The Journalist

Exactly what we all needed after last Saturday and the departure of Scott. Well done all. Never forget we’re all on the same team here 

Haven't read all the other comments, so apologies, but the jibe about Luton getting promoted with "far less talent than we have in our squad" was ******* poor.

I must admit, I had no idea he was a Bournemouth fan growing up. That does alter the angle on it a bit for me.

From Bournemouth's announcement:

"While in negotiations with Bristol City, we were made aware that Alex had sustained a knee injury during a recent training session. During the medical, scans revealed the injury to be more significant than was initially reported."

Remember when Nigel Pearson was "lying" but actually it turns out if anything he was playing down the injury? 

I think I'm right in saying a £25m deal makes him the fifth most expensive English teenager in history?

That puts into context the size of the transfer.

(Behind Ryan Sessegnon, Luke Shaw, Jude Bellingham and Wayne Rooney).

Only 25 out of the 343 Ashes Tests played before this series ended with a winning margin of three wickets or fewer/50 runs or fewer.

That’s a remarkable stat when you think that four out of five here ended like that, with the other a draw.

I think both teams will have a lot of what-if moments - chucking a 2-0 lead away and the Manchester rain for starters - but for a neutral there’s a good argument for that being the greatest Ashes series of all time, isn’t there?

(Notwithstanding the obvious recency bias in that statement!)

1 minute ago, phantom said:

I'm intrigued by @The JournalistJournalist you are clearly passionate about this topic why don't you offer your help?

Obviously too late for this kit fiasco and I am struggling to see why people are pointing the finger at the SC&T 

Not much to be intrigued by - I literally have offered to help. Twice. I think you're picking at the wrong person there.

And it's not necessarily too late. Too late to get the kits changed, obviously, but not too late to make life a bit more uncomfortable for the club over it (again, though, I can't stress enough that's only my personal view - I'm not trying to speak on behalf of anyone else).

Appreciate the replies @Bristol Rob @shahanshahan and @ExiledAjax - believe it or not, it wasn't really my intention to turn this into a SC&T-bashing exercise before I started typing so apologies for that.

I completely understand the club aren't necessarily as easy to deal with as they once were. That's pretty common place as clubs become more corporate and distant from the fans, so I have some sympathy. It must feel like you're shouting at the rain for it to stop sometimes.

All that said, there are ways of communicating with the club that don't involve directly communicating, of course. Over a topic as emotive and sensitive as a club badge it's important to know there are ways of getting messages across that can make life much more uncomfortable for them. You shouldn't be afraid to take that route - it's really important to us. You should be capable of doing that, in my opinion.

There's always a way, however aloof they are. And, like I say, I'm always happy to help with that sort of thing (and even chuck my £12 in!). I'm a DM away!

Anyway - sorry for absolutely derailing this thread. My fault. Let's get back to the kit... it's shit innit?

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

In those 61 pages you'll see that I have posted that I did contact the club when "splat" was revealed. This was not "official" SC&T communication though, so it was not for me to disclose or announce publicly on their behalf. I contacted the Club, and I happen to be an SC&T member (not a board member but a regular £12 a year bog-standard member) of the SC&T. I let the SC&T know about that contact and what came of it.

In fact I contacted the FA, EFL, and FSA and the EFL helped to get my concerns in front of the Club.

The result of that was the two line  "explanation" of the reasoning behind "splat" that came in the Club's announcement that the third kit was available for sale. I also got told during those conversations that the Club recognised that the reveal of "splat" was less than perfect and that they could have communicated it in a better way. I've since told the Club that the "explanation" was in my opinion (which I checked with other on here) not good enough. I've not heard back from that yet.

I don't know what you and others like @Henry want the SC&T to do but as always I'll say that if you want them to have effective weight with the Club, and if you want to influence what they fight for, what they care about, and how to do it, then it's very very very easy to join for £12 a year and have your say and give your input.

Well done you for contacting all of the above off your own back - it's admirable that you went to those lengths and I personally appreciate the effort you went to.

I would push back on one point, though, and I guess goes back to the initial concern raised by @Sir Geoff - if your contact was just as a concerned fan and not an "official" SC&T communication - where was that communication? Where's the leadership of the SC&T? Why aren't they driving an agenda on this? And why would I join for £12 a month (where does that go, by the way?) if those representing me aren't doing that?

