054123

10 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

All vaccines have side-effects of varying severity.

'Flu vaccine take up 2019/20 was 19m.

Covid vaccinations are currently at 164 per 100 people or 115m including second doses and boosters.

That's about six times the number of vaccines usually given in a year so an increased level of side-effects can be expected as no vaccine, and I'm not just referring to the various Covid vaccines, is wholly safe.

That isn't an "anti-vaxx" statement but a factual one.

And I have had maybe thirty vaccinations over the years.

So yes "could be" given how small are he numbers that we are talking about for medical emergencies at football games.

That’s interesting. Thanks.

Whats the data on cardiac arrests?

Also you are correct to point out risks with all vaccines. Is this risk proportionately higher or have just many more people had a vaccine of some form? 

7 minutes ago, bbew said:

There could be any different number of reasons for this, but it does seem there is a an increase of cardiac related situations at stadiums,

Sorry, I’m asking out if concern really, but when you say ‘seem’ what do you mean?

11 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

I was wondering about this too last night and why it's only now being reported on so much.

There does seem to be something about the media repeatedly reporting a theme after an event. Almost like it's fashionable for the media to do it until they get bored of it and move on to the next thing.  I wonder if it's that. This isn't a new thing but the media just hadn't reported on it as much as it wasn't fashionable or headline grabbing for them.

Frequency bias would be the obvious answer with the catalyst being the Eriksson incident and the fact we’ve had once this year. This is highlighted even further by the fact we are now stopping games for the incident, increasing its prominence and resonance. Social media also plays apart with images, tweets, messages shared globally and instantly. This would just not have happened 10 years ago.

Considerring the huge increases in attendances across the top 4 division over the last 40 years, I’d be interested to see any data that showed health incidents within the crowd proportionately increasing over this period.

7 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Maybe I'm just older but yes they have always happened at football games because people become very stressed or excited which triggers underlying conditions.

That's not to say that they are common; maybe one a season at any club .

The increased frequency could be vaccine reactions but it could equally be down to people becoming very unfit and unhealthy through lockdowns.

I suppose if you have to go then when very excited at your football team is better than confused and incontinent in a care home.

Love the way it’s so easy to use ‘could be’ as a caveat

In respect of the increased frequency, does anyone know or can show us peer reviewed data from the last 40 years showing us a proportionate upward trend in cases allowing for population growth and attendance rates, across all 4 top divisions?

Can anyone substantiate in any way the phrase ‘could be vaccine related’ allowing that correlation does not always equal causation? 

On 29/11/2021 at 09:28, Hampshire reds said:

can someone explain to me why did the club sign Danny. surely with his experience he should have played RWB yesterday. instead Pearson plays a young lad completely out of position. 

This is a fair question. 

I don’t understand the Simpson signing right now.

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

From the fans point of view it might seem better to take the drop and hope for another Cotts season rather than bumbling along in the bottom half of the championship for the next 10 seasons.

This is a what most fans of bottom half prem teams tell you.

2 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

I understand the need to rebuild and re-set . I knew that any improvement would not be linear given the depth of our squad and legacy issues.

I listen to NP's interviews and apart from the occasional almost spat-like sequence with an interviewer, I find him to talk more sense than several of his predecessors.

I made the point last season whilst he was caretaker that ,imo, he shouldn't be given the job until the very end of the season and I was definitely a minority voice. His record was W L L W D L L L D D L L L so 2 wins 3 draws and 9 losses. And a three year contract.

I don't think it could have got any worse so this season was always more likely to be an improvement This season he's played 23 matches and W7  D5 and L 11.  In the last 12 matches ( half the matches played) he has lost 7. This is where I have the problem about green shoots/improvement/right direction etc. I just dont see it when combined with performances which have been genuinely very poor and we've been incredibly fortunate not to have had a pasting from various teams courtesy of their bad finishing and not our resolute defending.

The record after over 8 months since Nige took over is Played 37 Lost 20 Drawn 8 and Won9 . If our performances showed that the players we have are giving their all for the shirt, team and Manager then I'd be less scathing. But the reality is that good moments of football are not in anything other than fleetingly brief periods and to my eyes  it's looking worse not better with relegation being a genuinely possible outcome. For this reason, I believe that unless there is an upturn in both points and performances then SL should cut his losses in December and bring in a new coach for the January window with the sole objective/brief to keep us in this division.

