Portsmouth have the biggest difference between their home form and away from of anyone in the league (32 point at home, 10 away). This will be much tougher.

Interesting that Derby give a 6.6% discount if you have had a season ticket for 5 years and a 13.5% discount if you have had a season ticket for 10+ years. Loyalty rewarded, not milked. Swansea's cheapest adult is £350, but you can also get a free child at that price. Two facts not mentioned by the LT article or Yasir. I'm sure there's plenty more if you dig beneath the surface.

Exactly. They know which home areas are the most populated and have hit them with the price rise. They are offsetting the argument with "well if you want to pay less move into the Riverside", again knowing most people who have spent 30 years in the BBE or the JW aren't really going to do that.

For the first time in a while I'm leaning towards the "No" camp. It's not possible to pick from the generic reasons above. I can live with the moved kick-off times as annoying as they are. I can afford to pay more than I am now. I've proved I can even live with the lack of investment. However they all apply. I'm probably now a "No" because I finally have had enough that the people running the club are choosing to just bleed me dry for my loyalty, rather than doing their job and trying to improve the club and grow the fanbase. And despite cuts, poverty and failure they appear to be getting handsomely rewarded for doing it.

OK. In 37 years I've never been in there! I also don't think I've ever watched a game from the top tier of the BBE or DE stands.

The Riverside. Genuine question as there may be many, but is there another stand in the Championship that doesn't have an underneath concourse? Where you queue for your snacks in the rain?

They're waiting for it to be signed off from India.

Whatever the price, it will be a short early bird discount period before it starts to leap up. They will feel they need the short period to do something to get sales in just in case the season completely crashes and burns (it has already, but they probably don’t believe that).

The story of Valerien Ismael sacking and West Broms only choice Practically to a man the West Brom fan base and journalists knew his time was up and the direction of travel was downwards. I’ve never seen that article but it matches pretty much what one of my West Brom’s supporting suppliers tells me of his time at The Hawthorne’s. Here’s a Watford one:- Nine league games without a win at home since November 28 during which time they lost six can only really take you in one direction.

Not really. Ismael still had players from West Brom’s premier league campaign, they still,had parachute moneys and spent £8million on a striker. Therefore expectations were quite rightly high. Theyy were 2nd favourites to win the league that season. They had been in the top 3 most of the season until December and then started playing poorly and had dropped to 6th. So it wasn’t really as ‘shit’ a decision as you say. They haven’t done any better since because for the last couple of years they’ve spent little and almost gone bust. If all you are basing the decision to sack him as being ‘shit’ on is purely because they were 6th at the time, then the Kean point stands.

I presume therefore that you think Steve Kean was the best manager Rovers had in the championship. Sacked when 4th in the league.

Copy the link. Open http://12ft.io Paste the link Click Clean webpage

If the comment is "we have been inconsistent and got good and bad results in patches all season, not just under Ismael" then I agree. Nobody is saying we would have won those games under another manager. I've said that Ismael will be better judged at the end of the season. All I am saying is these 3 defeats are not a "continuation of our recent form".

We ended up in the Moorings. Police came in at about 10.20pm and said they didn’t have to close Sunday hours as they didn’t want everyone spilling onto the streets at the same time.

FFS. But that doesn’t make Ismael’s 4 games “a continuation of our recent form.”. These 4 games aren’t because “the rot had already set in” Just like when Eustace didn’t get a win in 4 games earlier this season (as identified in Booth’s post) that also wasn’t a continuation of “our recent form“ or “rot”.

I cant really argue against much of what you say there Chaddy. I agree with most of it. It's purely when people say something along the lines of "the rot had already set in" or "all he's done is continue the bad form we were already in" that is bugging me. It's not true. We had just played very well and won recent games. I'm not sure how that is being disputed.

