It isnt a tactic that suits these players to just lump the ball towards Kane, especially against 3 centre backs. Just because there are examples of teams starting slowly in tournaments (not really relevant to us as we have never won this tournament for all those slow starts) doesnt mean we can dismiss concerns heightened by a poor performance even in victory. The win is all that matters at the end of the day but im struggling to see why we are the favourites aside from blind patriotic gamblers.

Only important thing is getting the win on the opening day and we are now in a position especially considering the current format where we have a foot in the last 16 already. But the performance was really poor. We just dont have the ability to control the game. It was just endless hoofing the ball up to Kane against 3 big defenders. Foden is a totally different player when managed by Southgate.

I dont see how the team could be seen as negative. Alexander Arnold is a risk in midfield but in the absence of a stand out choice next to Rice it is an understandable one, certainly not defensive. People keep talking about Bellingham playing deeper but that wouldnt make sense.

Yes, lurks in the background not saying anything. You are assuming that we are a normal club.

He might be proven right and we might have money to spend, but if they havent even decided, then he cant possibly know either way. And to be fair, he didnt say otherwise, its just that people read into a random sentence at the end of a random article as if it was club endorsed statement.

Rovers Trust were told he didnt meet them as he was sorting budgets. Would be typically late for us so sounds reasonable although Suhail does seem keen to avoid interaction and just lurk in the background as a Venkys puppet.

If Suhail only went this week to India to sort the budgets, it proves that what Elliott Jackson said about us having money was purely an opinion.

I think the likes of Italy and in particular the very impressive Spain and Germany might call you up on that.

He loves that line. And some believe it.

The budget should have been sorted irrelevant to which staff came in. A normal club would have decided before the season finished upon budgets for each league. It shouldnt require a meeting in India over a month after the season, simple as that.

https://www.roverstrust.com/news/newsletter---june-2024 Venkys pet Suhail was flying to India this week, thats over a month after the season finished to discuss budgets.

He was going to discuss the budgets over a month after the season finished?!

Hard to read too much into tonight but Germany certainly have a team that looks really strong under Nagelsmann. They conceded a freak goal on a night they werent otherwise tested but their defence looks decent on paper, they have real threat in attack (Musiala was excellent) and they can control games against anyone with players like Kroos and Gundogan. Scotland have absolutely nothing in attack, and their defence and keeper couldnt stop an onslaught. The other 2 teams in that group are also quite strong so even 3rd place seems an uphill battle especially with their goal difference taking a battering.

Mixed bag under limited resources. Certainly nothing to be sure he is a good appointment.

A lot of irrelevant twaddle, but not really elaborating as to you suggestion that there are no question marks over Eustace, having shot down a poster for suggesting there is. There either is or isnt.

You dismissed the idea that there are question marks over him. Even if you like him, you surely have some questions and not absolute and total faith in him.

"Delighted" seems a strong reaction when a person with absolutely no experience or credentials is appointed purely because he was a player here for a bit and he needs to start his career somewhere. Do you think the actions of the club under these owners especially in the last 12 months deserves lots of praise?

Would Gestede have got this job had he never played for us? Based on zero experience, id suggest not.

So you have no question marks at all about Eustace? Even if you see reasons for optimism and green shoots, fine. But surely you have some uncertainty and some questions. He didnt win a home game, we struggled to score, his points tally was relegation worthy. Keep him/sack him, thats one seperate question. But of course there are question marks over him. There were suggestions when he was dropped by Hull that he wasnt in the best physical shape and liked a beer or two. Obviously only rumours so pinch of salt but hes hardly ripped up the league either way.

Absolutely, I mentioned that even if we only managed to get say someone like Ruddy, a freebie counting down days until his imminent retirement, or even nobody, that is just as likely down to finances rather than Eustace specifically wanting him. Do we? Underwhelming goal record, big rumours about application and personal life.

Success is obviously a big thing and would impact sales. But to say people would attend regardless of price is a very naive thing to say, a lot of people simply wont be able to afford current prices. As mattyblue touches on, it would just cause night games and moved games to have stupidly low crowds. Whereas if the full price was just low enough, people would be less concerned that they might miss games but the number of people with season tickets in the first place would be much higher.

My argument is purely that the only way to make any significant difference to attendances is based on the adult prices which would need to come down quite a bit. If someone suspected they might miss some games, if the season ticket was cheap enough they would still potentially get one anyway. If the focus is on cutting kids prices, the high adult price would be the stumbling block. Adult prices are the key and always will be. Anything else is comparatively small fry.

It is my opinion, yes. Its good to have one. Rather than just assume whatever the manager does is correct. Pears as number one? Must think hes good enough. Ruddy as a potential signing? Must trust in him and believe in him. If either is true, Eustace will be IMO wrong.

I think Pears' was at least on par. The thing is, Pears is now remembered for that one mistake. Prior, he was known for repeatedly making mistakes. Clever move.

Both were very bad, but Pears' was much worse. Robinson had a slight excuse of a clear bobble over his foot. Pears didnt, and he also had the chance to salvage the mistake before it crossed the line, and failed.