Y'know I'm no expert on tests, but even for farcical ones like this, surely there is an expectation it is "passed" before taking over a club. I mean it's a whole new level of piss-take that you don't even have to pass the test and complete the documentation. Forget the fact the bar is lower than a crouching ant, it's even more rediculous, and defeats the "legitimacy" that you don't even have to comply or pass the test to get hold of a club. To say the EFL or whoever's behind the test are shameless is an understatement.

Yeah. Storylines don't work as well when there's no crowd to play off. Perhaps because it is more like a real sport the elements that for me have worked best are the competitive matches like the Rollins-MacIntyre, and the cruiserweight tournament because the main driver in both of these, over the story, is who will win the match. Even then it's not quite the same but it is interesting to note that where the outcome/winner is more important than the story, the interest is higher.

Absolutely. Great becomes good, good becomes decent and decent becomes meh. As a lot of content is just decent these days this means a lot of content at the moment is meh. I also feel bad for wrestlers who deserve the crowd reactions for some of the great stuff they do. Not watched AEW but just thinking of the Drew MacIntyre Vs Rollins match at MITB - it was excellent and deserved a crowd reacting to it. Like the examples you give as well, wrestling is designed to get crowd reactions. So no crowd, you're missing a big chunk of its purpose.

Hard to disagree with that whatsoever. At least Lashley has won a few matches whereas Miz and Morrison get a dumb handicap title match after getting whupped by Strowman. Where's the logic in that. Title feuds should be easy to book even without a personal element - the challenger is hungry for the title, the champion desperate to keep it. But yeah I agree there is very little build with this stuff which doesn't make it that exciting. Not sure all storylines have to link but they certainly have to hold together - and the Rollins cult and Becky not saying anything really doesn't. It seems pretty odd for me too. I'll be honest there's not been a mainstream (non NXT) feud at the moment that really excites, or interests me, so I think we are pretty much on the same page on this. Also where is the slow build? Things are really rushed which makes it all the harder for good storylines to be told. Also again at the risk of sounding repetitive, no crowd doesn't help. Take the Otis Mandy storyline it's not my kind of thing either but I could get more caught up in it if others were there enjoying it. What makes it really frustrating is they can do it. The men's Royal Rumble match was a good example of this - I was so annoyed at Brock bulldozing through each entrance that I was genuinely delighted when he was eliminated. And they do it fairly well on NXT so it can be done.

Good posr. I think there are a number of factors in this. Firstly no fans and non-reaction makes everything less good. I'm a week or so behind with NXT due to the delayed reruns on the network but what has been obvious is that it has badly missed fan reactions when those wow moments have happened. From Thatcher turning on Riddle through to the women's ladder match, fan reactions would have hugely added to these moments and matches. It's turning great into good, good into ok and so on. Secondly this becomes even more pertinent on the other brands because a lot of it isn't great slipping to good but ok to meh. I do think Raw and Smackdown struggle for a whole host of reasons on quality but the lack of fans really hurts it and exposes the lack of quality. I do wonder if the main brands suffer from a few key issues. storylines are changed, not concluded, swapped meaning the narrative arc is poor and fans are less invested. Characters seem to be going one way, then they go another so the build is often weak. Match quality is hugely variable which given the standards that they can have makes the variability all the more frustrating and noticeable to fans. I much prefer the format to just the weekly squash shows of the 80s and 90s, but when you can have good quality and it is mixed it is all too noticeable. So there is an extent to which match quality can be sacrificed for storyline (although not too much and this has been a problem in the past imo) but if the storylines aren't there as cover as well then it's going to hurt. Mixed quality PPVs are another huge issue. What makes NXT great is you can guarentee a Takeover will be at least an 8 out of 10. Contrast that with the main PPVs and you see a marked difference. For example Hell in a Cell this year had an exceptional women's cell match but the men's was dire. It makes a huge difference if the quality of the PPV is mixed. If there were bankers then people would be more invested in the weekly shows to see the build up to these. Finally I think there are just way too many talented wrestlers who don't get time to shine. Whilst far from perfect on this NXT does give the athletes more time to shine and put on their best, and it shows in the quality of their shows. The main rosters have far too many people so they don't get enough time. Fans are therefore less invested in them and the whole product suffers. Ricochet is a huge example of this for me - he can do it all and then some but he is totally lost in the midcard shuffle. Fewer wrestlers each with more time to shine would also make a huge difference. Those are a few thoughts for me on why it doesn't work as well and why NXT does. Hopefully things will improve post lockdown. But I agree there are real issues.

I think the most blatant and recent example of the latter category is Scott Dann. When on top he looked imperious, when we were struggling Bambi on ice. Another player who'd gonl in that category for me is Evans.

Think I am with you. He was such an intelligent footballer that you thought he would do much better in the game. Just like some player's pace or power carries them to a better career, I really thought his intelligence would do that.

