Ian

He's quality. A matchwinner on his day. All those who said Fahrmann was coming in as No 1 should eat there words. Hope we can keep him for our 2020-2021 promotion tour

Finally we look fit. Three points at the **** on Wed?

Klose is suspended for how many league games?

Bearing in mind that the majority of fans and pundits had us down as mid-table, playoffs at best just 2 years ago, and considering that he and Webber have effectively turned the club's fortunes around in a few years on a relatively shoestring budget, and considering that he has massively developed our youth system and increased the value of pretty negligible assets hugely, I would hazard a guess and suggest this was more down to hard work, planning, and quality than luck. Out of interest, if you had to pick a squad out of Southampton, Everton or Norwich players, how many of ours would get into the squad, let alone the starting 11?

Poor effort, but it's late and I'm guessing the long-term furlough has probably dulled your senses. I won't hold it against you.

Actually, I do think there is a lot of blind loyalty to Delia and Michael, but equally I see they have, on the whole, been much more positive for the club than negative. That said, what I think is probably more relevant, is that with the best will in the world, and with absolutely no disrespect intended, there has to be a succession plan in place for the imminent future given that both majority shareholders are now heading into their eighties. Regardless of your opinion of what they have achieved, this is something that is going to have to happen sooner rather than later. Therefore, it is all well and good to suggest they are holding the club back, but are there genuinely backers with at least as deep pockets who are actually willing to take the club forward as a long-term project?

People rightly disappointed with our performances against Soton and Everton. However, I would not really be able to honestly name one player in our starting 11 who would walk into either teams' line-up, and that really shows what we are up against. I do get that people need someone to blame, but I think we're actually punching above our weight financially, but I do wonder whether the tight grip Delia has on the club is off-putting for potential investors or whether the area is just simply not something that attracts those with the money to take the club to the next level. That said, I can almost guarantee fans are having similar conversations on the message board of West Ham and Bournemouth and a handful of other clubs in this division.

Let me guess, you're going to want a meet-up at the pearly gates?

Christ.

Bookmarked for future reference.

Ffs, get a grip. Look at the absolute shower of a squad we have cobbled together and then say it's down to Farke with a straight face.

Sounds out of character, and like a man under pressure. But he is entitled to his opinion as much as Connor Southwell.

How many times can you give the ball away and let teams pick you off on the counter? Why did we look so much less fit than Southampton? I have genuinely no idea how Drmic started ahead of Vrancic, who at least has quality in dead ball situations. One of the most disappointing performances is a season that has been full of them. Abject.

For goodness' sake. Expect there to be many other muscle injuries between now and the end of the season too - players are effectively being asked to play extremely important competitive games without the equivalent of any pre-season.

They actually said that?! JFC

I was suggesting he and his refereeing team used their qualifications and experience to determine it was a good idea to use the technology available to them to make the correct decision. Player reaction is just one part of that, but this was a set piece where the linesman would have been fully inline with it and would clearly have known it was ridiculously close. It is a clearly binary decision where interpretation doesn't come into the equation, and there was absolutely nothing to lose by the ref consulting with VAR or looking at the monitor. What would the ref have done in the past when Hawkeye wasn't in play? More likely to reach the correct decision IMO it was that blatant.

Come off it. This wasn't a tenuous penalty appeal - a few of the Utd players had run off to celebrate the goal it was that blatant. Agreed he should have had advice from VAR, but between him and his linesman Michael Oliver should at least have realised he should have had a look at it.

Not blameless at all - they are in charge of the game, and had all the tools at their disposal to prevent this happening. The reaction from the Sheff U players surely warranted a second look. To blame the technology is a bit of an excuse. That said, why did nobody have a word in Michael Oliver's ear given it was patently obviously the ball had been taken behind the post?

Or the ref could just have had a look at the screen. If the technology isn't 100% accurate there should be a process in place. With VAR available, it is obvious to anyone over the age of 5 that the ref can always have a quick look at the numerous cameras around the stadium if there is any uncertainty. The linesman and ref should absolutely have realised this between them. Nothing against the technology, but it is utterly embarrassing that this could possibly have happened given the money spent on this technology. Weak leadership from the EPL and the FA, and we should stop making excuses for them. Still, at least we have simulated crowd noises to keep us all happy!

Yes, if only the referee had access to some sort of video system where he could take a look at footage on a monitor to in the event of a contentious decision. The EPL really are quite pathetic. Access to this technology which is meant to make mistakes like this a thing of the past, but such an appalling set of implementations that it seems to be having more of a negative influence than anything else. Here's an idea, if there is even a minimal chance the cameras for goal line tech could be blocked, why not have a specific process which can enforce the referee uses backup systems to check, if he has any sort of doubt?

Or alternatively don't click on a thread titled "Willie Thorne"?

