawyer on Earth would bother claiming Barton was using “Holocaust” as defined in the dictionary because no jury on Earth would be taken in.

Oh I get all that. The issue with it is that - as you say - it is utter nonsense. It is like trying to defend someone who has insulted someone’s mother by saying “no, he genuinely mistook her for a female dog. He had no idea there was another definition…”

If you need someone to explain to you how making inaccurate sweeping negative generalisations about Jewish people is anti-Semitism then you may need to invest in a dictionary. If you can’t understand how describing a poor performance in a football match with a word which is rarely used by itself except in reference to the murder of six million people is conflating genocide then you may need a history lesson. But I don’t think you need either of those things. I think you need to grow up and learn skills in self-reflection.