Bit harsh imo, well on the Kidd signings anyway. None of Roy's signings made any kind of impact. Contrast with Kidd's signings, and Gillespie, Carsley, Jansen all were a success at Prem level in the future and were good for us. McAteer overpriced but was ok as a player. FWIW I agree with your overall point. For that kind of money we should have been in the top six. Over paid and not enough quality for the money we spent. And that's before what you consider what it did to the team dynamics etc. Oh, and an additional point - buying these young players when we had Duff, Dunn, Johnson, Beattie (know we sold him) and a few others coming through. Seems an odd one that does.

What didn't go wrong? For starters breaking up GAS - Gally and Sutton was a bad start. It only lasted a few games with Davis instead of Gally, before the swap came back in, but it set the tone for a hard season. A ton of injuries, especially to these two, also massively didn't help. I think losing Flitty for most of the campaign was a huge blow. If the season before petered out because the squad was too thin, the opposite was in effect this season. We had far too many players, which resulted in little consistency whatsoever. For example we had 6 strikers on the books, which back then was huge. I think manure only had 4 recognised strikers for example back then. We had a squad of 30+ which, even with a huge injury list, didn't really allow for much continuity or for us to have a proper style. Take the striker situation - Gally and Jansen play very differently to Sutton, who plays differently to Ward and Blake, who was different to Davis. Between the volume of personnel, and the injuries it was very hard to get a style of play, to have a plan A or B, or any kind of continuity or other marginal gains that comes from a settled squad. It also started badly as Hodgeson's two big signings didn't work out Perez and Davis. One didn't settle, the other wasn't mature enough to deal with the big price tag, and apply himself properly. I also wonder with Perez whether he was a bit too different from the traditional wingers of Ripley, Wilcox and Duff which gave us the success of before. There was a notable drop in quality at the back. Peacock and Dally weren't Hendry's quality, or necessary quality whatsoever. Another clanger was that Dailly, brought as a centre back spent the first half of the season rotating between different full back positions, which can't have helped him or the team. Sure, Kidd was hopeless, but Hodgeson gave him a heck of a bad start, with a ton of failed signings and breaking what was fixed rather than building upon it. The last minute signings of his reign, Blake, Marcolin and Konde, added nothing but expense. All in all, it was a poor situation to hand over. I can't remember at what point Sherwood left in the season but between his leaving and Flitty's injury, there was a huge loss of leadership. Throw in no Hendry in their too and that's a lot of leaders and maturity to lose from a squad. Kidd did pretty badly too. Whilst he had an eye for a player - most of his signings were solid - I do think it was too many, and tactically and his man management was pretty inept. The number of games we lost or didn't win was poor, and even now I can recall there seemed to be an it's ok we can fix it next week sort of atmosphere about the place. Certainly I recall that being the vibe of the interviews on Radio Rovers (which I miss, even if they do make certain posters on here seem unbiased) from that season. As for tactics they also seemed way off. That fateful Forest game I remember us whacking it long to Jansen and Gally, and wondering who on earth thought that was a good idea. If the long balls to Rhodes vs Millwall was a stupid idea in the FA Cup, this was its predecessor. Clueless. The more I think on it the more I do wonder about the injury situation. Really Flitty, Gally, McKinlay, Sutton and Flowers all missing for huge chunks. (Although with Flowers we got an upgrade in the performances of his lifetime from Filan, but still.) I find it hard to imagine that so many key players were out for so long. Did having another 25+ players to compete with or the club culture make a difference to how quickly we got them back? Was there thoughts, it's ok, we'll just buy our way out of trouble rather than improve what we had? Speaking of culture that seemed to be very different too. The 97-98 Rovers team were the original in your face Mark Hughes type Rovers. The defence, midfield and strike force was all up for a good battle. We weren't thugs on the pitch but the team could mix it. I remember in beating Arsenal away in 97-98 Gally was badly fouled and half the Rovers team came steaming into the confrontation. That up for the fight and togetherness just wasn't there the following year. Perhaps changes to personnel or change in management and culture,(or probably both) but that gritty togetherness and up for a scrap attitude was badly missing. Realistically there is no way we should have gone down. We had a ton of money, a good core team, a bunch of promising youngsters coming through - the best bunch in mu lifetime. We even managed to buy some good players too, well under Kidd anyway. So it seems like, even with unlucky injuries it should not have gone wrong. That suggests to me terrible man management, tactics and culture. Even looking back now it's hard to see it all as one full season such was the turnover in players. The season before was one of my favourites, and yet it seemed a lifetime ago at the end of the 99 relegation. It seems a huge transition from the hardy and spirited team of 97-98 into the promotion team of Souness only a couple of seasons later, which suggests far too much change was going on for Rovers good. Just a few thoughts from the perspective of a (then) 16 year old lad as to what went wrong.

The other issue with the testing is that it isn't enough. Given it only spots positive tests between days 1 and 5 of symptoms whilst it is far, far better than nothing, it is far from failproof. Obviously weekly testing hugely increases the chances of catching those with the virus (although for any amount of money why on earth this possibility should go to the footballers over the NHS is beyond me) but for the first couple of weeks, the chance of cross infections are pretty high imo.

