BTRFTG

The Ashton crowd has long been notoriously fickle, we blame the outcome not the cause. As and when Hodour gets pulled into dodgy positions look at who's in front and why? Technically, he covered well tonight. He also made a whole heap of emergency mistakes , but largely because others weren't doing their jobs.

I think so, see the number of times he was out of position or ceded possession in key areas. His lack of pace was exploited by Derby all night. He also gives the ball away far too much, very few of his Hoddle balls connected tonight. He needs to pass and move and whilst he's good at the first, for the second he struggles majorly and after the hour shouldn't be on the park.

To everybody getting after Hodour tonight use your Sky + and rewind 30 seconds and, if your not so blinkered, you'll see an entirely different game. Cease blaming the player who's been forced into difficult positions or making errors. Pack was woeful, nee a dangerous liability most of the night. Bryan not far behind him post yet another stupid challenge, but as he's 'one of our own' you forgive him. Just how far does he think his talents allow him to stand off opponents? Premiership he is not, but no worries as we'll blame the foreigner who mops up his failings. Both's positioning and combativeness cost us dear. Brownhill and Patts shut up shop but offered little going forward. Reid is not a striker. Good point to stop the rot and those who usually stand up did so again. Steele did now't wrong when coming on but hope Fearless isn't out for long. Jerome was fouled but paid the price for exaggeration. Deserved.

Bellend Road?

In his defence the kid had just arrived days before and was given a 20 minute run-out. First couple of touches were excellent, his run and dropped shoulder that wrong footed their defence was just what we'll be looking for. He overran one when perhaps he should have crossed but, as of late, there was little in the box for him to cross to. He switched off for the goal (as did Edwards last week at Watford) and unlike on that occasion seemed to let it get to him. The crowd got on his back for the his lack of control in front of the Dolman, not bothering the pass to him wasn't great. Ditto the lost ball 'mix-up' when not on the same wavelength as ?(forget which experienced midfielder.) On that basis I'm not sure how anybody could suggest his attitude wasn't right. The point you make about the middle of our park is valid, we run our socks off and press and doubtless the stats look fab. But Disraeli said all one needs to know about stats. Of the 3 you highlight (also applies to the rest) their pass completion rates are doubtless high but, like Ray Wilkins, that's not difficult if they're mostly short, lateral or going back to the keeper. All great sides need to do that; all great sides have a creative body as well. Even in our Div 1 days the fickle crowd saw Tainton do no wrong and lambasted Cormack every time he ceded possession, not caring the only three chances we'd created all game came through his vision and artistry. We knocked it around nicely yesterday, but on too many occasions back to Fielding to launch offensively. Therein lies the problem with no striker. Going forward is inherently more risky and harder but we should recognise that and be more forgiving of players who are prepared and able to attempt the more challenging aspects of the game.

No we should not have: we were (but only in some areas.) We were no different yesterday than we have been for months. Whilst we keep managing to win it looks like a wonder formula but it takes the realization of defeat to crystallize our fundamental issue. I think we could be debating as much for the next few weeks. Long term, you can't play football without strikers. We've effectively been playing with 6 mids and nobody upfront but have been fortunate enough to have notched goals most weeks, sharing them around. Had either of Brownhill's strikes been six inches to the left we'd likely have celebrated at the end. We'd have winged it for another week. Reid played on his own upfront is not a striker. Whether he could be alongside a proper frontman we've yet to find out, though I don't think he is. In the attacking department we are unable to see the wood for the metaphorical trees. Woodrow, Engvall, Taylor, Elliasson are totally failed acquisitions. We should move on. Injuries notwithstanding I personally think WeeLee got it wrong by dropping Hodour. I'd have moved Bryan to left side mid and dropped Pack which I think provides greater balance and means Joe only has to make a 25 yard run to shoot cf the length of the pitch. I see many comments hereabouts finally realising if we need to bring somebody in then who do we drop from midfield? They've all done well, problem is they've done well when there's far more of them than their opponents. We need to work out whose best when there's parity? I thought Walsh started to come into it second half after a sluggish start and can't believe people here are slaughtering Kent, who showed a number of great touches, deceptions and a real willingness to get forward. OK he lost all confidence by switching off and not covering the run for their goal, but we should have handled that (far too narrow at the back, Bryan picked up nothing but the junction of the 6 yard box and Baker shouldn't have got sucked in.) If Walsh is the future then Pack or Smith would seem natural for the bench, though if Bryan is wide left that's both gone and how does that get us the ball? I assume Reid is the front of the midfield 5 , between the line of 4 and targetman. Norwich showed what a striker gives you, especially if they've pace. We may have had the ball, lots of lateral passes, very little goal threat and I laugh when punters bemoan ' they played on the break'. They did and boy is it effective. If we had the personnel perhaps we could do likewise.

Capital Gain Bert? You can't polish a t......

