IAmNick

Two very different points here. Money spent and wasted? Definitely. Same as every club. Have we done more so than others? Arguably yeah. Under his involvement gone backwards? Now that's a load of bollocks. He took over as Chairman in what, 2001? From a quick look, in the 20 years before we spent time in these divisions: L2: 2 L1: 12 Champ: 6 Since he took over: L2: 0 L1: 9 Champ: 12 Including 8 of the last 10 years in the Championship . In fact from looking at it we have only ONCE in the last 20 years since he took over finished lower than the position he took us over in. We're now an established mid table Championship side, that wasn't the case for a long time before Lansdown. There's a lot to criticise Lansdown for, but "we've gone backwards" is nonsense - and this isn't even taking into account our brand new ground, training facilities, etc. We just haven't gone forwards as quickly as we'd like. When's your next tedious "The emperor is naked" post by the way?

WBA third: https://streamja.com/kqNKo

Ok that's pretty hilarious after he took Tanner off

I'd leave the team how it is - the problem is to win battles on the pitch, you need to be fighting them in the bloody first place. We're not even doing that. Get out there, get stuck in, and lose 3 - 1. I don't care, just give them a game of football ffs and stop it being so easy

WBA goal: https://streamja.com/JL953 City disallowed goal: https://streamja.com/gOV40

I agree, must admit I gave up reading them most weeks last year (and before quite often now I think about it) but am really enjoying them again now. Nice mix of history and football just like Hav did.

Not sure what being left/green has to do with riots or rage really - I doubt you're implying the groups you mentioned above were right wing, like punks etc. I'd also point out Bristol has had some extremely high profile "civil disobedience" in the last few years. The Colston statue, obviously, and the stuff at the police station in the last year when the police van got set on fire. Both made national (or international) news. The real difference? This time the City fans were on the side of tradition, stability, and law and order, rather than the disobedient side maybe that's the problem. The rage is still there as it always way, it's just directed at larger power structures now rather than other people imo... for better or for worse.

I think it's for both. Players often talk about it don't they, and if they're going to have 20k people scrutinising their every move for 90m surely support is better than anything else? You've never experienced the effect of a crowd on a game - either positive or negative? Your argument is really odd and seems a bit hung up on the amount they make. They didn't decide that, it's the going rate and it's not their fault. Money doesn't make you feel "less shit" on a Tuesday night if you're playing like crap, losing, and the crowd are on your back. I seriously doubt almost any player will be going "Ah well another 5k at the end of the week never mind eh, who's in charge of the half time orange slices this week?". If you were one of the best in the world you probably would be paid 10k a week for that spreadsheet and have a group of people hanging off your every word at conferences or whatever!

Money is demonstrably a pretty poor motivator of people... Maybe you'd rather watch a team who are motivated based on their wage but I wouldn't. I suspect you don't have 20k people who have paid to watch you fill in that spreadsheet! I remember complaints about the atmosphere back when the EE was open, endless arguments between the "netters" and the others about who was singing too fast, the rest of the ground saying they couldn't hear it properly due to the roof etc. etc. What gets an atmosphere going is exciting football. When we play it, the atmosphere is decent imo... but we've had a severe lack of that for years now. Maybe the possession based slowly slowly approach is one to get the purists going but quick, incisive, attacking football - or even players fighting battles and winning tackles will get the atmosphere back. Imo you could shuffle the fans and it's not going to change anything. Put the main singers in the worst bit of the ground and an exciting game in front of them and the ground will be rocking regardless.

Of course, and as someone with a season ticket who doesn't go to away games currently I'm not exactly saying it's great. It's still better than I expected at the start of the season though so I'll take it. Overall I'm happy enough currently - although If every game starts trending towards performances like yesterday I'd probably change my tune. I'm reasonably confident that wont happen though! Given I consider us a lower mid table team I'm trying to be a bit more stoic this year in the face of crap performances, as that's exactly what I'm expecting a few of unfortunately...

If there was a widely accepted risk of relegation and he currently had them in 11th I'd strongly disagree, crap home form or not. At the start of the year most were talking about survival, building, and finishing 20th if we have to. Now we're pretty happily mid table and people are calling for him to get the sack. Absolutely madness.

Thought this was the first game this season we were totally outclassed, and given we're 12 games in that's better than I was expecting. That said though, I'm struggling with where we were on the scale between being outclassed because they were so much better, and outclassed because we were awful. A team playing very well can make you look awful, and clearly we had a pretty awful start with still no Massengo, Atkinson out, and Williams off after 10m... but I was still disappointed that it didn't feel we were at least battling all over the pitch - even if we were losing all those battles. I could accept that, but feel like apart from a few (like Kalas) we didn't even get that far. I'd rather we fought and lost the fight, than didn't fight at all. I was just desperate for us to let them have the ball then get properly stuck in to them once they got forward rather than randomly attempt some poorly executed "press" high up the pitch. They were good enough they just passed around it and made us look a bit foolish, and I thought the whole attempt was rather pointless against a team that good. Oh well. 12 games in and we're 11th. Better than I was expecting and I can accept one very poor performance... not seeing a win at home is really starting to get to me though I have to say!

