Rich

We do see though that the officials ignore many laws, particularly when within the penalty area. I refer to obvious fouls committed when holding onto players, easily stopped, warn before the match that a penalty will be awarded for such infringements.

Can't see how that's harsh on officials. All I want them to be able to do is differentiate between the instigator and the recipient, action and reaction, simple physics really. How many times have we seen a defender in the air about to head the ball, his only movement is either up or down, an attacker backs into him and the defender lands on top, the referee gives a foul against the defender, totally opposite of the correct decision.

Well spotted Jim.

People won't let them forget that, though some need educating about that dirty side of what happened then. They have constantly tried to claim the moral high ground since, yet have very short memories regards trying to obtain AG, a tentative proposal to "share" Twerton Park and their strange acquisition of the rugby ground, which ended up with the rugby chairman being awarded a life presidency of BRFC for his services to "The Club". Add in them being the only professional or amateur sporting club in this region to not back Bristol's bid for the World Cup. Blaming Bristol City Council for all their ills while standing against them in local elections, not giving them a ground and claiming that everyone loves them and they're the best fans in the world, etc, etc, etc.

Not sure it's been brought up during this debate but, the officials seem to have no idea whatsoever about physics and natural reactions. Difficult to explain in words but. If a player is being pushed by another, say towards a goal upright, it would be expected and allowed for that player to protect himself by raising his hands to prevent contact. Yet, when a player is being pushed by someone backing into them the natural reaction is to grab something to prevent falling, this is clever play by the pusher, as referees can't seem to differentiate who's doing the pushing and they know that, why not? What advantage would a defender have in pulling an opposition player, closer to the danger area, in so doing keeping them onside and, at the same time, preventing themselves from intercepting the ball? There is no sense in it, yet we see it so often. I know some will state examples to counter this but it simply goes against logic and physics. As I've written this I've become exasperated at the expected replies and the fact that it's not easy to give definite examples but, the inability of officials to see the perpetrator of an incident has long bugged me.

We do like to beat ourselves up over perceived good or bad away support, that also applies to home support. Not everyone goes blindly along to watch/support regardless of the way we're playing. Surely expectation has to come into the decision making process when deciding which games to attend. If we're doing well and expect to get a result, more will travel, if like recent/too many years, the low expectation will determine the level of travelling support.

I make it five seasons now.

Since when has there been a lower and upper section of the South Stand. And doing what you suggest moves the home and away fans to opposite ends of the ground. I'm being pedantic, I know you mean the Lansdown stand. I really don't understand this thinking that bringing home and away fans closer together increases the atmosphere. It might seem like it when you're there and in amongst it at times, but for those in other parts of the ground it's sometimes just a noise, followed by gesturing and general antagonism towards each other. From what I've seen, most proper clubs have their home fans at one end of the ground and tuck the away support the furthest away from the pitch that they can, to avoid them over influencing decisions and inspiring their team. Sensible really, get everything going for you, in your favour as opposed to encouraging the opposition.

As I wrote above. I believe the club did this intentionally to break up those singers. They shunted them from pillar to post and after finally submitting to the probability that they wouldn't go away, they put them somewhere out of the way and where they could be controlled and subsequently got rid of with every bit of bad behaviour. The only way to get a proper singing section, is to infiltrate the best possible place for it to be effective, which is the centre of the South Stand. Sadly this might take a little time as it's quite popular. While the club appear to give in to those also wanting to stand, that also means they keep control of where they are. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but, SL has often quoted Norwich as a club he'd like us modelled on. Lot's of families, women and children are season ticket holders there and, I firmly believe he thinks by combining football and rugby, he'll get a cross over of support both ways. Expect swearing and fighting at the rugby and, piss drinking and come on Briz at the football.?

The main reason for the lack of noise, not atmosphere, is the dire football we've been served up over recent years. Add to that the club trying to change direction and appeal to a bigger/wider audience of middle income earners and families and you will understand, the reason that those enthusiastic supporters that like to sing and chant, have been pushed from pillar to post since the development of the Atyeo stand and always ended up tucked away in a corner. When that was built season tickets were sold on a first come basis with allocated seating. As a result, the lads that sing and chant, mostly could not afford season tickets and as such, Lansdown and Sextone had achieved their aim in separating/splitting up the wilder elements of our supporter base. As for a club anthem, we just don't have one. Drink up the cider is sung with gusto by a few when celebrating a win against the odds (Man U), yet in normal times it rarely gets above a few joining in, reason I believe is that people find it slightly embarrassing. We are also a very reactive somewhat reserved bunch that don't usually burst into song, along with complete strangers. Now, if we had a song that people could be proud of, that we adopted and never worried about actually singing it, because it was tuneful and the words were easy, then that would be great. Unfortunately, to date, that song has eluded us, just like sustained success.