I pretty much agree with everything you have said there Purple. It seems fairly obvious now that the UK Government were initially not planning for a restrictive model, before the Imperial paper/SAGE advice caused a sense of panic and therefore enforced a general lack of preparedness in the lock-down legislation. Given the amount of time that they did have to prepare various options, along with the ability to review existing implementations from countries whose pandemic had already peaked, I think it's a terrible effort which is entirely on them, and think this has undoubtedly led to many unknowing breaches of lock-down. That said I really don't believe minor breaches are really a problem if people are using their good sense to take precautions, and from what I have read, seen, and experienced locally, it appears a lot of people did understand and take this seriously. After all, the whole point of the legislation was to prevent the spread of a virus and not simply to restrict peoples' freedoms (something I believe a lot of people neglect to consider when deciding if somebody should be chastised). As an example, if you know your elderly parents have been isolating for the past several months, and you yourself have been doing so, what is the risk in visiting them to check they are well and help with household cleaning and other tasks? My main issue is that I am of the opinion that the recent influx of people who knowingly congregated in large groups (examples of overcrowded beaches/protests etc) were probably always likely to do so at some point over the past few weeks, and that I don't believe the Cummings incident has had as much of an impact as some commentators (who doubtless have their own agendas) are making out. How many people on here decided that because Cummings may have broken the rules, suddenly they were going to rush out and start mingling with the masses? I don't personally know anybody who has considered this; I know plenty who see this as just another nail in coffin of a weak Government, but nobody who has been stupid enough to believe this therefore justifies them going out in a much more exposed environment. Indeed, personally it was not legislation that caused me to begin working from home and isolating, but the obvious risks involved with not doing so (both for my own family and other more vulnerable people), and I suspect I would hope this was the same for the vast majority of the population. Unless I'm massively overestimating the intelligence and good nature of the general population, it seems people who are citing Cummings and any other "lock-down-breaking-incidents" are really just using it as a convenient excuse for them to abdicate their personal responsibility and blame somebody else for their own actions. I don't think that is really at odds with your post, is it?

No doubt the handling and policies of this pandemic by the Government has been pretty abysmal, weak, and influenced by a number of external influencers. I think it's been a fairly unique event, in that it has united people of pretty much every political persuasion against their response. That said, I find it a particularly weak argument to suggest that people have violated lockdown due to lack of leadership and/or moral authority shown by the Government. Anybody with an ounce of brain cells could see the risks involved, and that this was always going to be something that required people to co-operate and exercise their own common sense with regards to reducing the spread of it, regardless of any Government advice issued. This is an indiscriminate virus, which whilst it may kill more of those who are already vulnerable, does not exclusively do so. Regardless, a lot of people who get this are going to feel extremely ill. If that is not a personal motivating factor to people to reduce the spread, I don't know what would be. To put it simply, my opinion is that those people who have recently decided to head to the beach and/or mass gatherings without appropriate distancing in place would very likely have done so anyway, and Cummings et al is just a convenient excuse to abdicate their own personal responsibility. A childish response to bad behaviour if you like. News hosts and commentators who suggest that this advisor's actions has the potential to be anything other than a minor contributor to an increase in mass gatherings clearly have an extremely low opinion of the British public's intelligence and understanding of responsibility, which is certainly not an opinion I would share.

Already stated my thoughts in quite some detail on a post you have already replied to. As stated, most have absolutely no problem with finishing the season (even if behind closed doors) as the preferred solution to our current scenario. Most neutral fans would wonder about the fairness of the top flight being forced to finish their games if the EFL have no intention of doing so, especially considering the impact this would have on the following seasons when the relegated teams' opponents have had months of rest and recuperation. If we are not able to all finish our games, there's going to be no solution that is ideal. To null and void the current seasons would obviously be incredibly harsh on Leeds and West Brom, but to end on PPG would be equally harsh on the bottom three and any teams chasing the automatic positions or playoffs. I would also make the point that PPG unfairly prejudices a greater number of teams, although arguably to a lesser extent. I expect that if you were not a Leeds fan you would probably agree. Indeed, when you take all the Premiership riches out of the equation, the FA themselves considered null and void the solution with greater integrity when they justified their decision to cancel the lower leagues, so it will be very curious to see how they justify a different point-of-view for the top tiers. In terms of long-term precedents, any sort of artificial early end to the season effectively destroys the principles on which the football league season is defined, but I do understand what it must be like to be crave promotion to the top flight so much that you don't really consider the long-term future of the game. As Norwich fans have grown used to the poisoned chalice of several promotions and relegations from the top flight over the last decade, I suspect some of us are able to see things from a more balanced perspective, without the desperation and novelty to be promoted at all costs.

Or we could just go the PPG route and award 3.65 points between you? That sort of result sounds like it will absolutely re-enforce the integrity of our game. (Assuming my maths is correct, happy for you to put me right otherwise)