You also have the issue of how many positive covid 19 tests does a team need to call off the game. When I was young if 3 or more players were called up for internationals then the game was postponed. Will a similar thing happen with covid 19 tests? And if not what does that do to the sporting integrity of the competition. The move I believe is quite contraversial as there is feeling the testing should go to their health services and other more important causes.

On the Enzo story there were a lot of rumours that a lot of the locker room didn't like his antics. Part of the issues WWE reportedly had with the rape allegation was that he didn't make it known to the company and they only found out through the media.

I've never listened to this. Perhaps I should? I guess a bit like football I gripe about it and hate it but it doesn't stop me watching it/going. Only when it directly affected Rovers under Venkys did it really impact my actions.

Goodness. And seemed to be getting towards an NXT main event or championship push. However if it is true then as you say the least of his worries. It's sad to see such amazing talent go to waste but then a lot of wrestlers aren't angels. From the Benoit atrocity through to the self destruction of Pillman, wrestling has a heck of a darker side.

It was Hughes. You also if I recall have Dunn in the background shouting "he can't go up, he is too old.," My word that was a hell of a good day.

Not a big fan of the money in the bank matches being throughout the whole building. I get the no crowd and needing different ways of doing things. But if Wrestlemania showed one thing, it was that a well done ladder match translates very well even without a crowd there. The triple threat ladder match was arguably the best match of WM (Ripley Flair may have edged it) so it seems foolish to devalue what is normal and working. The problem with these action movie type matches and filming is that 1) it isn't wrestling and 2) it isn't anywhere near as good as movies. Also given how Eege-Orton and the Gargano-Champa matches dragged on and went on for way too long I fear that these will also be overly long and boring. If it were me and they had to keep going (which ethically, medically and quality wise I find questionable) then I'd do a fair number of gimmick matches to differentiate, shorter more action packed matches, really utilise the commentators and have shorter shows with filler of classic matches and moments from the Network (which would be a good plug for it). However I'm not in charge of WWE and they seem to have done ok without my guidance so far.

Bowyer also did well with recruitment. Wonder if this is a pattern or coincidence?

Agree. Although I can't recall him costing that much? I'm more forgiving of players who are poor and cost little compared.to our budget.

A lot of money spent but a much better return than Roy had. Shame he was clueless as a manager/motivator/tactician. To me there are 3 huge successes Jansen, Short, Carsley, 2 good players Gillespie and Kelly. McAteer was ok and the rest were duds. That's a fantastic record compared to Roy in the transfer market. Other than Ward not many of the bigger signings flopped. That's a decent record.

Funnily enough looking back it all looks horrific - terrible transfers, letting good players go. But I can't remember feeling like he'd royally screwed it up at the time or that it wasn't "our" team. (In fact his first season team is one of my favourites.) Perhaps it was because he had a good start? Or maybe it's hindsight? Or maybe because I was a kid? But given what he inherited and the youngsters coming through and the finance available it was a huge mess.

That is a horrific list both on the cheap and expensive. 2 good signings - Filan and Henchoz, 1 unluckily to get injured in Davidson. The rest - urgh. TM has a much better record than that and I don't think transfers are his strongest suit. My word Roy got it so very badly wrong.

Yes this is true. I think this was one of my favourite Rovers teams. Flowers, Kenna, Hendry, Henchoz, (ahem) Croft, Flitcroft Sherwood McKinley, Duff, Gally, Sutton was a heck of a fantastic side. Perhaps our most underrated 11. Problem was bar Wilcox (who was often in this 11) the squad was poor. Tore Petersen, Anderson, Valary, Dahlin, the squad players weren't much kop whatsoever. In fact bar Henchoz, most of Roy's signings were pretty poor. Even before he flashed the cash. Edit - how did I forget Ripley? Another quality midfielder who started the season on fire. Shame there was no depth defensively or up front. Mind you our attempts to strengthen there didn't go so well.

Yes, I really enjoy wrestling but this sits very uncomfortably. Its not even a backhander - it's a blatant, in your face bribe to keep open. Also sets a dangerous precedent, especially in the pandemic. Can businesses pay a fine / make a donation to stay open.

This was the year they fell out as I recall. Didn't help whatsoever. Davies was dropped 3 games into the season. It was a poor start and got worse. You would have thought after Dahlin that Roy would have known not to break up the Gally & Sutton partnership. Really, not aware of this. (The rumours). Please enlighten. Yes. A classic great number 2 poor number 1. Although so many fall into that category.

Yes Flowers got injured but Filan was excellent and eventually ousted him from the number 1 spot. Filan was incredible that year and one of the few bright spots. It was his best season and he didn't keep up that form. Dailly was brought as a centre back but played all over. I don't think he was very good but that can't have helped. Peacock was very limited at centre back which really hurt us. We also brought a ton of players with varying success. I think Flitty may have been out and a big miss that year. There was a lot of change. Ward, McAteer, Blake, Carsley, Dailly, Jansen, Peacock, Perez, Davies - there was a lot of change to the team l, and a right mixed bag at that, and I think a lack of a settled team really hurt us.