I think this is a reasoned argument albeit an unpopular one and not one that shrieks "Agenda" except to the many who perhaps dont have such a reasoned response as yourself. On that note thanks for you courteous, comprehensive and understandable reply.

I don’t think you have an agenda. I think you have an opinion and try to make it. I think you just want city to succeed like we all do.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle at the moment.

I think we are hamstrung financially as a club which limits Steve Ls hand in both managerial and player decisions. We have created an awful FFP time bomb which I’m sure you’re aware of.

I personally don’t believe that it gets much better if at all, with another managerial change at this point.

My hope for this season was always that we stay up and i think we’ll do that. After that, I’m not sure. 

Im really concerned about FFP sanctions if we do not sell some players.

We gambled under Ashton and Johnson and like all gambled there’s a chance they don’t come off.

Just now, Hampshire reds said:

having been to the game what a shambles we are. great to see young players but where the hell is kasey. should be in the squad especially with injuries. paying him good money for doing nothing. Lansdown get out your arm chair and make  a decision on your manager. also what is the project. go back to div one. 

No FFP ramifications in league 1 (I think) seeing as the model of the previous 3 years will see us lose 50m in consecutive seasons.

Just saying

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

It's not A defeat - it's ANOTHER defeat. 

It's not A bad performance - it's ANOTHER bad performance. 

It's not A list of embarrassing match statistics - it's ANOTHER list of embarrassing match statistics.

I know you love city and just want us to do well, me too, so I’m not looking to be awkward but any team that finishes 15th or lower is going to have multiple these.

I agree that if it were a Johnson season where we should be finishing top 6, then it would unacceptable. For me I just thought we needed to stay up this year and by definition it meant the majority of games would be a struggle.

It’s not a six pointer but I really hope we win

1 minute ago, marmite said:

I just can't fathom why the team that fought tooth and nail for every ball against Stoke on Wednesday were so submissive today.  Don't anyone dare tell me that the players were tired. They are paid to play football and playing 3 times a week is not uncommon.  They have just had an International break . Something is wrong here at our club and it could cost us if its not resolved soon.

It is baffling isn’t it mate? but maybe that’s how it is with teams who are going to finish below 15th? Maybe you only end with 58 points because you just aren’t consistent?

Look at Gary Johnson’s team from 07/08, on paper not a brilliant team but god they fought very consistently and as such were rewarded with the play-offs.

If at the start of the season you thought we’d finish 15th or below then by definition inconsistency will be one of the traits.

9 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

Very good post but the issue for me is not that I'm expecting miracles or quick solutions to long standing problems. But I did expect a Pearson team to be motivated and make the opposition at least have to work hard for the points. Beaten due to inexperience or quality of player or tactically. But beaten due to lack of determination and fight I do not think is acceptable. And clearly Pearson has proven consistently incapable of putting out a team each week that can compete or even show an interest in competing. Tough game away on a snowy day in Sheffield and our lot weren't interested. Not acceptable from Pearson and if you cannot get your team motivated and playing with pride then it doesn't seem to matter who you sign. He has failed. 

Did you expect that every week?

It’s difficult to judge what goes on with players as I’m not involved in any way shape or form with the team or it’s coaches .

Ive seen some good things about us and if our thread bare would have been injury free I’m sure I would have seen it more often. Like Holden’s torrid time, it’s not been perfect this year with injuries either.

It is starting to amuse me how all people want is ‘just to’:

1) Compete physically every week

2) Win the majority of their tackles or one on ones

3) Have more shots and more shots on target

4) Complete a higher percentage of passes

5) Restrict the opposition to fewer chances and shots on targets

6) have a similar or higher possession percentage than the opponent 

Results aren’t important if I could just see this ‘progress’

Staying up this year would be an achievement, that’s what I thought in the summer.

1 hour ago, Jefferz said:

Am I asking for the earth

Absolutely not

Can you define ‘better’ though and what was your expected final position for City at the start of the season?

14 minutes ago, Globe Trotter said:

It’s a fair point you make about progressing every game, it’s disappointing though that we weren’t able to maintain anywhere near the level of performance or intensity that we showed against a superior Stoke side on Wednesday. 
 

The thing I enjoyed most against Stoke was the commitment, effort, work-rate and performances of Scott and Benarous (and the 3 points!).
 

Today we were limp and passive. I don’t mind losing to a better side when we give our all but today we were so submissive, getting the basic fundamentals of football wrong.  

