Rich

That game yesterday was the most comfortable I've felt all season. We should have been out of sight by half time. Having an extra forward allowed us to press their defenders into hurried passes or, back to the keeper to lump it upfield. I cannot remember them having an attempt on goal until about the 60th minute, which was followed by about three in quick succession, then the closer one near the end. We had about three breakaway attacks in the second half where we also should have done much better. Other than that, Derby played the game in their half and penalty area in the first half and slightly further up the pitch in the second half, mostly due to us losing possession upfield in the second half. I felt as if I'd been entertained.

It might have been the six foot high grey squirrel that pushed him, he's often seen in tunnels by nutcases.

Back to the topic started by Hampshire Reds. Make no mistake, this is just another way of him/her trying to start a Pearson out discussion but, asking the owner to do something about it. Historically that rarely happens. It would be like a vote of confidence for the manager and Lansdown doesn't do that. Sorry to spoil your fun HR, you'll have to think up another way of promoting the removal of Pearson. Have you tried personal attacks, or accusations of wrong doing? Perhaps accusing him of homophobia, sexism, racism?

I can't explain specifically why Danny Simpson was signed. What I can do is to consider why he was signed using the information available. Which I believe is that, he's an experienced right back and we didn't have a right back, as such. Pearson knows what he brought to his teams in the past and he'd proven his fitness over a loan spell. Not saying he's great, or has speed now but, he is in a position to come into the team in the event of injuries and also help in the development of certain younger players. Yesterday I believe Pearson wanted to play with three centre backs and two wing backs. So his selection included two players out of our thin squad who can fulfil those roles of wing backs, players who have the ability to cover lots of ground up and down the pitch and have plenty of energy. They could also tuck in and help the very juvenile midfield in it's job of protecting the centre backs. Sadly, Sheffield were still able to boss this five man midfield and expose plenty of space using little triangles and diagonal defence splitting passes. Had we had a juvenile four man midfield and more rigid four man defence, then the outcome would possibly have been worse. To play wing backs, you need players that are relatively quick and able to cover the ground for the whole match. Simpson is not that player and to suggest his inclusion as wing back is in my opinion, naive to say the least. So in summary, he was signed as cover and certainly not a wing back.

This isn't the exact post which I wanted to reply to but, covers the main part. The problem I have with your opinion is, that it takes into account facts only with no context, even though you state that you understand there's a rebuild going on. As I see it and from what I understand, the majority of posters feel that Pearson has inherited an overall poorly constructed squad of mixed ability players, an injury ravaged squad in the first period of his tenure and players either not playing for him or the club, due to their personal situations, in relation to their contracts running out, while also uncertain about their future and fear of injury. That happens in any situation, in any walk of life, when a new boss is appointed. So, he was given the task of reducing the squad, reducing the wage bill, recruiting new players, improving the availability of players through fitness, while at the same time producing a successful team to satisfy the most demanding of supporters, who do not take any of those factors into account and use facts only. And also dealing with the existing backroom staff, who were possibly central to a lot of our problems. So he's also got that to deal with as well. We appear to be left with some players that don't quite fit within the format of a squad that is to say the least, disjointed. As a result, some of those senior players do not fit into the team, cannot be removed because of their contracts and as such are useless to the club. We mostly know who they are and are used purely out of necessity. That's why Wells, Palmer and Jay Dasilva have not featured too much. He has recruited quite wisely in my opinion, bringing in older heads to pass on their experience to the many younger members that make up our first team squad. Along with two players from the lower divisions, that have been used more than we would have expected, due to an extended injury list, not ideal. As far as our strike force is concerned, we have been reduced by 25%, with Semenyo not being available and having to use Wells as part of a squad that do not play the type of football to suit his style. As a result, over use of two ageing strikers. Supplemented with a few young additions making a small contribution, again not ideal. Our injury record at the start of the season was quite good, which coincided with solid, if not spectacular performances and results. Since that initial period, we've been hit quite hard with injuries to key players in King, O'Dowda, Williams, Baker, Atkinson, James, Pring and Tanner to name just a few. This has resulted in disruption to selection of an already reduced squad and an enforced use of younger players within the team, along with changes in formation to accommodate those players available. We can all pick a team and formation but, what we can't do is allow for the many personal mistakes that have occurred from the players selected in those many changed teams and formations. We'd all like it to have been better, but constantly bemoaning the situation while not taking into account the reasons for that situation, is frankly, not helpful and I believe not warranted. By constantly posting those negative messages, it has given the platform for likeminded people to be supportive of your views, giving in my opinion a distorted picture, with a lack of appreciation of what an actual mess that Pearson is having to deal with. In a nutshell, a difficult operation to manage. May I also suggest you use the "quote" facility, which enables other posters to see when you've actually replied to their posts. As it is, it would appear that you enjoy what appears to be having the last word, by not "quoting" the poster.