We're obviously a smaller club than Leeds, with a much smaller fan base, but when you look at the absolute stink they kicked up over their proposed change of badge (it became a pretty big national sports news story - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43157773) it shows what can be done. I refuse to believe that our current ownership is less engaged than the Leeds board at that time, who were notoriously out of the tune with the supporters!

A huge number of fans are pretty angry that the club have - without notice - taken a stock image off Getty and turned it into a new club crest that sits on one of our shirts, all over our training wear and on the wall of the training ground. And the absolute least the SC&T should be doing, in my opinion, is driving that feeling into the local press to apply wider pressure on the club.

Am I going over the top with this view? That's not a rhetorical question - completely happy if people want to tell me I'm misreading the room. The above is how I feel, but not necessarily everyone.

And, to add, while I'm saying this in reply to you, @ExiledAjax, these are by no means questions I'm expecting you to answer. You've done a lot more than the rest of us to hold the club to account as a lone fan.

Instinctively, I just feel like if the SC&T aren't going to represent the fanbase on a topic like this what's the actual point in them?

And, for what it's worth, without wishing to sound all Alastair Campbell, if anyone at the SC&T wants to come to me for help in getting this type of messaging a) across the club and b) into the media I'd love to help. I'm sure there'll be plenty like me who are the same.

(Sorry for turning all ranty!).

4 hours ago, handsofclay said:

Sorry didn't realise the thread was restricted to those who agree with you.

Sorry too that you consider my response strange and angry.

When I first supported Bristol City we wore a red top, red shorts, red socks. Went to a sports outfitters near the London Inn to get the kit for my 8th birthday. That's what my mother was given and then the storekeeper opened a drawer full of badges and fetched out the Bristol City one for my mum to sew on. 

The following year I wanted an England kit. Went to the same shop and was given a white shirt, blue shorts and white socks and an England, three lions badge, to sew on. 

My point, which you disparagingly call a strange (X2) angry little response is that these basic kits meant the world to me because they were the kits of the teams I loved. 

When Bristol City took to the Ashton Gate pitch on a balmy August Tuesday night in 1976 against Stoke City for the first home top flight game since 1911 I cheered my heart out. I was as proud as punch and we had won at Arsenal three days earlier. I didn't suddenly temper my enthusiasm and comment upon the fact I didn't like the new umbro diamonds on the sleeves. Basically, I am saying that I don't understand those of you who get so hung up about what Bristol City wear. It's so namby pamby. Sorry. 

In all the years I have supported City I cannot think of one instance where I have heard that a player has turned us down for a potential move because he didn't like the shade of our third kit or the collar of our home shirt. Maybe as succeeding generations become even more namby pamby this will be an inevitability and a manager might one day be sacked because he advocated a red 1.2 cm trim on the white shorts which proved to be highly unpopular. 

At a rough estimate I would say that I regularly talk to 20 Bristol City fans every week. Out of those 21 supporters, including myself, I am the only one who posts on here. About 6 or 7 read this forum but don't post and one other posts very occasionally. Thus I questioned your assertion that the majority of supporters don't like the Bristol City kit based on this thread containing the repeated views of several supporters who wouldn't even constitute a majority on OTIB let alone a majority of Bristol City fans in general. I cannot understand what is strange (X2) and angry about debusing you of that illusion

Completely respect your feeling on it, everyone is different and lots of fans will share your view, particularly those of a certain age and demographic.

But even if it’s not for you, football kits are a huge deal to supporters - new shirt releases generate some of the most engaged content we produce, believe it or not. It does huge numbers and sparks massive interaction/discussion.

It really matters to people.

9 minutes ago, Super said:

I don't really understand that. He might stand out in that Bournemouth team then he'll more than likely get a move to a bigger club. 

In the position he plays, playing in a team that'll get out-passed - and lose - most games, standing out will be difficult.

Don't think that point of view is too difficult to understand, personally, but all opinions innit.

Bournemouth would feel a bit of an anti-climax, mainly because I genuinely think Alex has a real shot at playing for England within the next 24 months if he continues his current rate of progress. And he's not going to do that while he's at Bournemouth.

Really powerful interview - he spoke with amazing courage and Neville, for an ex-footballer rather than a trained journalist, was excellent, asking all the right questions but with empathy and understanding.

