ponsaelius

Might be different this time being a cup final involving Liverpool

Sure there was supposed to be ID checks last time but I don't know a single person who went and had theirs checked. In fact I know of more than one who got in without a ticket altogether, such was the laxness of the stewards.

Think Members who went to 3-4 cup games have been mugged off being lumped in with ST holders who went to none. No reward at all for going to this competition all the way through. Also think the priority of the cup scheme itself is a bit weird. Lad I know just said his mate who is a ST holder went to 2 home games, 2 away games in Carabao but because he hadn't enrolled at the outset he is in pot 6 You can't please everybody with this stuff but these both feel a bit of a misstep. Also worry that we'll have another cup final with too many oldies sitting down rather than young lads desperate to stand a make a racket.

How many ST holders do we have? Do we really need all those different stages for ST holders?

I like Longstaff and have defended him on here previously because I think he has generally contributed a lot for us under Eddie. I also think he's clearly a very nice and humble guy. I'd have been happy for him to stay and be 5th/6th choice midfielder, particularly given how short we are on club grown players for Europe. However I think I've realised that he's actually not a very suitable squad player. He has generally done best for us when he's getting lots of gametime in a position where he knows his role and can build up confidence and momentum. When he's dropped into random games now and again in slightly different roles, particularly in scratch sides, I think it really shines a light on his weaknesses technically on the ball - and that is then exacerbated further by his self confidence issues. This makes him probably a pretty bad squad player, unfortunately for him and for us. I think I've become more frustrated with him given we had to sacrifice another HG player for PSR instead, who I think will have a much better career and actually is a really safe pair of hands to drop into various positions when needed. This summer is the last chance you have to get a decent fee, so if it's there, definitely time to take it.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and one of Spurs/Villa already out is madness like.

If you have a RW who can genuinely play through the middle, and Osula kicks on as a genuine option, you can afford to carry him a bit more as an old head in and around the place. Particularly if the wages reflect that. The problem at the moment is him being unavailable leaves us painfully so short in striking areas.

I don't agree with it but I can see why we'd be contemplating a new contract tbh. Replacing him is not difficult given he's contributing nothing when injured - but it is is going to cost a fair chunk of money to sign a new striker. Even Osula who is extremely raw at this level cost us £15 million FFS. We're going to get this situation with a lot of squad players where they are past the point we can cash in on them, but we don't have the budget to replace them, so they keep getting new deals. The Paul Dummett zone. The focus is going to be on RW, CB, GK this summer. Plus possibly a new midfielder. Finding the funds for a rotation CF when we let the current one walk for free might be tricky.

Probably my favourite game of our season. First half rip roaring absolute chaos. Second half an absolute heap of shite with just lots of kicking and injuries. Feral crowd. No VAR. The beautiful game.

Wouldn't have Isak anywhere near this pitch

I'm glad the confidence is flowing for Murphy but with less confidence he probably squares an easy goal for Osula

Game has completely gone to pot second half

I've always been of the opinion he'd be OK as a 5th/6th choice squaddie but tbh he needs too much gametime to get going. His limited technical ability and fragile confidence makes it particularly difficult to just throw him in now and again.

Osula chaos factor is making this fun

No way that's all the way over IMO. Good keeping.

He probably isn't tbf. He's a 19 year old kid who had big clubs chasing him. Man Utd are just toxic and ruin every player they sign or bring through.

In terms of stadia which include architectural features in keeping with the city they reside in - the Dall'Ara in Bologna is one of my favourite stadiums for this reason. The big iconic tower but also the red brick all the way around and portico. They have a proposed redevelopment to add a roof and expose the red brick entirely by removing the existing exoskeleton - and as much as I like the stadium as it is this could actually be a case of improving its architectural value. Photos from Inter game last season, and some renders of the proposed redevelopment.

The cost of building a stadium of the size we're going for out of sandstone, even using only external cladding for a facade, would be absolutely astronomical. It would end up being finished in faux stone materials and look cheap. Think the Kings Gate uni building on Barras Bridge rather than the former Grand Hotel building immediately opposite. The sad fact is that we were only able to build that way once upon a time because so much of construction was done as philanthropic endeavour - and because construction/safety/labour/regulations were so lax avoiding much of the costs of today. Ultimately while the owners want to invest - they won't want to spend for the sake of it. I agree though with your general point though. I do think it would be great to get some more traditional materials into an external design and some distinct architectural features rather than just being an amorphous blob straight from the Zaha Hadid school of architecture (that's not to say I don't appreciate her/their work in certain contexts).

He's mixed race ffs

Me and @PENKAAA were back row of Leazes Corner lower just next to where the Sky Sports studio was. Being back row meant being able to stand freely. Quite a few around us were too and it was a good atmosphere. Standing at footy is just so much better than sitting. We have to get all like-minded people together who want to stand. If a new ground could help facilitate this it pushes me more towards that side of the argument.

Famous last words but I think Liverpool would only happen if ownership changed tbh. Or if they were able to get those three to re-sign and get big fees rather lose on a free.

Was quite surprised to see they played basically first choice XI on Tuesday night in the EFL Trophy - maybe they're prioritising that and the league over this. I think there is a bit of concern from me that we underestimate this. It's effectively a Championship team away from home that's winning every week. A bit like Sheff Wed a few years ago.

It's informed guesswork, the same as what the club will be doing. The planning issues with building in that location are informed by the constraints I know from working with the nightmare that is the UK planning system every day. The construction practicalities I can't comment on quite so much - but common sense suggests to me just from looking at it that we will almost certainly need to play elsewhere for a period of time with that indicative footprint. Or at absolute best need to play with a reduced capacity for a period of time. Experienced developers will progress ahead with development proposals well aware of the pitfalls and potential risks in doing so at each stage. Even when they 'know what they're doing'. If they didn't nothing would ever get built at all. It doesn't mean that it's not possible, anything is possible, but I personally think it's a process that could be fraught with difficulty and more time consuming compared to other options i.e. Gallowgate expansion, Castle Leazes or the Arena site. Obviously if they think it's the best option then it would be worth the wait/effort/disruption - as we only get to do this once.

The council politically will have a lot of motivation to take the investment no doubt, particularly if it includes the club taking on long term maintenance of a new expanded LP around the stadium or the council getting a load of cash to do so. The issue is the various statutory bodies involved in the process. I personally don't think you're ever going to get Historic England to do anything other than object to this in the strongest terms - and that will mean any approval from the council needing to go against their objection. So you're almost certainly looking at it ending up getting called into the SoS and that could mean we're years and years away from a spade in the ground. I know the Castle Leazes plan also had the same threat to it in the 90s (hence why SJH dumped it) but I do think that would be a far easier sell this time around (particularly if you're not retaining anything but parkland on SJP). Perhaps that's the fall-back option if this doesn't sail. Not unusual to have another option held back up your sleeve.

Obviously the footprint is approximated but still think that will end up being a nightmare at planning. Could see it taking forever and ultimately getting called into SoS if recommended for approval. I also still don't see how you build it without some time spent elsewhere during construction, the amount of which would vary depending on final footprint. Still think Castle Leazes would be far easier...