Harry

No. I think part of any deal might be that Aldershot want him loaned back for the rest of this season. They still want to get into the playoffs and Stokes will be integral to them achieving that.

Someone that was mentioned in the pinned recruitment thread a few weeks back. Josh Stokes. Attacking midfielder from Aldershot. There’s been a number of Championship clubs taking a very keen interest in him. I understand we are one of those clubs who are very very interested. He’s a number 10. So maybe someone to compete with Twine if he signs permanently in the summer. An understudy perhaps until Stokes matures enough for Champ football? Anyway; here’s an obligatory YouTube vid. Anyone who watched the fa cup match Stockport v Aldershot on BBC the other week will have been suitably impressed at how he dispatched top of league 2 defenders so easily.

It’s only fair that the sources remain anonymous. Sorry. But put it this way - it may not be ‘the club’ per se. It could come from someone connected to the player or his agent? Or simply someone who is ‘in football’ and knows these things. There are data bases available to clubs, agents etc which show the detail of the finances involved in deals.

I’ll quote it to you again. “it’s not costing anywhere near what you think it is”. That’s on a “trust me bro” basis. There are people posting in this thread who absolutely and categorically know the details of this deal because they have it first hand from one of the involved parties. Trust them

Something to note here which is very very important and highly relevant to your argument. The finances of the Twine loan. You have been given a number of hints on this thread that the Twine loan is “not costing anywhere near what you think it is”. The people who have told you that; and you will have to trust me on this; will 100% know the finances. Please trust what’s been said. The loan deal is not costing anywhere near what you think it is.

Can he be trusted though? I mean, he didn’t know when the annual accounts were due to be released when they came out the very next day

Bollox. They’re 1 up

5 starters from the team that beat us the other week and 2 others that came off the bench vs us. So 7 of the 10 outfield players played against us.

I guess that all depends on what you want in a winger within, dare I say it, a “front foot” style. Jeez - can’t believe I bloody said that!!! I’m gonna be hounded now!! What I mean is that there are two different types of winger. 1 type of winger is the one which runs up to the opposition full back, checks his run, turns, and passes backwards to his own full back. The 2nd type of winger is the one which doesn’t check backwards every time, he’s the one who tries things, attempts to beat the man (take him on ). Winger number 2 will lose the ball a helluva lot more often than winger number 1. But it’s Winger number 1 which I find more frustrating and my preference will always be for a winger number 2 type. My memory of Junior Bent for example was that he pretty much always checked back and passed backwards. When the whole crowd were screaming for him to beat the man (take him on ). I’m happy with Mehmeti trying to run his man and try to beat him. He still has a lot of learning to do with his decision making as to when to play the pass, but he’s a winger who can potentially excite with his direct running.

So you’re saying the Twine deal could still be on then??…..

If a small bar outside the ground lost £11k at half time then I wonder what the total losses were for the club altogether. And more importantly, how does this impact the finances for a potential Scott Twine permanent transfer …………

Only seen a couple of games so far so too early to give a full judgement. But I guess, if he wasn’t already ours, he’s not one who I’d scream “sign him now”, but definitely one I’d get a scout over to watch his next 10 games and make a full judgement by the end of the season for a potential transfer. So currently 70-75 range with a view to watching at least 8-10 more games to see if that increases to an 80-85, at which point I’d say “yep, keen”.

Yes. That probs was double jeopardy rule. Re the follow through though. The very fact that Bobby Thomas was off the floor, high, studs up means the follow through is out of control. Williams follow through is merely a consequence of ball contact - he was never deemed out of control on the tackle itself.

I understand they closed the tobacco factory because West Ham fans were in there “singing”. Bit childish in my opinion. Nowt wrong with singing. Re other pubs. I understand there was an incident at the Rising Sun involving the doorman. You can guess who came out on top there Plus an incident by Spanish Bar. I believe a few Hammers got a bit of a whacking, even after they had it on their toes. I did hear the comment “you’d think they’d be better at running away since they play at an athletics track”

But that wasn’t a red. On that Thomas tackle, it does appear a silly decision at first. But when you look again, there are a number of the thresholds I’ve described. He’s off the floor (ie out of control), it’s high, it’s studs up and it’s a straight leg. in this case, regardless of him contacting the ball first, he was out of control and endangering an opponent. There are 4 of the thresholds met. Williams had none of those met.