Of course it’s disappointing mate, completely agree with  that, who in their right mind wants the club to get itself into such a financial pickle that it’s staring down the barrel of consecutive 50m loss seasons. That’s including the 12m saved over the summer!

Its no fun watching shit city teams, we’ve all seen them.

Ultimately I believe we have enough about us to stay up (as the last 3 home games showed) after that, who knows. As @Davefevs rightly points out, we are likely to breach FFP and who knows what happens then.

3 hours ago, dREDful said:

Utterly pathetic performance from a bunch of gutless and incapable footballers. 

This side wouldn't challenge for the playoffs in League One and that's the shocking reality of where we are. 

I think you’re just pissed off with today but that’s understandable.

Ultimately three teams won’t deserve to be in this league and I don’t think we will be one of them.

People talk about Pearson getting a ‘tune’ out of this team, that tune is simply staying up as I think many agreed at the start of the season.

I really hope everyone has read @Davefevs  4 part mini epic on where we are as a club, how we got here and what the future holds. Quite simply we have to 50m loss seasons, including the 12m cut in the summer!Unless Jamie Paterson was willing to take a pay cut why would he sign another contract? I don’t blame him or Pearson for that.

The future ramifications of this under FFP should not be ignored.

I really enjoyed the Blackburn game and it was great to grind out a result against Stoke.

These are the good times this season as I’m afraid the bad times will be superior in number (just like any club that finishes 15th or lower) if they weren’t we’d be a really good team and that isn’t the case. It’s not difficult is it?

Lastly, progress. When people talk about it they always protect themselves by saying ‘we don’t mind about the result, we just want to see some progress’. Well sadly the two often go hand in hand. If your team genuinely ‘progressed’ every week, by definition they would finish the season as one of the best teams.

Maybe I’ve mellowed in my old age, but I’ve seen us take 4 points at home against good teams and look shite and lose today.

That’s exactly where I expect this team to be.

2 hours ago, Red white and red said:

We get outplayed every game though. Can’t keep saying ‘on to the next one’. 

Everyone seems to have forgotten the 4 points against Stoke and Blackburn. My biggest gripe is that it should’ve been 6 points save a ridiculous individual error by Kalas.

If we ‘progressed’ every game would we not end up winning the league?

5 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

Or just maybe the Manager likes him as a player, he keeps selecting him.

I also think he is/will be a decent Championship player.

Absolutely. If you’re asking though I think given the state of affairs created at the end of last season by Mark Ashton the club are just giving themselves so extra time. If it were more the example you’ve described then I would have expected a new contract.

Just my opinion based on what we know

6 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Bizarre, isn't it? I imagine Pearson would have hated playing alongside him, back in the day. 

Surely it makes sense rather than just letting him go on a free? Given his age etc, maybe we could get something for him? 

3 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

Bakinson has got a contract extension. Why? He 

To safe guard against players walking on a free. Gives us more time to sort his situation out

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Don’t forget the shocking pass accuracy every game. 62% today which is roughly what it is every game .  Opposition is always 75%+

Is that because we don’t look to keep it and just knock longer aimless balls?

I never expected anything from this game. It makes Kalas’ **** up against Blackburn more prominent. A 6 point return would have been good.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Totally agree on that aspect.  Level playing field part of it goes out the window though.

I know, but that’s part of it.

If Man City can draw crowds of 28k in division 3 with a comparatively huge marketing and merchandise division to say Forest Green, then it isn’t a level playing field, it’s just the way it is.

I have no problem with Jack Walker buying the league title for the people of Blackburn.

Heartbreaking interview.

1 hour ago, Jerseybean said:

Quite a turn of events in this game …https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59448376

 

Classic!

Well played sirs.

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve never quite “got” how a single solution of FFP solved two problems - 1) stop clubs going bust 2) create a level playing field.

Some of the salary cap / squad size proposals that Lg1/2 had put in place and then got rid of last season were a good starting point….a good starting point for discussion not implementation.

I often think the EFL got it wrong in the major principle of FFP.

I never had a problem with Jack Walker giving money to Blackburn or leaving a trust for them when he died. It wasn’t even an ‘investment’ save wanting to see his team succeed on the pitch.

To my mind the issue was when clubs/owners  borrow the money to invest against the club and it’s assets, essential putting the club at risk. That’s the issue.

If Steven Lansdown wanted to make a one off donation of £100m, why shouldn’t he? You always had wealthier and poorer clubs.