Merrick's Marvels

Quite. 19 in total just 5 of those "on target" - however that's defined these days (keeper made a save?) Pearson argued Post match that several more required blocks by defenders so we had more than that "on target".

Pearson has already said that surgery may be required. So this speculation isn't even logical. The matter was referred to initially, more than once, as "delicate" and Pearson said this week in no uncertain terms, that it's a private matter and not for public discussion. So you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to get a reasonable idea what the problem might involve. Not that we'll ever know - and why should we? We've been told politely it's none of our business. The fact we quickly signed someone on loan - on loan! - who can cover that position should also tell you we won't be seeing McCrorie any time soon. Let's all move on.

Top tune ?

If we could work out how to play at home, we'd be dangerous. Well played tonight lads

Who said anything about relegation? You've just moved the goalposts! Anyway, some might stop coming, yes - probably the ones who came to see ManU and Liverpool, so no loss to us. But plenty would be new City fans who get bitten by the bug and turn into lifelong fans. I know this will happen because it's what happened to me - 45 years later, I'm still here through, thick and thin, whether I like it or not (sometimes not!!). And that's what can happen again. And if it does, if we can get to the Premier League sooner rather than later, it will do something else too - it'll bury our sorry ass neighbours for ever.

Of course they wouldn't all be. I agreed with that. But, again, there would still be several thousand new fans who want to come and support City. Several thousand more than the spare capacity we have. So more room would be handy.

I'm surprised you don't realise that - "if we did reach the promised land" - there would be thousands - literally thousands - more Bristolians wanting to come to Ashton Gate, compared to now. Comfortably more than the home seats that are currently empty (about 2 or 3 thousand) Some might come to watch the opposition but there will be plenty of new City fans wanting to attend and support the home team - more than now which is why more seats would be good - more than are currently available. As I say, I'm surprised that needs explaining

What on earth is this? A grown man taking a picture of himself just because there's a couple of footballers somewhere in the background? Good god. Pathetic.

"If we did reach the promised land".... Why wouldn't you want more City fans - as many City fans as possible - to attend?? And anyway, you're wrong - as just posted - match day attendances are not incidental, otherwise Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea and a host of other clubs wouldn't want to expand their grounds.

What about Roberts?

Well that's that, then!

January to May this year was progression, surely? And 3 games so far this season is far to early to call, surely?

That's football. So thank god for Lansdown, otherwise we'd be bust. We've got to give Guernsey that, if little else. And I'm not convinced your the go-to guy for financial insight regarding City, neither. But we'll let that slide.

Did they have owners who were either (1) willing to give the finger to ffp, or (2) have a cunning plan? Compared to our owner who is unwilling to do the former and doesn't have the latter. Therein lies the problem. Imho.

But how were we doing - on the pitch - before Pearson, R'ODders? We'd lost 7 in a row, that's how! Pearson turns up, we won 3 of the next 5. All away from home! Caveat - the other 2 were home defeats and we still haven't cracked how to play well at home. I'll give you that. But in answer to your initial question - Yes! Probably. If not absolutely. Cheer up dude.

1000% (maths was never my strong suit). We waited 65 years to get back to the top flight, then immediately shot ourselves in the foot. It could soon be another 50 years since we last played a top flight game. Since then, all manner of tinpot nobodies have sailed past us, thanks largely to the incompetence of the suits who've been running us. Fair play to them, btw - the tinpot nobodies, not the suits. So to say us supporters are impatient and imply this is unjustified is preposterous. Nor are we entitled. We understand full well you need to earn success. We've never expected it just because..... We understand the reason for our mediocrity can primarily be laid at the door of those aforementioned incompetent suits. But there's always light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to hope it's not the muzzle glow from our suits shooting themselves in the foot yet again, this time using the service revolver to dispatch our Nige. I wouldn't bank on it, mind.

Fake news surely? It's not been announced by Shags. On a more serious note, I've been wondering if our (presumably) self-imposed wage budget has been structured so that, amongst other things, it gives us scope for this - giving new contracts (and so presumably pay increases) to a number of young uns we want to keep, Pring and Vyner being the obvious examples? Plus scope when re-negotiating next summer with some or all of the old uns ooc at the end of the season? Couple of presumptions in there. But I want to believe it's a self-imposed wage ceiling (and not that we're still fooked by ffp) and I want to believe it's because we're engineering financial wriggle room for ourselves going forward, rather than the owner deliberately withholding funds from a manager he doesn't like. Anyway, great news about Pring on the Wing. Well done son, thoroughly deserved. You're the new Russell Brommage!

The new kiddie will need to be Carlos Alberto. Ross "Carlos" McCrorie. Got a ring to it, that.

Judging by the 2 home games (a small sample) - No! Because in both, the fact the opposition have set up to make it difficult for us to pass out from the back and also set up to nullify our prime attacking threats (Pring/Bell), seems to have come as a surprise and stumped us. (They appear unconcerned by Tanner/Cornick!!!) Our coaching team seem baffled by this approach. Perhaps they should have spent the summer working on how we should play when, for instance, someone's sat on James, Pring is double teamed or our CBs are lumping it because they've no options. Because the opposition sure have worked on how to play against us. Instead, our lot seem to have spent the summer thinking - we're just going to do the same as last season - predictable, you say? yes, but - what's that? - after Scott's left, too? - yes, we know he was basically 3 players in one and we haven't got anyone who can lace his boots, at anything! - don't worry, everything will be fine - we're going to keep doing the same thing, just not as well - what can go wrong?

His voice seemed a little hoarse - I'm guessing he's spent the last couple of days being a little more hands on than usual in training, telling certain players, in no uncertain terms, what's expected of them.

Absolutely. Which is why, when you lose 9 games in a row (the worst run of defeats in our entire history) or you're 2nd at Xmas and finish 11th or when you're 5th with 6 games to go but only win 1 more and blow the playoffs, the last thing you should do is "allow sentiment to rule". Oh wait.... If there's one thing Lansdown has done in all his time it's precisely that - allow sentiment to rule. I agree, though, it's no way to run a business. The fact he'll likely not renew Pearson's contract and get rid of him instead is just another example of that - allowing sentiment to drive the decision (this time his antipathy to the manager, as opposed to his love in with Lee Johnson) rather than basing his decision on whether Pearson is best qualified for the job. Given we have a team of basically young uns learning as they go, and a budget that doesn't allow profligate spending, who better to steer our club forward than Pearson - someone who's a brilliant man-manager and who prides himself on never having spent much money anyway? But will Guernsey see it that way?

Agreed but the journos still make me despair because they had an easy opportunity to lighten the mood but instead managed to miss an open goal, a slam dunk gimme of an open goal: "Happy Birthday for Monday, Nige" ""How was your birthday, Nige?" "Do anything nice for your birthday, Nige?" It's so bleedin obvious they must be as thick as mince not to have thought of it. Or petrified of him.

And they're also thick because, when told there's no headroom left in the wage budget, they can't think to ask whether that's because 1) we've chosen not to pay any more, or 2) we can't pay any more (cos we're at our ffp max) I can't believe it's 2, so if it's 1 that opens up endless possible questions - instead of "when will injured player x be fit again?"

Sent to coventry

Indeed Phil, no argument on his career - supports a sh!tehouse football team though.