the mighty wednesday

Mitrovic is the epitome of a flat track bully. He never was and never will be a "real" Premier League player. It is up to Borner and Iorfa to stand up to him. If they do he will fail.

They fall over themselves to cover stories about our ground. You are correct in saying that our football is irrelevant. The Newcastle debacle showed we are just there as a convenience for the Premier League when it suits them to poach managers or players. Where were Gullitt and Murphy when Bruce jumped ship? They should have been all over it saying "We told you so before the Chelsea game"

Andy Hinchcliffe seems to like to criticise us. Even when he has no choice but to say we did well his praise always seems to come across as particularly faint, almost grudgingly given. Perhaps we only paid him statutory sick pay when he was injured

This is a better quality video for admirers of Adrian Street https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcdMPLmPGsQ

Kendo Nagasaki was a big disappointment I always thought there was a reason for him wearing the mask. I thought he would turn out to be Eric Morecambe or Ted Heath.

Don't forget Jackie Pallo FYI here is his son v Adrian Street. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFAgwIk8IE

It's the floor. He knocked it off the wall when he saw the news.

If you are a grown man yourself I can't see why you don't understand that it is not just a name to the people on the receiving end of it. Pearce may have been mistaken, he may have made the story up but if it was actually said then he was right to report it. It is a word which carries more meaning than a mere name Bruce and Ashley are irrelevant to this. I don't know what abuse you are referring to but I'd agree there is a line that shouldn't be crossed in any form of banter/abuse - racist or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pllRW9wETzw Anyone like a bit of Bush? But every time it rains You're here in my head Like the sun coming out I know that something good is going to happen

it isn't just a name though is it if he did say it. My problem with it is the way that they arrived at their conclusion as I partly said in the previous post. If he did say it then he deserves the punishment but I'm not sure there is enough proof that he did on reading the transcript.

An EFL panel is not the British legal system. Asking for the EFL to require a higher burden of proof than one person's word against another has nothing to do with the British legal system. Workplace disciplinary procedures in ordinary businesses all over the country require less proof than a court of law but usually more than one person's word against another. This would be especially true if there were other witnesses who did not hear what was said. It would be extremely difficult to justify an official reprimand of any severity. In this case there were other players and the referee present but only one person heard it and seemed to be unsure of exactly what was said at first. The most laughable aspect to me is the contention by the panel that none of the words FF used could ever possibly be mistaken for the n word. I don't speak Spanish but Google translate audio stresses the hard g sound in "verga" so I can absolutely see why it could be mistaken for the n word. Sorry for digressing a bit back to the (de) merits of the case. My point was really to say that you don't have to rip up the whole legal system to ensure that the EFL's disciplinary hearings are fair, transparent and sufficiently evidence based.

Not sure who you think you are insulting by using the word "liberal" in this way. Anyone with a liberal attitude wants there to be proof and logic behind any punishments. I think of myself as a "liberal" but I equally don't condone racism or its over zealous pursuit where little evidence exists.

I don't know why Bullen had to change to 442. All he had to do to play FF was swap him for Murphy and maybe switch sides with Harris. Reach being more central would have helped Bannan and Hutchinson out in midfireld or, as we now have two extra central midfielders to those we had last season in Lee and Luongo, perhaps we could have put a square peg in a square hole by playing one of them instead of Reach. Last season we didn't have the midfielders to play 433, but now we have, so our manager decides to play 442 to accommodate FF in a front two which has hardly ever worked properly. The general consensus on here has been that FF is better playing on the left and that 433 would be his ideal formation. I don't know why it hasn't been tried properly.

No problem mate. I probably took the option of the easier argument. I didn't like being accused of not letting things go. Then I realised it looked like I can't by mentioning Burton, as it was longer ago than it seems, so I went for the "I'm not moaning" tack.

I'm not moaning. I'm saying I don't think he is the long term answer. He started ok last time but performances and results got worse and I think the signs are there that it may go a similar way. Like I said before I hope I'm wrong but I have my concerns which I'm quite entitled to express. His apparent preference for starting Jordan Rhodes and Sam Winnall over Forestieri is a massive red flag to me. His omission from the bench against Millwall and the subsequent attempted justification for it seem bizarre at best. Last night's line up was unbalanced and in my opinion betrays a lack of tactical subtlety. I'm not entirely sure what use a seeming experiment like that is to players trying to get match sharpness and be ready to play a role in a competitive league game in a more standard formation. Maybe I am being over critical and if he is given time he may (hopefully) prove me wrong but I am worried that he does not have the ability to take us forward.