You can hold a contrarian view, no problem at all, but if you do by then definition you should expect to be challenged on it. And the more extreme your view appears the more you should expect to be challenged on it. Fine line sometimes between being a contrarian and a troll? How's that "progress" under Mowbray coming along BTW?

That's not a reason why the plans are a good thing though, it's crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. If you oppose the plans that is. You haven't really indicated what your stance is on them.

Not even sure if the point about RO referring to JHR in the first person is a valid one. I certainly can't be bothered checking which thread it came from and looking it up but did RO not mean (in my other post on the subject which you replied to) "I'd missed out....."

You were getting a bit hot under the collar at the time though! "Why do you keep asking me the same question every week Mercer?" 🙂

He looks to me like he's been in the gym since the first time he was here and purely imo it's turned him from an athletic and willing runner into a lumbering waste of space.

The point is, it will be way too late to do anything about it if we get to the stage whereby Cat 1 status is refused. You can tweak a building design but you can't magic up space that doesn't exist. I think Richard Oakley makes some valid points. I don't think 1864 is "a plant" but nevertheless I find his stance on this extremely odd. Still, as 1864 has said several times, he has his view, we have ours and we're all entitled to them.

Has someone tasked you with the job of attempting to discredit anyone opposing the Brockhall scheme or are you doing it completely off your own batt? You picked on the wrong poster with such an exceptional contributor as JH Rover frankly.

Of course he doesn't believe it. He can hardly come out and say "We were absolutely terrible but I'm powerless to do anything about it as the players aren't responding to me and I'm completely out of ideas". (Although he has been hinting as much with his "the owners will have to decide if I've become a burden to the Club" comments recently) It doesn't annoy me that he comes out with such guff per se, although I feel compelled to point out what nonsense it is where necessary. It does infuriate me that some people do seem to swallow it hook line and sinker though!

Now you know why you were getting so much flak for insisting you would keep Mowbray until the end of the season for so long!

I think that's wildly optimistic. He probably wouldn't be quite as bad up front as out wide but he's a £5m dud. End of. What makes it all the more criminal is that we knew already he wasn't that good from the first time he was here, albeit he was better and looked a lot more mobile and athletic than he does now.

If we do have options in the case of Nyambe and Rothwell, but they won't sign new long term deals, then surely that only means we'll secure a modest fee for them when they are sold in the summer as opposed to them being here for another 12 months? JRC hasn't signed a new contract yet either but as he seems to be Mowbray's latest love child no doubt he'll be offered a deal befitting of his talents unlike Nyambe.

Mowbray isn't going anywhere unless he is paid off and I doubt "The Coventry 3" as a whole intend going anywhere until the Brockhall development thing is resolved one way or the other. Ideally we need the owners to step in and give all three the bullet. We can but live in hope.

A housing development on Brockhall?

We now know why we were training on an already knackered pitch don't we I'd imagine the surveyors can't do their jobs down at the STC whilst players are training and vice versa! As for the new pitch, Waggott seemed to be insinuating it needed financing in an article in Lancs Live so we'll see if it actually happens or whether it just ends up being a patch up job.

Yes more enthusiasm than the rest of them put together. Thought Rothwell was good first half as well but fizzled out second.

Dead rubber with at least half a team who won't be here next year. I mean, come on, really! Coventry 3 out! Let's save our infrastructure and try and put some pride, passion and hope back into the Club!

Ludicrous isn't it. Either they must get appearance bonuses or Mowbray is trying to get them all to a minimum number of appearances which triggers a contract extension.

Wouldn't be if it wasn't a dead rubber and we had a chance of making the play offs. Mind you that boat sailed in the early part of December so it's nothing we haven't been watching for the last 3 months already.

That's cos he ain't a defender!

Quite conceivably only 3 out of tonight's starting 11 2ill be here next season. Kaminsky, Lenihan and Brereton. You've got to love these "slow builds"!

I'm on the red button and no commentary?

Agreed. Hopefully any concerns will be shared with all relevant parties in due course. However you have to start somewhere and it would be odd to have concerns and not air them on here.

Good grief. Waggott can shed crocodile tears all he likes about how important Cat 1 status is to him (a week after nearly everyone kicked off about it btw). However he is driving a move to a new facility and site both roughly half the combined size of our existing ones that would seem on perusal of the Cat 1 regulations to be extremely unlikely to meet the requirements for a variety of reasons. That would tend to suggest that despite what he claims it isn't that important to him at all!

Exactly! What do you think? In my view, actions speak very much louder than words in this instance!

Surely we could get some sort of indication though, if we were to do X, Y and Z would that on the face of it meet the Cat 1 requirements? if we were proposing moving to a single site that was the same size as the two existing sites combined you wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem. You can build whatever you like subject to planning approval. However, you can't magic up space that doesn't exist so I can't see how by moving to a site that is half the size of the existing ones we can possible hope to continue to meet Cat 1 requirements in terms of outdoor pitches. Similarly if the screening application is correct in that the new combined facility will roughly be the same size as the existing STC, I can't see how the teams sharing facilities can possibly meet Cat 1 regulations. No matter how Waggott tries to dress it up.