As we all do I generally surround myself with people who broadly have similar opinions to me. I like coming on here for a "discussion" as I get a whole range of stuff I don't normally get first hand. It's interesting. Also I'm just an argumentative bugger as well of course

Can you link some info about this please? Were they prevented due to white privilege? Just had a look and all I can find that even seems to be slightly related is A&S having to pay out to a single white person fifteen years ago, with this Colin Port admitting it was wrong to discriminate based on his race. Not so accepted then..? Maybe I'm missing something. A study in the US found exactly this. They can feel guilty if they want, but excesses of virtue are worse than excesses of vice as the former isn’t subject to the regulation of conscience. Can you link the study please? What do you classify as an excess of virtue? Who judges that? What excessively virtuous opinions do you regularly come across, on this thread for example?

And yet you happily associate taking the knee with events from America, and use that as part of your basis for the dislike of it. You also ignore that the people doing it have said WHY they are (the equivalent of the words on the banner), and instead focus on your perception of it. I think you're the one tied in knots here.

Great point. Famously the elite are HUGE fans of challenging and changing the societies they exist in that made them elite in the first place. Famously they also want to improve the lot and life of the most downtrodden in the society, usually the ones they take advantage of to make their obscene wealth. I can see it now. The world's billionaires huddled around a table. Finally they have hoovered up 99% of the wealth on our planet and they can enact their master plan - increasing and protecting human rights, letting people choose their pronouns, and fighting racism. What planet do you live on?! This is such a stupid argument. You couldn't exist in society if you held yourself to these standards and refused to do anything that had even the most tangential relation to something you disagreed with. Given the club take the knee by your logic above you should stop supporting City?

Grow up, it's called adults having a discussion Hahaha you have to be kidding, this is literally the only one non football thread on the entire front page. Don't be so dramatic. You were there posting on the first page of this... laughable

Nobody is "telling" you, specifically, anything. You're not understanding. Amusingly you are the terminally offended here. You're looking at discussions of our entire society and trying to apply them to yourself personally. With "Stop and search" above, saying that massively more black people get stopped isn't saying no white people do, or that if you're white police wont target you unfairly. It'd be like saying "1/3 people get cancer but I haven't got cancer. Are you trying to tell me I do?". People are saying that in general if you look across all of our society then black folk have a measurably more difficult time. That is NOT saying: - ALL black folk are poor, or ALL black folk have a difficult time in life - ALL white people have an easier life than ALL black people - White people DON'T have difficult lives, or live in extreme poverty, get discriminated against, and have widespread problems we need to tackle, and so on - An individual white person will always have an easier life than a black person Why do people feel the need to take things so personally? I'm white, and accepting that we have systematic issues in our country isn't a negative thing for me, and doesn't make any struggles I've had feel easier or ignored or whatever. Why does this bother you so much?

But you have to look at averages when society is comprised of millions of even billions of people rather than you and your half a dozen mates right? It'd be complete impossible to allocate resources or get anything done otherwise. The fact you're bringing up "white men" means I'm not sure you seem to get it - just because the issues faced by one group are highlighted doesn't mean the issues faced by another aren't important. I'm not black, but can recognise the significant issues many face in their lives. I can also recognise those that many white men face... the two aren't mutually exclusive. People talk about the permanently offended. To me those are the ones who when someone goes "Wow, look at the hard time X group has" feel the need to instantly respond "WELL WHAT ABOUT ME AND THE GROUP IM IN I HAVE A HARD TIME TOO" over and over again. Helping one group helps us all. We're all on the same side here. On "stop and search" I'd be interested why you think "white men" are more likely to be affected (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest). White: 6 in every 1,000 Black: 54 in 1,000 Black other: 157 in 1,000 White is actually the lowest of every category. Is it racist in isolation? Probably not, but the way it's used seems to be. The above is what people are talking about - when people say "we need to help black people out with Stop and Search" replying with "What about white people though!" is an odd response isn't it?