I take it from your knowledge of contracts of employment you've never had one, but that's nothing unusual north of the river. If Tainton didn't wish to mutually terminate his contract there was nothing City could have done to persuade him otherwise. Goes without saying he would have taken the risk that City might have declared themselves bankrupt, hence he would be unlikely to have been paid further by the club. However, (at that time) his players registration, as a company asset and with value however intangible, would have been retained. He would not have been able to seek employment elsewhere as a footballer until his registration had been sold or transferred by an administrator and this might have taken years. So whilst being requested to mutually terminate one's contract isn't great, by giving up his registration City at least allowed him to seek employment and earn a living elsewhere. That there followed a period of financial hardship is something Mr Tainton would have to explain, just as any employer may not dictate to an employee what they do with their wages and how prudent they should be in managing financial risk. Tainton had received a comparatively decent income for many years so methinks his change of employment shouldn't immediately have brought hardship. Of course this is wholly different from, say, contracting for the permanent provision of goods and services (pies or fence panels spring to mind) and then not paying for them. That's incurred suppliers ascertained losses and left them out out pocket. An administrator would be able to explain. Perchance you might bump into one real soon.

I'm told next screening is 'The Liar, The Pitch and John Ward's Robe.' Rated U ( Unwatchable) as they're used to such fare.

They'll have to sell an awful lot of tickets for their next Skylight Cinema - may even involve putting on a movie that hasn't been free to air at least 50 times.. .

'Tis the Season of Goodwill so perhaps worth reminding that we've more in common than this thread sometimes acknowledges. For example, within a couple of seasons we've a reasonable chance of returning to the top flight (a place The Gas have never ventured) whilst they've a very good chance of returning to Non-League (a place we've never ventured since joining the nascent Football League.) Merry Christmas indeed....

Oh, the irony. De facto all Bristolians grow up or reside in 'Redland'. There is, after all, Only One Team In Bristol....

I wonder what Wael must think when he sees there is more intelligence in a mollusc on Attenborough's Blue Planet than there is in the whole of his?

The gift that keeps on giving. From their forum: "...early days but is this the key decision in an upturn in our fortunes? It reminds me of the old Glen Miller film...." Spoiler Alert, but the movie ends 'disappeared without trace'. Second thoughts, perhaps it is a good analogy...

Please will one of you young techno geeks explain why, when asking a Gas acquaintance what they're recent cup and league form is, he ended his text: "LLL LLL"? I thought it was "L"O"L" as that's what I was doing when his text arrived....

Half Man Half GasTwit ?

It gets worse Darrell - your owner thinks it's 1439 AH.

Early days for sure but having seen the first 3 games I'm going to have to revise my belief that most of our squad could do a job in this league. Pack, Freeman and Smith are simply not up to it (which, in the case of the latter two, I never thought I'd say.) They, as in other areas of the squad, are simply being out-muscled and out-paced by some fairly average opponents. We urgently need centre mid muscle akin the French No 20 yesterday who quietly and destructively stole the show. Save for Preston last year no side regularly put more than 4 opponents in our half, yesterday Brentford camped at least 9 all game long and we simply had forgotten how to handle. Kodjia, though one footed, does most things right and is getting on the end of things - he desperately needs someone to play alongside and the armband on Wilb's arm is a massive threat to our survival chances. We need fearless Frank back quickly as though Hamer may be 'one of our own' he's done little to endear himself. Cott's needs to work out his instructions to the likes of Fredericks (it seemed to me he had him holding the centre ground) which meant he gave Ayling no cover at the back (hence big holes) and precious little outlet going forward. The kid I think has more to offer if able to play a more expansive game, but for the next few weeks I'd be looking to shore up with Little. Bryan needs to forget the MoM plaudits and deliver for 90 what he threatened to do in the first 20. Yet another non-existent 2nd half. Without the immediate acquisition of a centre half, centre mid and striker I think within 3 weeks we could already be out of it (that's not being doom laden, rather unless we get Leeds on a bad day we could be looking at 5 straight defeats.)

Could be cynical and suggest The Gas' dyslexic marketing manager saw a proof of the shirt with a generic 'sponsored' banner. In reality I reckon if you check who prints their posters / programmes this year it'll be a backdoor deal with the print costs subsidised by the value of the sponsorship (i.e. not much.)

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done. It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date. But: Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing; Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit; That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue; Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break. A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant, of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise.

On the basis (as evidenced in court) that 'Arry can neither read nor write looks like a match made in heaven : "I didn't know what I was signing....,"(works in either Cockney or Brizzleton accent.) 'Arry n 'Iggs - has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

Either Gas or Evil are welcome to fill their boots with this image such they can do a 'before and after' comparison of the image 'Coin Gluer' posted the other day. Beware the power of The Gas - The 'Guess what happens when you mess with The Rovers ?' headline. Makes a change from 'Easton Man Sees Dog Cross Road' exclusive.... (It'll allow Sainsbury's the opportunity to post their own image of the even more extensive store they've opened down the road..... Yes, I said huge new store just opened..) ??