Pezo

I don't think we're going to get a penalty ever again.

So you're as inconsistent as our defence then ?.

We can't afford the championship quality your probably thinking of on wages alone, if we sell our best young talent then we might be able to but that's like trading young hungry home grown championship quality for championship quality if we're lucky, not all transfer work out. If we do sell to cover losses with our record on recruitment I would rather buy the best from league 1 with something to prove rather than trying to buy championship quality. This has to provide better value and surely we have enough "championship experienced" players - we need to fill the gaps.

The whole structure of SL cake is that he could cut a piece off to sell to someone else if he wants.

Don't sell your computer, sell the mobile phone - these latest fads will soon die out, who wants to be contacted anytime anyway.

There's a lot of wishful thinking in this one. My experience of being a Bristol City fan is expect the worst because it's going to be worse than that! So what we'll have to do is sell AS and AS, HNM will stay and run down his contract, after we are forced to sell both the AS's then we will get money in from sell on clauses. With our new found wealth we'll then proceed to buy a bunch "premier league experienced players" that turn out to be injury prone, the biggest bunch of dross under the sun or players not interested in being here, think a team of Nicky Hunts! We then get relegated having waisted all that money and have all this dross for the next 3 years. I think I need a rest ?.

Because that's the goal but achieving it is a "pipe dream" with our constraints.

Depressingly he did target the defence and stated he was "building from the back" but due to our financial situation all that was available was Atkinson and Tanner. Both players are really ones for the future. I think losing Baker has been massive but he knew his injury record when he signed him and to put so much pressure on a player that has that injury record is a bit silly. Anyway I'm still NP in, mainly because he doesn't have the ability to address things game by game he can only address things in transfer windows where he is hamstrung by our financial situation so that's been 2 chances where he hasn't really had a good chance.

More like: Year One - Survive - (done) Year Two - More cuts and somehow still survive. (Pipe dream) Year Three - improve. (Probably in league 1)

So that's Tuesday yeah?

I'm unsure stopping the clock would help. I think the reason you taken your time is 2 fold 1 obviously is to waste time but the other is to slow things down. Stopping the clock just gives an excuse to those that want to slow the play down i.e. it's not wasting time. Refs issuing quicker warnings and yellows for repeat offenders would be my preference.

Kalas has been carrying an injury at least all of this year and still been our best defender. I think a 100% fit Kalas and we probably wouldn't have conceded a few goals that we have.

I feel like with the players were getting back in midfield we're only just getting a platform in place that allows us to play to Wells strengths, we haven't been able to get this in place for the last couple of seasons.

It's the order of proceedings, the government creates the law and courts decide if you have broken it, in this scenario it looks like the government have introduced a law and decided that RA is guilty and now RA has the ability to prove his innocence in court. You shouldn't have to challenge to prove you are innocent just because the government have said your guilty. That's guilty until you can prove your innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

There is always a war on! I don't know that he has little to do with VP but he has certainly distanced himself publicly since being in this country, the important thing is that's not how our system works - it's really important that there is separation between the executive and the judicial, if the the executive takes the law into there own hands against individuals then that's tyranny. By your logic we don't know that you don't have anything to with VP are you ok for the government to sieze your assets? The government is a beast of almost unlimited power, that needs controls, checks and balances to ensure the individual is protected, that's why laws are interpreted by the judicial system and implemented otherwise it's just a dictatorship.

It's only 7:30!

Does anything round count as a wheel, are washers wheels?

I'm not concerned about him, I'm concerned about freedoms from government tyranny that I thought this country used to stand for being implemented to get popular headlines. He has a travel ban so there are restrictions on his freedom. Where is the due process and innocent until proven guilty. All the others sanctioned today have highly obvious links to the Kremlin right now except RA who as far as I can tell hasn't had much to do with VP in the last 15 years. If someone can show that he is funneling money to the Kremlin and funding the Putin war machine then I will leave it but I can't see anything.

It looks to me like a government that needs some popular points sanctioning someone they know will make headlines with zero evidence to support those sanctions. It seems there are a lot of people on this forum that say they support freedom but celebrate others having there freedom taken away because they see the person being sanctioned as deserving it.

Mine crashed after about 10 pages.

I guess all I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for because you might be next (not hopefully about Putin, I assume you don't have ties to him ?).

I remember the terrorism act was only ever going to be used to hold the most dangerous terrorists for an unspecified amount of time without conviction. The optics of that wouldn't be acceptable, the free press wouldn't allow it they all said, that was all bullshit.

While I agree I think it's a poor argument, surely they will sell more pints between 1100 and 1500 on a Saturday lunchtime when we're playing offsetting the need for additional staff? I am assuming they make a markup on each pint, I can't see another way they operate. The argument that they want to is enough for me, they're not a social service and no one is forced to go there. Easy - if you don't like the policy enough don't drink there. If enough people don't like it then the place goes under for someone else to run it that might implement a different policy.

I think you have to factor in timescales, anything in the last 20 years has to count more than 20 to 50 years ago which has to count more than 50+ years ago which is almost irrelevant IMHO. e.g. Villa or Forrest winning the champions League 40 years ago has less effect on the club being big than say Chelsea winning it 2012.