chinapig

The bizarre, though characteristic, thing is that their fans seem to be largely satisfied with the interview.

Despite the perennial who is going to score the goals complaints our problem is still defending, as it was last season. LJ just doesn't seem to recognise it, along with many of our fans.

Meanwhile Weimann, written off before a ball was kicked, has 2 in 2 despite getting very little support.

Funny old game.

1 minute ago, paul_fox said:

Will be better once fammy is back but midfield is still an issue that needs sorting. Nice to see Weiman having a good start here 

The midfield would be less of an issue if we played 4-3-3 but LJ absolutely refuses to budge from 4-4-1-1.

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

He sounds like he is getting confused between libel and GDPR.

I would also suggest this law firm he has appointed don't exist.

He does seem to live in a rather sad fantasy world doesn't he?

He doesn't need a lawyer to tell him when you are in a hole stop digging.

35 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Old Wally making an appearance on the radio Saturday according to the Sgas. Could be an interesting listen with him answering every question with actual answers and timeframes etc... If he comes out with the line "these things take time", it will be comedy gold. If nothing is actually stated by him, I can see there being some pretty nasty abuse being directed at the board on Saturday - although they may still break the bank on some strikers this week yet.....

That'll be the piggy bank then.

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's why you play 3 in midfield. Especially v good sides on hot days.

You refer to the new keeper, and the distribution thing- truth is that is how you play out from the back..short passing is how it's done.

Through the lines, between the lines that's how it is done- keeper short to Webster (or the full backs, depends on the circs). Webster to Pack (Brownhill decent technically IMO).

Last year, a pair of Flint and Baker...not so capable IMO in that regard. Best of the 3 would have been retain Flint, buy Webster but obviously that's all hypothetical isn't it. Fielding could distribute it well at short range I'm sure- vary it yeah, a few long passes out fine or a quick roll out for a break, but with Webster now we can play the shorter passing game more readily again I think.

Well said. It baffles me that LJ seems to be unwilling to even consider 4-3-3.

I guess all coaches have their preferred formations and blind spots but I do find it frustrating that he seems to have ruled it out entirely.

38 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Listened to DC on the Twentystone phone-in driving home and thought it the most thinly veiled  'resignation speech' since Glumsden at Ipswich. "We work hard all week, prepare, then they go and do that...basic errors,....it's not acceptable....there were no positives...but I select the players and give them the game plan and if they play like that I'm to blame."

Short of ' Go on, sack me' sounded to me like he'd had enough.

Typical of him to slag off his players - remember they were all bog standard last season according to him - then stick in the bit about being to blame, which he clearly doesn't mean.

5 hours ago, bobby kellard was go said:

bit like cheltenham?

When did we claim Eisa was a marquee signing?

2 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Which we could spend if we wanted to of course 

We meaning SL presumably. Good of you to spend it for him though.

Personally I prefer a club that plays by the rules, doesn't have a dubious owner and doesn't have a relationship with any shady so called super agent.

But I appreciate some fans would welcome any passing oligarch or dictator if they were prepared to gamble with the club's future. Perhaps a Jordanian 'billionaire' is the answer?

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

Eliasson had a great first half. Tripe second. 

Paterson was crap all game. No change from the second half of last season

Brownhill behind the front man is a better option imo. Can find a pass around the box and would be more effective defensively.

2 minutes ago, cityexile said:

I thought in fairness when we were under pressure we kept our shape as well as we have done for a while...apart from their goal of course.

Paterson on the day the worst player out there. Elliason and CoD, good first half, particularly Elliason. Pack doing what he needed to quietly, and the new goalie looked solid enough. Very much work in progress it seemed. Forest deserved the win a little more than us, but equally could have gone in a couple up. It is what it is.

Far too rational, don't you realise we have been relegated on day one?

Mind you at least West Brom have gone down with us. 

1 minute ago, Barkhamred said:

Tannoy from South stand for the interview as c*** as before 

Oi, Robbored is official tannoy correspondent around here!

8 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Is Marley Watkins injured?

No sign of Bobby Moore either. Do wonder if he'll make it.

If Watkins was concussed is there a mandatory period he can't play for? Taylor Moore is injured I believe.

Haven't seen anything from the club on either though.

1 hour ago, chucky said:

Love this in the Bristol post

"Reports had linked Rovers to the likes of Forest Green's Christian Doidge but that looks unlikely with Clarke explaining that big names were outside the budget of the Pirates"

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/bristol-rovers-transfer-news-doidge-1837760

 

 

 

Since when is Doidge a 'big name'? If that's how he is seen by the Gas it is just another sign of what they have become.

If he is then Eisa would be as well, not something any of us would claim.

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Flint 7 million

Reid 10  million

Kodja 16 million (I think)

 

Our 3 best players 32 million

Kodjia was reported as £14m including add ons. £11m up front iirc.

Still figures the Gas can only dream of.

8 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

£750k apparently.

So the gap can now be quantified in yet another way:

Our top scorer = £10m

Their top scorer = £0.75m

So a Reid is more than 13 Harrisons.

18 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

They aren’t “da famous quarterz” any more because the top blue one is truncated by the white banner of the shirt sponsor. 

They look like they have been washed on too hot a setting.

1 minute ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

This is incredibly hypocritical coming from a Saghead who clearly spends most of his time snooping around this thread and then bitching and crying about it on his own forum.

