TheReds

9 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

With no Wells starting, worried about where the goals are coming from (COD has dismal scoring record), and Martin has looked sluggish in pre-season games... but who knows.

2-0 it is then with Martin and COD on the scoresheet. Isn't that how it works on here!

Taken from Derby forum:

Rooney confirms Davies, Stearman and Allsop have signed and they are available tomorrow

Rooney says the club is working on trying to bring some of the other trialists in

Have all the players signed for some YTS money, or are they doing an "internship"?

What was Morris' comments before the meeting?

A complete shambles of a club, but they are getting exactly what they deserve with what he has done over the past few years. How long before Rooney jumps ship?

5 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and all that....He's gone on record now.  If Jailbird is found guilty on either charge, and remains with the club then this will come back and bite him. 

I would say that he's more likely to be found guilty on the Stendel case because of this now.  It's only human nature that people on the jury will have this incident in the back of their minds when deciding guilt in that one, even though they shouldn't allow it to influence their decision.

*Edit* What I would say though is that the words are rather hollow given that Jailbird's got a well documented history of proven violence and Wally still offered him a job.

This 1000% 

What a lovely man. They will now all flock back in their tens of thousands for their first home game.

TBF he has said he is gone if found guilty, and that is for both charges St Joey is up for.

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

They must be taking the boycott VERY seriously. 

So much so that they were even rehearsing it whilst Gerry Francis, Malcolm Allison, John Ward, Paul Trollope, Russell Osman, Ian Holloway, Paul Buckle, Dopey Darrell, Ben Garner and others were in charge...! 

You surely must have that wrong, I keep reading that their followings are legendary, I mean why would I disbelieve anything they say? It's not like they are deluded or just constantly make stuff up is it......

1 hour ago, sglosbcfc said:

Gasheads talking about boycotting matches while he is in charge, one posted 'there could be a very low attendance for the first home game'. Serious point, would anyone notice if that was a boycott or their usual crowd?

There is the ready made excuse for a poor attendance on their first home game of the season. 

What they should be doing is asking for a refund on their season ticket if there a lot who feel so strongly about him being their manager, that is the only pressure that will seem to make the club listen and act.

Imagine going to the Mem to play them (as an opposition manager, coach, physio), you would just have to wind him up for 90 minutes non stop, even get the whole bench involved. Only a matter of time before he loses it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he clocks another player, manager etc etc this season as there will be some touchline bust ups and plenty will bring up this charge to his face.

47 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I don’t know what all the answers are.

I was just trying to make the point that it’s nonsense to talk about “going back to normal” when we are in the middle of a global pandemic.

We all want ‘normal’ back, but it’s not going to happen in August.

Yes, banning the unvaccinated from doing anything is one extreme of the potential responses. But just carrying on and trying to pretend it’s not happening is just as extreme the other way. 

But the vaccine is never going away, and many will never be vaccinated, including people who simply cannot have it. So at what point do you think we should go back to normal, as in how many deaths/hospitalisations are acceptable?   

58 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Normal???

With Bristol’s infection rate, the Blackpool game could see dozens of people get ill as a result of going to the game, a number of them ending up in hospital, as well as hundreds getting pinged, many of whom will be unable to go to work as a result. And all having to miss the next game(s).

That doesn’t sound like ‘normal’ to me. 

There will be many, many double jabbed people with the virus carrying it around with them and passing it on - and I expect multiple double jabbed people in Ashton Gate carrying it. At what point are you going to say to yourself "I have done everything I possibly can for myself so have to get on with it"? If you think you are never going to say that, then prepare yourself for avoiding pretty much everywhere where there are people present, as this virus isn't going away. After September I doubt there will be many more people taking up the offer of having the vaccine if they haven't already, so that really has to be the end of any restrictions, unless you want to ban unvaccinated people (many who cannot have it) from everything that you do.

34 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I suppose we KNOW for a fact that huge numbers of people have died or become extremely ill from Covid. How many people have been extremely ill from receiving the vaccine in comparison to catching the Covid virus?

Flu jabs are not mandatory, they are given to people who are at risk from suffering complications as a result of catching flu such as asthma sufferers. Flu has been around for donkeys years and at no point has anyone suggested that you should have a jab in order to obtain a public event so not sure where you are going with your "where does it stop?" argument.

It wouldn't matter if it was 1 person was extremely ill from the vaccine or 10000 imo, the point is it should be a personal choice to have it or not, nobody knows how many may be ill in the future. We do know that huge numbers have died, but all of the most vulnerable have now been vaccinated so are as protected as they can be. Do we not let any unvaccinated people in the future to attend any events, assume that would also mean vaccine exempt people not allowed as well? Vaccinated people can still carry and pass it on (at about half the transmission I think) and they won't be tested anywhere but will still be passing it on, therefore the virus is here for life. So at what point are these people allowed to have their freedoms back? 

Since when has flu jabs only for the people you have mentioned? A couple of years ago I picked up a prescription and whilst waiting, the Pharmacist asked every single person in the shop if they wanted the flu jab, she didn't know anyones medical history, or asked any questions whatsoever, I could have had one if I wanted it. Of course nobody has suggested having the flu jab is mandatory, but it could easily be brought in now if they simply say "it will save more lives, everyone can do their bit". All mention of vaccine passports were dismissed numerous times, it was conspiracy theorists mentioning such a thing, there was Minister after Minister calling them discriminatory, won't ever happen etc etc etc. Yet here we are....

22 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Sorry but even "young and healthy" can get seriously ill from Covid and suffer long term effects, the risk of that is still higher than the risk of any vaccine side affects. That's not to downplay anyones concerns about the vaccine but it really is a numbers game and weighing up risk.