The Club is excited to debut the new matchday facilities and Fanzone at our game against Tranmere Rovers tomorrow! I have to say, I think they have put a massive spin on this, the club Is excited? Pleased to announce perhaps but, excited, wow.

What happened to the Win or go post? I wanted to comment after H R posed a question.

There are literally hundreds of different style of seating, wall mounted, floor mounted cill mounted for the Lansdown. All applicable and perfectly useable in various locations within the concourses at AG. I don't think it's the product or the finances, I don't think there's a willingness to do this. Just one of the many examples available on the net: Folding stadium seating,Automatic tip up seat, collapsible stadium chairs, Folding Chair | valor seating- Your best partner for seating solutions (valorseatingcorp.com)

My post wasn't directed at you, more so those that attribute LJ to their improvements. Players improve naturally with age and experience.

I think you also need to ask, how many of those younger players signed, would have increased in value regardless of whether Johnson was coaching them. Or, could they have been further improved by another coach, along with the failures, netting even greater increase in value. All speculative pointless arguments.

Sorry for late reply. Your post seems to focus on the negative side of things, as in picking a point when we were relegated from the old 1st division in 1911, as opposed to when we first were promoted to that division. You refer to our times in the old Div3s in your other post. I've looked at that and, we were in div3s for 20 years in total, 12 times finishing in the top half, so possibly the equivalent of the third tier, depending on whether North or South Div3 was the stronger. That site really is interesting. Also following City for 60 years you refer to spending most of our time between div 2 and 3, agreed but, the majority were spent in the upper divisions, 30 in div 2 and 4 in old 1st. On a personal level mine is 56 years of torture. I wouldn't disagree that in reality, for a city of our size we have been dreadful in terms of lack of any real success. It shows in the apathy and expectations of our support base. Having the blue lot keeping hold of our shirt tails for so long hasn't helped. Let's hope for a more positive future.

Many a team sport, thanks for asking. I believe if there are those couple you've referred to, that's why they're being removed. I believe your post was trying to make more of it by claiming a "split" dressing room, rather than a couple of players not happy. If I've ever posted crap on here in the past, it's been due to having a few too many, what is your excuse for the constant barrage of negative, anti NP crap posts?

Putting my pennyworth in. I'd say the obvious ones are Palmer, hardly selected and disgruntled. Wells, totally lacking in any attempt at a challenge for possession and left on the sidelines too often. Often been stated by others and I'd agree, that he doesn't look like he wants to be here. And finally Jay Dasilva, not being selected regularly, especially as he's now fit. Too small to be a NP type of player, especially in his favoured defensive position. In my opinion, players without the required attitudes/attributes demanded by NP.

A factual site for you. It refers to our top flight football history. Not premiership admittedly. England historical attendance and performance (european-football-statistics.co.uk)

I believe he stated that there were a couple that didn't want to be here and, he'd get them out. If that turned out to be three, it's hardly a split dressing room within a squad of twenty something. Splinter perhaps, not a split. Split would in my eyes be large proportion, as in a split decision, given your posting history, just something you'd like to portray.

H R puts a negative angle on virtually every post. He just likes to keep the Nige out rhetoric to the forefront of any debate.

Without meaning to upset you, you have made it seem as if we've been "Lurching" between all four divisions of the football league, while highlighting a small time spent in the top tier of English football. This seems to be a gross misrepresentation of reality. We have actually spent the majority of our time in the top two divisions, more so than the bottom two divisions, with only two seasons spent at the lowest level, hardly lurching between the divisions. This site is excellent for information. England historical attendance and performance (european-football-statistics.co.uk)

I don't understand why you've omitted a part of our total history and come up with a figure of 111 years, it seems a strange figure to choose. Surely you must include the whole history, if you're going to mention facts about any of it.