...and just for the record, this whole ‘fuss’ is a result of him dragging it back up. What an absolute belter.

I also fail to follow the logic that an accusation on a public forum that a disabled person was seriously assaulted in our stadium is none of our business. If I were to make a similar claim about an incident in their stadium would they ignore it with a shrug on the grounds that it was a private matter for OTIB?

Nor indeed do I see how such an allegation of a serious offence, one that has not only not been withdrawn but has been revived, is no business of the police.

I can only speculate that there are other reasons for them wanting discussion to be shut down.

5 minutes ago, Gashead1981 said:

As a mod I would happily do that if I was available on line. And so would the others mods. 

Good, you come across as a reasonable person. So invite Julie to register and clamp down on any abuse. Not special treatment just the respect any forum user ought to be entitled to.

I seem to recall she also offered to act as police liaison for Rovers. It would be a positive step if club took her up on that too.

Just now, Gashead1981 said:

It would appear so! 

The police also need it to warrant an investigation. 

However, as I have said, there has been no complaint or any hard evidence, and in any case, the official channel should be for JulieH to report it to her superior first and not take it upon herself to do so. Just because she is a police officer, it doesn’t give her free licence not to follow procedure. 

If the evidence was so little, they wouldn’t waste a police officers time. They would use a pcso or a non policing investigation officer to gather some basic statements from any individuals concerned. 

Police wont attend a theft now unless you have detained the person trying to thieve yourself. They the above persons to collect the statements and evidence to see whether it’s worth pursuing first. 

My experience is historic, a time when the police had more resources, and might not happen now.

I don't think for a moment Julie would investigate without the agreement of a superior officer though.

Let's face it, given the persistence of the allegation the police would be accused of bias if they did not investigate. Bit of a no win for them.

14 minutes ago, Gashead1981 said:

JulieH

I am a mod on gaschat and I have seen no application for you to join our forum. I have spoken with the other mods and no one has denied you access. 

So if you mean gaschat is unhappy to have you because of a couple of posters saying you aren’t wanted because of your red persuasion, then your post here is distorted and misleading. 

Come and join us, I’ll verify you, and you can receive your own welcome every ted gets over there. And it will be nothing to do with you being a police officer!! 

Julie doesn't say she was denied access, she says her presence was not welcomed by forum users.

No point in her being there if she's just going to get abuse. Perhaps if the mods put a stop to that a constructive relationship could be established?

15 minutes ago, Gashead1981 said:

A persons word is evidence if he has actually witnessed a crime or offense or the lead up or aftermath to an offense. 

But if there is no complainant then there is nothing to investigate further. 

If it was immeasurably witnessed at the scene then the person can be arrested, interviewed and then cautioned, the injured party could then choose not to press charges and then no further action would be taken.

 

In a sense we may be violently agreeing. 

I'm not talking here about the standard required for the police to refer to the CPS or the latter to proceed to prosecution, least of all to be acceptable to a court. None of those is met by what is in the public domain imo.

Rather I mean evidence sufficient for the police to investigate. I have been in the position of knowing a crime had been committed in the absence of a complainant and felt it  my duty to report it. The police investigated, though it went no further because they could not gather the kind of evidence to which you refer.

35 minutes ago, Gashead1981 said:

JulieH

Just wondering how you can investigate in an official capacity when:

(a) No official complaint has been made by the person who was allegedly assaulted? 

(b) Have no evidence a crime has been committed either by independent witnesses or real time cctv?

(c) There is no evidence to suggest the event took place. 

(d) If the offence did take place the person has chosen not to report the incident and press charges. 

(e) The person you are planning to see was not party to, or witnessed the incident.

Beyond settling an argument on an Internet forum, there is nothing to investigate or settle. 

If you are a well meaning copper, and I’m sure you are, in my opinion you are acting outside of the jurisdiction your warrant card gives you and you certainly can not operate this as an official line of enquiry. So you cannot proport it as such.

You even previously commenting on this forum means you have a conflict of interest or bias, which, if there ever was an official complaint made, would eliminate you instantly from being an officer in charge of the investigation or risk any potential court case (if it went that far) collapsing. You even identifying yourself as a police officer outside of duty can cause a conflict of interest as you should well know.  

And you can comment on all of the above without alluding to the case, commenting on individuals or being specific to this particular case.  

 

You may be mixing up evidence and corroboration. A person's word is evidence, even a third party's.

It may be dismissed as hearsay however in the absence of corroboration, e.g. cctv, an eye witness.

It would be quite wrong imo for the police not to investigate such a serious allegation, particularly Julie who would be subjected to accusations of bias.

3 hours ago, Swede said:

Is that a relieved look on his face?

He appears to be standing on a training ground. Must be a novel experience. 

1 hour ago, bert tann said:

 

The Colony land is owned by Dwane Colony Ltd a separate £2 Jersey  company.

Dwane Sports Ltd is the £2 Jersey company which owns Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd and now has an additional subsidiary.

This latest gambit may be a scheme to undertake some small non football related commercial development on the land at the Mem to raise cash to help subsidise football losses. The tents remain, the land footprint is squeezed even further, Darrell Clarke keeps charity shopping, but Wael can still have his fun chatting to Abramovich's bodyguards.

 

Not unless Wael moves to Israel. Which seems unlikely.