 

I am not saying no young fit and healthy people don't get ill at all, or have long term effects, but the numbers tell you that it is such a low number then many will not want the vaccine - also nobody knows the long term effects of the vaccine either. To basically be forced to have it so you can go to a nightclub, gig, football match etc is just plain wrong and where/when does it stop? Vulnerable 12 year old are next, then what? All 12 year olds? All children? Mandatory flu jabs because people die every year from that, or you cannot go to the footy? It is completely wrong imo.

What happens when one of these people who never wanted it gets extremely ill, has long term effects or even dies from having it? Their fault for wanting to go to a football match no doubt. It won't be the Governments fault or society telling them to have it.

1 minute ago, Negan said:

So I’ve had 1 vaccine and my mate hasn’t had his jab yet, he doesn’t want it. Both season card holders. Can neither of us go? 

Unsure about one jab, but no jabs you need to show a negative test as far as I am aware. This is up until end of September though, to give anyone the chance to get both jabs.

45 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Hey, it's a shit sandwich, but I'm afraid we've got to swallow our pride and eat it. We're in an unprecedented situation where for the time being you can't expect to turn down the opportunity of a perfectly safe vaccine and continue your life as normal, putting yourself and others at higher risk. If everyone had that mindset we'd be in perennial lockdowns, with many more freedoms restricted/lost.

Regarding pharma, I'll be the first to criticise them, however they've done some decent stuff regarding coronavirus including giving up their IP rights so poorer countries can produce the vaccine. They've also come into their own in terms of the ability to mass produce a vaccine. 

I have "ate it", I, personally do not have an issue with having the vaccine myself. I still don't think it should be mandatory by coercion for anyone, especially the young and healthy, and we are now onto vulnerable 12 year olds (no doubt soon to be all 12 year olds). Regardless of how safe we all think it is, we still do not really know if there are any long term effects - and I fully expect there to be hardly any long term effects. I have no issue with anyone having it or also choosing not to have it, as that should be their choice once they weigh up their own risks.

If I was young and healthy I certainly wouldn't be having it, and if every adult has been offered it, then at what time does the "choice" not to have it let these people go back to normal life? Are we all going to be forced to have the flu vaccine in a few months time to watch a football match as well? Utter madness and discriminatory imo. 

47 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Anyone that has previously said they don't want the jab will have a sudden change of heart once they realise they won't be able to attend gigs/concerts, sporting events, late bars/nightclubs etc 

Indeed, but I think is totally wrong. If I was young and healthy I certainly wouldn't be having/had the jab (especially if I had already tested positive previously). Next stop will be everyone has to have boosters to watch a gig, football, nightclub etc etc, then it will be for the flu, could be entry into shops, supermarkets etc. 

 I wonder how much these Pharma companies and board members will be making out of all of this.

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

From what I can tell, they haven't said either way for outdoor events *other than they haven't ruled it out*.

As far as refunds go, I would imagine that if asked, the club would make one, but equally they might say that it isn't their fault, blame the government.

Could make for some interesting section 75 claims.

From what the Business minister Kwasi Kwarteng said in Parliament earlier I thought that was exactly what he said, I only heard it once so maybe I have it incorrect. But I thought he said once every adult has had the chance to get both jabs which is the end of September, then after that it is mandatory to have a vaccine passport to get in to large events and a negative pass will not suffice.

Apologies if I have that wrong.

19 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Am I reading this right. If you’re not double jabbed by the end of September. You won’t be able to attend large venues . 

Yes.

Negative tests will no longer count for entry. Assume people who do not want the jab can ask for a refund on their season ticket as this wasn't a condition when it was purchased?

38 minutes ago, BanburyRed said:

Brilliant!  The only club they thought to reference themselves to?  The newly crowned PL champions!  Priceless!

And since when did having '2 new tents' equate to having '2 new stands'?  Ah yes, #gaslogic!

That is 2 new massive stands to get the "locked out" crowd in, those stands must have taken all of One Whole Day to put up. 

6 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

All the s*gs appear to think Private Widdle is the evil that infests their club. I for one disagree, I think he`s doing a wonderful job and he should be kept on with a pay rise.

Amazing that many of the sags at the start of the season seemed to think the signings were superb. I got told by my mate they were definitely in for a top 6 finish, but did need a striker. Now it's all gone wrong they are all suddenly bad signings and it's all one blokes fault? Or is it down, at least partly to the various managers as well? Anyway, never mind, give the bloke a pay rise and a budget, and let him loose buying players and presenting them to Barton with "there ya go, here's another".

19 hours ago, old parkender said:

Absolutely mental

Surely the username should have been BELLENDO.

20 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yep. Jimmy has a 20 point swing on Joey over the same period. 
Brilliant. 

I'd expect Joey would still be able to tell Hasslebaink what he has been doing wrong - with no irony whatsoever.

18 hours ago, Red Army 75 said:

When was the last time the squatters had 12k to watch a game. Because that’s what Joey Bag reckons they will get in league 2. Bristol Rovers the club of delusion 

Has Al Quidi told St Joey that and he's fell for it without finding the truth, because the lovely man with the lovely watch wouldn't lie, or has the deluded St Joey convinced himself he is that good at this management game that he will add 5000 on the gate? 

I seen one of their games near the start of the season, and they were diving and feigning injury at every opportunity, some of it was totally embarrassing and even the commentator mentioned how bad it was. That was when they had a run of pens and opposition players getting sent off.

Now the decisions are levelling themselves out, it's those awful refs!!

Well done to the referees, keep up those bad decisions (if they were), and please give a red to poor old Joey to tip him over the edge with his moaning.

I don't think the question is "will Joey leave", I think it is more "why the hell would Preston want him"? 

Absolutely no chance in my opinion, but I wouldn't mind being proved wrong on this at all.