Clearly there's more to life than football and he should be incredibly proud of himself whatever the future holds, but I really do hope he can get back playing to a standard he feels content with. I'm sure lots of us will really be rooting for him now, genuinely.

19 minutes ago, Spike said:

 

I understand that but surely you would think he'd be able to adapt rather than being sold after just 5 games. I mean I understand it and I suppose Pearson wants that height at the back but it's still a very odd decision to not even try to teach him that role and instead sell. 

I understand the logic, I do wonder if Pearson will think twice about buying a player specifically for one role and one role only going forward.

I think you're being a bit overly simplistic about it.

"You'd think he'd be able to adapt" - on what basis?! He's human! "To not even try to teach him that role" - how do you know that hasn't been the case? Maybe he's just not been able to?

It's also worth remembering that he's leaped from League Two up to the Championship. It's a huge jump. Maybe he's mentally struggled with it? Maybe he's been overwhelmed by it? Maybe he's had confidence issues after the injury? Maybe the injury means he won't be quite the same player?

My point is... maybe a hundred different scenarios. It's not Championship Manager.

Apologies, also worth adding rather than just putting it all on the player... maybe we just feel like we got it wrong/made a misjudgement and rather than doubling down we're moving him down a level so he can get on with his career and we can get on with building for a new season without someone, having seen them at close quarters, we don't think is for us.

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Good comparison. The Bell one is even worse though. I think they’ve changed the rule since then so that couldn’t happen again. The fielders languid style at getting the ball back once he stands up would be classed as deceiving. 
 

Edit: maybe that rule already existed and it wasn’t implemented properly actually. Can’t remember ! 

In fairness, I'm not convinced the India team were being particularly malicious or pre-planned about it. The fielder on the boundary genuinely thought it had gone for four, I think, and after that, even they seemed uncertain... "is he out here? Can we get away with this?" type thing.

So, like with Carey, I don't really blame the player(s). You try things in the heat of the battle and sometimes you maybe push it a bit far.

But the beauty of cricket is that you have that time as a captain to reflect on whether it's the right thing to do and make your own decision. Dhoni got it right and Cummins badly misread the room - it's such a poor misjudgement.

10 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Yeah honestly I must have remembered a different ball watching it again

Fair play for being honest!

Like @Fordy62 said, it's worse than a Mankad in that it literally penalises a misunderstanding. It's a pathetic way to dismiss a batsman IMO.

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it, but it's more like this run-out of Ian Bell against India in 2011 (which, again, was basically a misunderstanding and correctly led to him being recalled).

To use Shane Warne's quote on commentary, "in the spirit of the game that's not on".

That's the most like-for-like comparison I can come up with.

25 minutes ago, lager loud said:

Bairstow didn’t leave his crease through playing the shot. He was batting within his crease, ducked and stood up without leaving the crease, made no attempt to run, then scratched a mark in the crease after the keeper had caught the ball.  It's nothing to do with it being the last ball of the over: in that situation the ball would generally be considered dead, even if the umpire hadn’t called ‘over’ - and even if the rules of the game apparently don’t say so!

 

Exactly this @Lrrr - he left the crease after playing his shot, not during playing the shot. Do you honestly not see it that way?...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66080677

... I've even rewatched it to make sure I'm not going mad.

I'm genuinely shocked by those who think the Bairstow dismissal was in any way sportsmanlike.

Bairstow ducked the bouncer, regained his balance, marked back inside the crease with his foot and then left the crease because he understandably perceived the ball to be dead. It's a misunderstanding at best.

Now, in a way I'm actually not against Carey throwing the stumps down as a slightly cheeky way of unsettling Bairstow a bit and a reminder he needs to be switched on, but can you really be serious that you're happy dismissing a batsman in those circumstances? That you're happy to capitalise on a misunderstanding - at best - rather than getting him out with a piece of skill?

I can't fathom it and I think Pat Cummins completely misread the room by upholding the appeal. And then to compare it to the Starc catch? Absolute nonsense, because one was an umpire's decision and the other was a player's decision. His decision.

2 hours ago, Lrrr said:

No the batter shouldn't be stupid and walk out straight away without checking whats going on with the ball, the difference for me is that Carey threw the ball straight away on catching it while Bairstow was actually still in his crease so the idea is that he's looking to get him out based on what Baistow has been doing after shots and finishing outside his crease ie tactical attempt at stumping. If Carey had thrown it after Bairstow had then left the crease again then yeah I'd be on the side of that its wrong.