I was really pushing for this a few seasons back and came to the conclusion that it was a corporate decision to resist the placement of seating. There are categorically no reasons for the placing of seating within certain areas of the concourse, only made up conclusions within this forum. There are areas in the Dolman concourse similar to those pictured at Exeter, where from memory, there could be 96 seats, without any affect whatsoever on the exit points. The same applies to three areas in the South Stand and a few in the Lansdown. Fold down seating in recessed areas does not hinder the exit points. As regarding the exit points in the Dolman, it is expected that in a real emergency, exits are available onto and across the pitch, that's why they're there. The cynic in me thinks that it's possible to have a negative effect on the placement of tables or furniture during promotional fairs. Therefore a benefit to those less mobile supporters is rejected.

I agree Cotterill's response seemed rather petulant and there was really only one outcome after that. I believe he could have been more diplomatic and made the owners task of removal, much harder.

I have always been a great supporter of what MR Lansdown has tried to do with our football club and the rest of his sporting involvement. However it has usually resulted in failure, especially in the more difficult competitive football side of things. My involvement and support of SL, started with the plans to build a new stadium at AV, although I loved Ashton Gate, I thought it was the best way for us as a club and the region to move forward and play a more major part in the football world. I spent so much of my time, as did others, fighting the case for the stadium and other related developments, yet I was surprised at the naivety of the people running the show and the ability of amateurs to run rings around them and always be one step ahead. I offered loads of information about who they were up against and what plans they had. I informed them of proposed meetings of those opposed and, the fact that they were eligible to be a bonafide member of that group, as they were a business within the area, this would have completely scuppered their plans. They chose to ignore every piece of information I handed them. Even when it could be proven that a commercial enterprise was being carried out on AV, rendering part of the opposition evidence useless. In the end, I had the development team from Sainsbury's contacting me the day prior to the planning meeting, asking if there was anything they thought I could say which would help the case. My advice was to show up the objectors for what they were, duplicated groups opposed to the developments, numbering less than a couple of hundred joined at the hips well organised idealists. This was just to highlight that the supposed opposition was not as great as projected. Sadly, the main man employed by SL was a good administrator, that new how to fill in forms and do things the correct way. Unfortunately, he never had an ounce of fight in his body, he was ably assisted by the owners son and his right hand man. They were all too nice, and never knew how to fight just a little dirty, to get their way. I believe this is the main problem with SL, his inability to appoint a slightly maverick type man, who's willing to do things and bend things just a little, to get what he wants and be successful. After all, he's an accountant and, has spent his life using tried and tested formulas for business success, which is fine in money management terms but, does it work with Humans? I sense a fear of success, unless done using university graduates in every department of the business. If I was ever fortunate to own/run a football club, the first question I'd ask prior to making a decision would be, does it help the team win? Second, does it hinder the team? If it's a no to the first and a yes to the second, don't make that decision.

Because Johnson and Holden played thier part in the recruitment of those players. I think you'll find that many of those players were released, we're left with the others. I don't think it's "all" about the players. Pearson wasn't there today and the players still performed shit. When Johnson left the players still performed shit, when Holden took over they performed shit but, spoofed a few results at the start, long enough keep him in a job longer than he should have. That early season (Form), was really just a lucky sequence of results, which soon showed the reality of the situation.

Can you explain why Johnson and Holden were removed from their positions if, those same players were giving a shit? You don't think that possibly, they were a part of that problem, that they were not fully part of the squad that went on long winless runs? There is a change going on, some players are finding it not quite so easy to perform in this new regime, it happens when new bosses take over, until there's the nucleus of his management/coaching team and the nucleus of "his" squad, then I think these things happen. I don't like it, I'd rather it went smoothly, but, if I remember correctly, there had to be a few hand grenades thrown into the dressing room before a bit of success was had under Gary Johnson. I think what Pearson has inherited, is far worse than what GJ had to contend with, in terms of swollen overpaid wasters.

Are these the same players that have failed before under different managers?

Was Cotterill given the backing to bring in his desired players? I believe he was. Did he have to release more than a team full of players? I don't think so. I believe there are different situations at play now than six plus years ago. Then after that success, he was finally restricted, Intentionally? I fully expect the same thing to happen now. Bring in a top man, fail to back him, then bring in your young hungry type, that MR Lansdown prefers, while saying things like, "it's my money and I'll invest it as I want to". I believe Pearson has been given a thankless task of putting things right and in place, it will then be a case of, thanks very much, goodbye. Soon to be followed by another young boss learning the ropes.