I definitely remember that happening, can't recall who but, I imagine it was someone like Norwich, or WBA, bemoaning the supposed fact that teams such as Liverpool and MUFC actually do get more penalties awarded. Was most possibly a middle order type club.

No, we're too soft. We'd probably get punished for even considering questioning them.

There are teams that get them and Bristol City. We are too easy for refs to not give them. Our players. supporters and coaching staff as a collective, do not fight hard enough for this club. We might get the odd outburst but we're not known for our tenacity in so many of the things that increase the chances of overall success. I watched a game the other day where every tackle and ball out of play was appealed for as a collective. If the refs come up against the likes of Fergie or Warnock or whoever on a regular basis, they do their utmost to not really upset them, even then they expect a roasting. We never as a club have a go at the FA, the Referees association, or enough regularly to make those organisations consider little Bristol City. I actually believe we get all the referees who are doing their utmost to keep both sets of fans and players happy. The number of times I've noticed the game change in the 2nd half at AG, from a position of total command to one of holding on is strange to say the least. This is easily achieved by awarding most of the 50/50 challenges to the opposition, thus increasing their possession and ability to get the ball into the danger area, where there's a chance to give a penalty. I give you Reading as an example where I believe it was 25 mins into the 2nd half until we were awarded a free kick. It's down to us as a club to change the way we're seen and, I mean in so many ways. We're too nice.

I think there was a time, possibly two seasons ago, when they hadn't gained a point when they'd not had a penalty or, had a player of the opposition sent off. Think Tom F posted that. Quickly looked at a reference site. 16/17 = 12 pens 17/18 = 4 18/19 = 9 19/20 = 8 20/21 = 9 21/22 = 7 to date. These are in all competitions, obviously not many competitions. Did I read the average was 7 penalties per club. We sadly are nowhere near that total. Preston might average more. They do have or have had a knack of getting opposition players sent off against them, particularly at the rugby ground. I've see the reaction of the coaches, players and numpties in the crowd at the most innocuous challenges which have resulted in the players first booking, presumably followed by the targeting of that player, I wish we were more vociferous in our reactions/actions in demanding fouls/penalties but, we're not. I think this year under the guidance of JB, they have had more pens against and surprisingly for such a timid character, more of his players sent off.

Here are some interesting pictures courtesy of my Brother and sister in law. These were taken as seen in the pictures, during the removal of the open end, prior to Atyeo stand being built and. also our fantastic floodlights. A great one from Raynes Road with the scaffolding going up around the Dolman for cladding renewal.

Fair assessment in my opinion. I feel NP is giving Max a few games to really assess what he's seen on the training pitch.

Sadly I was unable to attend this match due to ill health, first time in decades. Unfortunately I was only able to watch on Red Button and then only the second half (damned Virgin TV). Not had time to come onto the site since so please excuse the late response. Also excuse me for offering a different perspective on the situation, one based only on what I saw, without the benefit of replays, match reports and OTIB comments. If we're really assessing Max and claiming this was his best game since coming back into the side, would it be fair to say that he wasn't tested in the same way as in the previous games? Although according to match facts Reading had eighteen shots, only four were on target and mostly from distance. I base this question on what I saw in the 2nd half, what the reports state and others confirm that, the first half was quite uneventful. Our goal never came under threat until the latter stages of the game. I did see one occasion where the ball was there to claim, should have been claimed but, wasn't. It's fair to say he did all that was expected of him apart from that. I suppose it's similar to a striker that's had an indifferent/poor game but, scores a 90+ minute penalty, did he play well? We could claim to have the best keeper in the world if, he only had tame shots from distance and within arms reach and, crosses to catch where he faced no challenge from a striker. Reading play in a different way to the teams Max has previously faced, apart from QPR, both having an emphasis more so on pass and move. The others being Blackpool, Preston, Luton, Cardiff, Fulham x2, all mix it up and are also good at being direct. Unfortunately, we also have to play those type of teams that compete closer to goal and pump crosses into the danger zone. I'm of the opinion that Max is not as well suited to that type of opposition than Bentley is at this moment and, I don't think he ever will be. I also think this is the weaker side of DB's game, if it weren't then I doubt he'd be here. Looking at the league table, there are at least sixteen teams that are a threat from set pieces and crosses into the box, obviously increasing the threat of goals against, the others playing a more technical expansive game. I've just seen some brilliant photos on the City Facebook page, there's quite a few of keepers diving at the feet of strikers, and leaping to either catch or punch the ball in close proximity to strikers and defenders alike. If you stay on your line as Max usually chooses to do, we'll continue to concede from the resultant goal attempt, as opposed to preventing that attempt. I doubt we'll ever see pictures of Max in those situations. Not his Dad are you??