The thing is, while he didn't wait for Bairstow to leave the crease he knew he would do so in that manner because it was a fair assumption, on Bairstow's part, that the ball was dead.

Like I say, I'm actually not against Carey's action as a bit of psychology, but to uphold the appeal I just can't get on board with. Undoubtedly there'll always be a mark against that win because of it and there didn't really need to be because Australia are slightly the better team regardless.

As an aside... worth a tenner on Bairstow to end the series as top run scorer now. People tend to make him angry at their peril.

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, think Steve is happy to support sensible losses…but not push £39m / 3 years.  Would not be surprised if he’s thinking - why am I pumping in £x million a year for someone else to invest.

God, I’m disagreeing with you a lot today….what does Webster, Kelly, Brownhill tell you?  Get as much as you can upfront…it’s guaranteed.  You can’t plan with ifs and buts.

The only one that’s really done well for us is Bolassie…that was a freak sell-on though.

The only thing I would say with Alex Scott is... he's different, isn't he? He's a generational talent for a club like ours.

Brownhill's never looked close to being international quality. Kelly had huge potential but still had flaws with us, there were still parts to his game that were lacking. Webster was truly exceptional but was 24 when he left us and, really, had only had one mega year at Championship level.

Scott's 19 and is ready right now. I keep reading that West Ham/Tottenham/Wolves fans are saying it's a lot of money for potential. I don't think they're buying potential - they're buying a player who'll be a regular for them by Christmas.

All opinions, obviously, but with Scott more than any other player we've sold the sell-on clause will be a huge money maker.

1 hour ago, CodeRed said:

And then not turn up

Or be called into his office and lie about his identity.

48 minutes ago, Agard Days Night said:

If the normal badge was on the front of the third kit, and the ‘Robin’ on the back, would people be happy with it?

Certainly content.

But, and I'm aware I've said this before on this very thread, it's utterly ludicrous that we've had four completely different badges on our shirts in four years.

It's a marketing and brand identity disaster, it defies logic let alone common sense and I refuse to believe any reputable, half-decent marketing executive would support it.

13 hours ago, Ronnie Sinclair said:

Could some of this be “brand snobbery” - would the garments get the same critique if made by say, Umbro or Puma, or is a crap shirt simply a crap shirt?

I definitely think there’ll be an element of that - but I also don’t think it can be a defence of the club. That’s how society is and if you’re going to move away from bigger brands there’s more pressure to get the product spot on.

All that said, it’s worth adding Hummel aren’t exactly the height of fashion and some of the in-house kits were pretty popular - particularly the promotion one, as was the pinstripes kit we wore during the cup run.

If I win, do I have to keep that god-awful shirt?

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Bit of an odd poll, as I don't think comparing Maddison and Scott is like-for-like, is it? Maddison plays much further forward. 

Maddison has 10 goals and 9 assists from last season, Scott scored 1 league goal and made 4 assists in the C'ship.

It'll be interesting when he does step up to the next level what position he actually ends up in, won't it? He could almost end up playing anywhere.

I like him playing deeper in our team/division because - for as basic as this sounds - I always just think you want your best players on the ball as much as possible. And he obviously sees more of it there.

I know he's played deeper for the England age groups too, but again he's a standout player at that level, as much for his physicality as his ability. But then he'll lose those points of difference when he goes to the Premier League.

As an aside, it's interesting the amount of people who consider him a dribbler/a player in the same mould as Grealish. While he's got great feet, like Grealish, I've always thought his vision/passing range for someone so young is his best asset. He releases the ball more quickly than Grealish IMO.

7 hours ago, mozo said:

I do respectfully, strongly disagree.

It's also difficult to finish 8th in the Prem. Maybe we should create a European cup competition for all the 8th placed teams too?

It devalues European competitions. They're not special. They're for average teams.

I think whether the Conference League should exist or not is a different matter. I don't really disagree with what you've said - I think you're arguing a different point.

To finish in the top seven two seasons running, to get to the semi-finals of the Europa League against some very good teams and then win the Conference League against some average teams, but some decent ones too, is a really good achievement over a sustained period of three seasons.

Outside of the elite clubs, I think any set of fans in England would take the adventure they've been on during that period. I firmly stand by that comment.