I agree. It’s definitely one which could have gone either way if var reviewed. However, regarding logic and rationale. Thats exactly why it wouldn’t be a red for me. It’s almost robotic, hence why we always say that they are taking the emotion out of it. If the Var reviewer looks at that and does his job properly (ie following the exact protocols and removing any emotion or consequence) then they’d say “not high upon initial contact, 1 foot, not studs up, not a straight leg and not out of control”. Of course, I can 100% understand the argument FOR a red here. But I just think it doesn’t meet the robotic process they would consider.

Bearing in mind he’s had a couple of months out with a hamstring injury too. He’s only just back up to full speed the last couple of weeks. Seen a couple of their games this season. SPH is a bit of a menace for them. His energy levels and pressing are very good, his hold up and link play has been good. He gets himself about the pitch and worries/confuses the defence. He’s been very good from what I’ve seen.

They don’t just show the still pic though. They do show the lead up to it as well. Let’s take the Calvert Lewin one last week. It was a straight leg and the studs were showing. It got rescinded. There are 2 elements there (straight leg, studs up) which the original decision was influenced by. Joe’s tackle doesn’t have any of the required thresholds. Yes, it does have a minimal consequence, but decisions aren’t based on consequence.

I must admit I don’t have the evidence to present here and now, but those instances where reds have been given based on the follow through / momentum, how many of those had 1 or more of the thresholds I mentioned. Even if 1 of those is met then a red would be given. It may be that in many of the ‘momentum’ cases, they may have deemed a straight leg or a studs up etc…

I’m not sure sure. If you take that view then you are refereeing the consequences of the event and not the event itself. The consequences of the event are that the foot contacts the opponents shin pad. But how it got there is relevant as to whether the tackle itself is considered reckless. It doesn’t meet any of the thresholds I mentioned. It’s not high, it’s not studs up, it’s not two footed, it’s not a straight leg, he’s not out of control. If it meets even 1 of those thresholds then I’d agree it should be a red, but it doesn’t meet any of those. We can’t have refs making decisions based on the consequences of the tackle. They just judge the tackle itself. Yes, there ends up being contact, but that’s due to the way the foot slides off the ball. The consequences could have been bad but the tackle itself would not be deemed reckless or out of control.

I agree. For me it’s not a red. I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen A) Is the player out of control B) Are there 2 feet off the ground C) Are the studs up D) Is it a straight leg E) Is it over the top of the ball None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. Both pics below are the point of contact ……

Free Haribo’s at half time in the family stand. Card reader was off. Chap turned the till on and off again. Still not working. Server looked baffled. I said “sorry pal, aint got time for this, there’s a game to get back to. I’ll pay you next week”

I’d say (re Twine) that’s it because Manning wasn’t here in the summer. Pearson, BT, Gilhespy, JL etc have shown no interest in Twine previously. This will 100% be Manning wanting Twine. Yep. We weren’t interested. Regards the ‘manager agnostic approach’ this would be much like any new manager (same happened with Pearson), that there will be an element of, when first arriving here, are there any players you want/need immediately. Pearson was allowed to sign James, King & Simpson. Manning has clearly said “I want Twine”. Thereafter, the way it works now is a bit of a conglomerate - manager, dof, analysts, ceo etc all filtering and discussing options. My post the other day re Nige was that I thought he took a back step from that process later on as there were clear power plays happening.

Yes. I think you’ll find this is what was known as ‘Slippery Saturday’. There were some very interesting scenes in the city centre and also particularly in St Nicks Market round the back of the Rummer, where City & Rovers had some clashes, but there was an element of slapstick comedy - as I went to punch some lad I slipped and fell on my ass. Similarly a mate of mine was about to get clobbered over the head by the old bill, but the copper slipped at the final moment

For what it’s worth, I think there is some kind of agreement in place. Not necessarily a totally firm one with Burnley, but I think we’ve got some kind of agreement with Twine himself. He’s a local lad. There were rumours up in Burnley that he did have a bit of difficulty settling. I wonder if he’s happy with a return ‘back home’ to the West Country, and we have some kind of contractual agreement with him (ie salary/contract length/first refusal). I’m actually quite confident that, even though this is only a loan, that we do have some safeguards in place for the summer. There is no doubt for me that LM wants him permanently.