You look nothing like this in real life Mark.

I was under the impression the points raised were already a matter of fact.

Fingers crossed for Wednesday then, as we could certainly do with a three point boost.

If I may say so and without meaning to be rude, this theory seems a little fanciful. He's ended up with a ground which is costly to further develop should that be required and, doesn't reach anywhere near it's potential in being able to host other matches. The stand doesn't impeach on anything in a negative way and I don't know what this public amenity you refer to is, could you enlighten me. As I understand it, developers have always been able to argue about the amount of affordable housing in any development. Presumably that's with reference to site clearance, development cost and if it's viable and not detrimental to the value and financial effect on the other property. This development is not just wholly a housing development. It's main object I believe is to provide a base for Bristol Flyers to perform and achieve their potential. As such, that needs to be paid for as I understand it, using projected profits from the other developments towards the cost of the Flyers arena. The case would be argued that, if there is no profit to be put into the pot, then the arena doesn't get built, pretty much the same argument was used regarding AV, though that would still have needed topping up with further investment. Taken into context, the other developments are providing the affordable housing required from those sites, so the applicants are asking BCC to wave those requirements on this site, to enable it to progress.

It seems that some people hate the fact that SL might and I'd repeat that Might, make a profit from his investment in the sporting infrastructure of the Bristol Region. I can only guess what those reasons are, possibly a political nature or jealousy, it certainly doesn't seem rational. I always supported SL and the attempts to build the stadium and other associated packages but, being loosely connected with the administration of that time but, I was amazed at how amateurish and weak it was. The mistakes and presumptions were too many and actually embarrassing. Having said that, the man drew down on his wealth and carried on investing in the stadium and other things mentioned here, as well as propping up all the sports under the umbrella over a long period of time. Had he not left Hargreaves Lansdown and drawn his money down to make those vast investments, then I'm pretty certain he'd be sitting on a lot more wealth than he currently does. When he left HL, he was a bit behind Hargreaves in his personal wealth, since that time Hargreaves has at least doubled his wealth £2.4 billion and Lansdown's has increased modestly in comparison to about £1.4 billion. So in a nutshell, If Lansdown was doing this for profit, he aint such a hard nosed businessman as some of you like to point out. It seems he'd have been better off sitting on his shares and receiving an ever increasing dividend, instead of receiving shit from some areas of our supposed supporter base..

Just as a matter of interest, where did you get the information that BCC had donated the car park? One assumes you're talking about the East End car park. If that is the case, that car park had about a 90 year lease on it, owned by BCFC. The land was agreed to be sold to BCFC by the council, for something like £385k and be used as a car park and petrol station in the Sainsbury's development. A lot of the protesters were objecting to that agreed price, claiming that it should be valued the same as the area where the store was being built, but, that's the point, although it was part of the overall development, it wasn't where a building could be built, as it was only a car park with no footprint of a previous building and therefore less valuable. If something has happened since, then I'm unaware and I'm genuinely interested and surprised that there have been no public objections.

Well well well, I used to have a lot of respect for a lot of the posters on this site, now their true bitter twisted colours have come to the fore. With any subject concerning a person investing their own money, no matter how much they have, a certain amount of realism has to be taken into account. I doubt any of the posters commenting on this subject would consider investing in anything, whether that be a speculative purchase, buying a property or making a contribution into a pension fund, knowing that other peoples idealistic recommendations would most probably increase the chances of that scheme/investment failing. Who in their right mind would let outside forces dictate the conditions of their investment?

Just read the Post article where Geoff Merrick states he received two weeks wages and lost his house, if I read that correctly. And then, Jimmy Mann states we were offered about £50k between the eight of us. I think Geoff Merrick hadn't played for eighteen months due to injury, still got paid though. My memory was that collectively they received £100k, followed by monies raised in two testimonial games. I remember hearing that Geoff Merrick put his share towards a farm in Long Ashton, possibly where he lives now. At the time I was 27 years old and a self employed plumbing and heating engineer, earning £50 per week. Jimmy Mann was on a basic of £300 pw, six times my wage. Gerry Gow had previously been on £700 pw, 14 times my earnings, Ritchie and Whitehead £5 and 6 hundred respectfully. To give it a little perspective, If they shared that £100k equally, they'd have received £12,500 each, though I expect it was shared on an earnings and term of contract basis. I'd been in the housing market and a large 3 bed terrace in Knowle was about £18k, £500k nowadays. So I don't think those lads can really claim desperate times. It was horrible for those players to have to make that decision but, I doubt they had a dream about saving the club. Very few went on to have anything of a career in the game, so in effect they were past their sell by date, due to the sheer negligence of the board of directors and stupid contracts for mediocre players. Like investments, they can go down as well as up, we went down.