handsofclay

He won one of his last 11 games as Chelsea boss which is probably better than the present incumbent.

Good move. It's already spooking the opposition.

Tbf last time he managed in this division he got Derby into the play offs. When he left them they rapidly went downhill. In the Prem he got Chelsea into the Champions League despite a transfer embargo. Plus he kept Everton in the Prem. Okay it's not brilliant but the majority of his management career has been in the top flight and there are plenty of great managers at Championship level who are found wanting in the top flight.

On the one hand these are the same people who signed David James for Bristol City whose previous game had been against Germany in the knockout stages of the 2010 World Cup (in which a certain Frank Lampard had a legit equaliser ruled out by an incompetent ref). On the other hand these are also the same people who appointed Dean Holden and sacked Nigel Pearson.

If the Lansdowns are looking to redeem themselves after the car crash that was the Pearson sacking pulling off the signing of a big profile name as new manager (first team coach) would go a long way to achieve that goal. I can imagine them doing high fives if it comes to fruition. Maybe to entice Frank they have agreed to his celebrity wife becoming the new Bristol City women's manager too. What a TV series that would make. Wrexham eat your hearts out.

I don't tend to think Frank Lampard will be our next boss but I find it somewhat odd that for a couple of days now he has been the overwhelming, odds on favourite on the betting markets yet neither Lampard himself or the Lansdowns have denied it. Surely, all Frank has to do is issue a brief statement to the effect that he has no interest.

Caller has a dig at City fans for having goes at the Lansdowns. He tells us to talk to fans of Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Cardiff before having a go at our owners. Maybe while chatting to them we can also ask them what the Premier League was like.

Could we sell him back to Birmingham in a few matches time when Rooney is ditched?

As Steve Coppell worked out very early in his tenure here.

I also started in 1970 so have experienced the same as you. You omitted Gerry Sharpe between Roy Hodgson and Terry Cooper, incidentally. Like yourself the only other time I can say I was saddened by a manager leaving was Joe Jordan the first time around. But on that occasion it was the manager himself who chose to leave having progressed the club and put them in a better position. This time the manager wanted to say. I thought it was incredible a week ago when with City in 8th place having just beaten Coventry with a team depleted by injury, someone posted on OTIB that if City lost to second placed Ipswich and Cardiff who are riding high with an even more depleted team that Pearson would be sacked. The incredible thing was that I believed that could well be the case due to the vibes of the last few months. It's bizarre now thinking that this was the same owner who allowed LJ several losing runs of far, far more than two matches having given him Megabucks to amass a big squad to give him all the clubs in the bag but never sacked him until the umpteenth time this happened. But sacks a very popular manager of City, whom the fan base could see was building something, after two losses partly brought on by the owner's refusal to invest and obviously before two upcoming matches against teams in the bottom three. The cynic in me reckons that had City been playing Leicester and Leeds away AFTER these recent two losses instead of Sheff Wed and QPR, Lansdown would have waited until after those games to wield the axe believing it would then be four losses on the bounce. An absolutely disgraceful approach and attitude from SL.

Gardner Hickman doing well in midfield. Spraying some good passes around and manufactured a great shot for himself which tested the keeper.

Tony Lockwood

I have often thought that the pitch itself could be used to paint on the national flag of the country the ground is in. In our case the flag of St George. The only problem with that is in the Isle of Man where matches will then always be played over three legs.

Good point. Told my partner the match could well be changed to the Sunday or even the Friday due to it being Leeds and the love in they have with Sky Sports.

Got two places booked for the Leeds match in February. £102 each.

I'm given to understand that the dismissal of LJ back in 2020 was the first part of this agenda to no longer fly to away matches as had he remained we would be playing all around Europe by now.

Thank gawd Man City aren't in black I would have thought I was watching the first 80 minutes of Rotherham v Bristol City again.

I've been trying to locate the other 3,964 parts to this discussion but so far have only found 2,873.

The keeper is way out of control with studs showing, Bamford needs to sway heavily out of the way to avoid being decapitated. It's that that leads to him going to ground not any intention to con the referee. He immediately tries to get to his feet to play on. Reckless from Begovic deserved red card.

That will mean that since England last hosted the World Cup, Mexico would have held it 3 times and Germany, Spain, Argentina and USA twice each.

He did well, pulled off a couple of great saves.

That is the dichotomy of Richard III he was actually, from the perspective of the poorer classes, a good monarch but he acquired the throne through the murder of his young nephews. You make some very good points that I cannot disagree with and as I have previously stated I think there was a very good chance he would've been bumped off had he not usurped the throne as the young Edward V would have likely sided with his mother, Elizabeth Woodville's family who were gaining power at court and were not great fans of Richard. We are talking medieval times here it was at times dog eat dog. As part of the process of trying to legitimise his actions Richard called into question Edward V's right to the throne stating that his father, Edward IV had offered marriage to someone before he married Elizabeth Woodville. (A bit like when Joe Bryan allegedly promised to join Aston Villa before getting a better offer from Fulham.) This was used as a means to state that the Woodville marriage wasn't legit and Edward V was thus a bastard. (Villa fans thought much the same about Bryan.) Therefore, Richard III was the rightful heir as Edward IV's only surviving brother, the other one having been earlier drowned in a barrel of Malmsey wine. Edward Tudor married Elizabeth Woodville's daughter, the sister of Edward V and his brother Richard to re-establish the connection as it were with the offspring of Edward IV, so really it was only Richard III and his supporters who ever questioned the legitimacy of Edward IV's children and noticeably he never did so while Edward IV was alive, otherwise he might've ended up in a barrel of pinot noir.

He was the only one who stood to gain from their 'disappearance'. They were under his guardianship in the secure Tower of London guarded by his men. As I have previously stated I cannot totally blame him as had the Woodvilles gained the ascendancy (the family of the wife of Edward IV and obviously mother of Edward V) then he could easily have become yesterday's gravy. One of the reasons Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III at Bosworth was because of the enmity against Richard for usurping the throne two years earlier and killing the legitimate young King Edward V and his younger brother in the process. Since those days the Ricardian Society have striven hard to clear his name in a misguided romantic fashion of rewriting history. Even telling us that the popular image of Richard III having a deformity that in mediaeval parlance was called being a hunchback or crookback was simply a Tudor construct and he was nothing of the kind. Of course when his body was located it was discovered that he indeed had that deformity.

Keep in mind if one does decide to visit his burial site that he was effectively a double child murderer. I understand that his position might have been in jeopardy had he allowed his 12 year old nephew, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard to live, but he was at the moment of their disappearance their guardian and they were killed on his watch undoubtedly on his orders so he could usurp the throne.

Great finish or should keeper have saved it? (Tongue firmly in cheek.)