SteV

In terms of the bold bit, as I’ve said, I don’t think it’s feasible to have any kind of seat selection once the ballot is drawn, as you won’t be able to cater for everyone that’s been successful that wants/needs to sit together, if you just let people freely choose seats. Having said that they absolutely do need to come up with a better way of people having a choice of at least the stand they sit in. In terms of people becoming disheartened or giving up with the ballot, even though I’m a ST holder and don’t have to go through this palaver for every game, I can still see how it becomes a bit of a sickner over time. Every ballot fail is a kick in the balls, and even if you’re aware of the maths, and know you’ll likely have more fails than successes, I’m sure it’s somewhat draining to your desire to get to a match, especially if you go on a failure ‘run’. It probably requires a bit of a mentality shift to be able to accept it and not lose the enthusiasm to apply every game, especially if you were used to always getting a ticket previously.

They’re probably constricted by what appears to us all, as a bit of a shoddy system. But putting that to one side, I think rather than having any kind of queuing system at any point in the process, they would be better off giving people a more specific choice at the point of entering the ballot. So rather than this Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3, people get to select a certain stand, or even a level within that stand. But make the available numbers public. So someone can look at it and think ‘I want to sit in the Gallowgate, but there’s only 100 seats available, in the Leazes there’s 300’. That way people can make an informed choice of whether to risk going for where they really want to sit versus going for a less favourable seat but with more chance of success.

If you do that last bit, what happens if you’re taking a child (or are going with anyone/group that want to sit together), and you can’t be online at the opening of the queue? How do you ensure they still get to sit together?

There was a fairly interesting article on him I read a while ago. Will see if I can find it. Gave a bit more context to his situation. But aye, it was mainly the money. Here it is. Very long read mind.

Last season he played 35 out the 38 league games.

It’s absolute nonsense like. Anderson £5.9m and Hall £4.5m. Whey aye.

We’re already down to 74% on the accounts just released. Assume PSG have also got it down considerably getting rid of Messi and Neymar? 111% was absolutely ludicrous like.

If we want rid we’ll have to give him away. No one will come close to matching his wages now.

Tbh the longer he can go the better, otherwise we’re going to have to start worrying about him getting 15 before the end of the season, which is a 3 game ban plus you have to go before the FA or something.

Nah, cup bookings don’t count towards the league. You’re right that he’s on 9 though so the two match ban is coming at some point.

It’s just because the commentator says it.

Danny Rose too. Although personally I don’t really count players that were on loan with them for a bit as ex-mackems.

Tickets on sale for the Youth Cup

Agreed, but equally I think it’s probably unlikely he’s actually made it any worse

Depends how you want to look at it. If it was obviously that bad should he have come out at all? But given how little ‘extra’ he actually did, has it really made any difference?

In fairness he came off in the 47th min. And we obviously scored in those two mins. Be lucky if he actually ran about for more than 45 seconds.

@Shadow Puppets said a little while ago it would be mid-Feb

Equally if they’d operated on Botman he’d be out all season. Swings and roundabouts.

Of course it is. Here’s Hartlepool with between 9k - 10k there. https://youtu.be/nPshmy6Dk6s?si=ZKxa60w3h_LLxUyW

Surely Ceeewers

No away goals rule