I actually agree with you in part here - I think many people are far too quick to assume someone is being malicious or evil, when often it's just being a bit clumsy or not fully understanding of something. We're all guilty of that sometimes. I know I definitely am and have put my foot in it on multiple occasions throughout my life! I think the difference is how we respond to it personally - make an effort, or refuse to. That's why as I said I don't think most of the guys down there were racist, and I have no idea if they were right wing or not. I'm sure a fair number are decent people who would look out for anyone regardless of race/creed/whatever. Good question and I have no idea without knowing the situation! If you rocked up to a somber remembrance event about colonial slavery with a Saint George's Cross you could perhaps be suggested you were being intentionally provocative and potentially disturbing the peace. If it was remembrance day then good luck to you! Like I said above - all about context.

I'm not telling you you can't write something. You can write whatever you like, and people can comment on what you write. And that's what has happened here. Not my rules. Our societies rules - words and actions have context. Otherwise why is the cenotaph special? It's just stones... but there's context behind it. It has great meaning to us. Why do you argue taking the knee is divisive? Because you see context behind it. Why is a banana being thrown on a football pitch wrong? It's just fruit. Fruit isn't bad. Why does anyone care? Context. Are those "my rules" too? That's how language and actions work. Things we do and say don't exist in a complete vacuum at all times, to be totally defined by us however we want in the given situation.

Does that make sense though? It doesn't line up with any of the other explanations you've got. In fact I'd say it's not an explanation at all personally. I'd also ask what's wrong with sometimes not saying something if it upsets people. I expect we all do that don't we? I certainly make an effort to. If someone explains to me something I say is hurtful or I don't fully understand I listen. I don't think that's being silenced/got the by "woke" mob/made to comply or anything. Who has been made to comply here exactly? The group with an article explaining their point of view in the paper? Hah! That's just an excuse to be the selfish "I just tells it as I sees it" bloke who does what he wants and to hell with anyone else. The group being multicultural is irrelevant and shows you've missed the point totally. You can't just write whatever you want and go "not racist by the way" as a magical get out of jail free card. I see there being a few options: - People there knew the meaning/context and were racist. Probably very few imo. - People decided to stand behind a banner with a slogan they didn't research or understand because it sounded good or people they knew were. Probably most imo. But I'd argue ignorance isn't an excuse, and if I was going to pose with something similar I'd want to make sure I understood it. - People didn't care and just turned up with mates thinking a horde of "antifa" were on there way (whose population is probably smaller than your racist one mentioned above) and they could have a few beers and a scrap. A few. Just because they didn't appreciate the context doesn't mean you can just say it therefor doesn't exist. Context matters greatly.

It's a fair question, and it's one of context really. As I'm sure you know the "Black lives matter" slogan is quite a few years old now, highlighting social and systematic racism. There have been a few high profile events in recent years, especially in the US. An important part is that saying "Black lives matter" isn't saying all lives don't matter. "All lives matter" was and is primarily said as some weird response to saying "Black lives matter", and seems to imply that the problems it's trying to highlight should be downplayed or are ignored because what about other problems. Nobody is denying other groups and people also face huge challenges and issues in their lives, which of course matter, but that kind of thinking means nothing will get done about anything. You can always point to other problems and say "Well why are you helping X when Y exists???". It would be slightly analogous to if you had a family member who had breast cancer (as I have) and went on a charity walk to raise money for it. In response, you had people up there with "All cancers matter" banners, or saying "So what you don't care about my heart disease?" or "Yeah so you want to cut my diabetes treatment do you?" and so on. Provocative in my mind, to use your word. Other people have said if your house was on fire, and your neighbour was demanding the firemen also spray a load of water on their house, because their house matters too. Further on from that actual racists (and I'm not saying everyone who says "All lives matter" is racist, to be clear) have then co-opted the phrase to intentionally shut down discussions about racism, and people who repeat the phrase are intentionally or not perpetuating that problem. It has now as a result turned something we can all agree on (improving the lives of black folk) into something divisive we're here arguing about. That's an intentionally step from people who are racist, being unfortunately aided by normal non racist folk. Fundamentally of course all lives matter. Nobody is saying otherwise. But so do black lives. They can and should exist together. Helping black folk improve their lot in life helps us all, and doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't help everyone else too. Why people need to "respond" with "All lives matter" is completely beyond me. Hopefully that makes sense!

A guy I go to football with (lifelong City fan) was headbutted and had his tooth knocked out by a well known CITY hooligan around 25 years ago. This was supposedly our "protectors" attacking us. His crime? It was an away match and his CHILD son was wearing a European football shirt this meathead mistook for the away team. They were with the City fans and others in the group had City tops on. The bloke starting threatening and swinging this CHILD around by his shirt/scarf outside after the game, dad stepped between them and got his teeth knocked out as a result. Protectors my arse. Sounds more like virtual signaling to me

Anyone else remember our own Dele Adebola having to clarify that he had not in fact had ebola?