OK. Lets remember they were probably tougher games as well. I'll take out the cup win at Boro. With Ismael 4 games - 1 point - 0.25 points per game Before Ismail 5 games - 9 points - 1.8 points per game 10 games - 12 points - 1.2 points per game 14 games - 14 points 1.0 points per game 15 games - 17 points - 1.13 points per game Suits my point. And before anyone says, yes we will look at it again at the end of the season which will be a longer period of time and a fairer barometer to judge his impact. But the team's form under Ismael's is currently worse than before he came. Fact.

I watched it round at my Gran's (only she had Sky) and then shot off to the pub afterwards. Redknapp scored, my brain quickly processed that it was now far more important what was happening at Upton Park so I switched channel across to the West Ham / Man U game. The game had just finished but it took me a few seconds to actually work out it was over, and by the time I realised I switched it back and the Rovers players were celebrating with the game still being played.

Individual game performances, Ismael's tactics, injuries etc are all subject to opinion. I believe Derby got 2-0 up and then, typically for Eustace, sat back and held what they had. You think we turned the tide of the game due to the tactical changes of Ismael. We don't really know. I can accept people have differing views on this. The issue I'm taking argument that keeps appearing which is a variation of "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over". We had won 3 from 5. And they weren't lucky or undeserved wins. Preston - Great win and much deserved. Plymouth - Very good win and much deserved. Control the game from the start to finish West Brom - Fantastic win and much deserved. Proper team performance who were united and stuck together. The argument "we were already in bad form when Ismael took over" doesn't needs stats to suit it. It's clearly not true. True we weren't winning 5 on the bounce which was always unsustainable, but we also weren't losing 3 on the bounce to relegation candidates when he walked in the door.

Against Norwich I thought we did OK. We struggled early in the second half but Tonstadt's introduction changed the flow of the game until Dennis got sent off. However we didn't lose and the performance wasn't particularly bad. Then we play Derby, Pears flaps, we go 2-0 down and within 20 minutes he has decided that this squad would be better suited to going 3 at the back. 3 wins from the last 5 Chaddy. As Rafa Benitez once said , "Facts"

Eh? "Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back." That is gospel. There's no other context to it. Regardless, the goalposts on this discussion are moving a bit. I accept that it is still early in his reign and he doesn't have a full strength squad. All I'm pointing out is that when people keep saying "our form had already gone before he arrived", it hadn't. People will try and write that as gospel going forward and it's clearly not true. 3 from 5.

I agree with you somewhat regards to injuries and squad depth and all that, but this statement simply isn’t true. In the last 5 games before him we played Preston, played well and beat them, albeit we tried to throw it away in the last 5 minutes. We were very good in winning at West Brom and we were far better than Plymouth. Batth missed the Plymouth game and half the West Brom game. However we still looked organised and had desire in those games. That is obviously lacking at the moment. He’s changed too much too quickly. Brushing it off as “well we were this bad before he come in” simply isn’t true.

10 wins from 20 4 from 12 3 from 5 And then 0 from 4 Results had taken a downturn once Travis and Tronstadt weren’t available together. They improved a bit before Ismael came in. Now we’ve not won in four and have lost to 3 of the bottom 5. Also facts.

Come on now. Looking at the starting line up of the win against Plymouth, every one of them was available for the defeat at Derby, plus he had Tronstadt and Ohashi back. Against Cardiff yesterday only Brittain was missing, again with Tronstadt and Ohashi available.

I keep saying it because it is undisputedly true. People keep quoting the stats from the last 14 or 16 games as though it shows the current form is to be expected, ignoring there had been an upturn in fortunes. If I went back to the match threads against Preston, West Brom and Plymouth I guarantee people who are saying how bad our form has been were also saying how well we played in those games. Yes he has injuries. Probably a bit worse than Lowe and Eustace had although he now has Tronstadt and Ohashi back. But we’ve just lost to 3 poor relegation-threatened teams which I don’t believe Lowe or Eustace would have done. I put the blame for that squarely at the tactical switch in formation by VI. The fact is, we weren’t a team in free fall that couldn’t get a win anywhere. We had won 3 from 5.