ilkleyram

I think you're over-analysing.
He just wasn't in the mood...

Olivier Street is in one of Loweman's photos above - the one with the maroon house

To be pedantic, twice.

To be pedantic, twice.

To be pedantic, twice.

In and amongst all the chatter about prospective first team performance perhaps we ought to spare a thought for those under 23s that aren't having their contracts renewed.  Whenever I've watched them play a feature of the 23s has been their commitment to themselves, the club and their teammates. It's a tough world the football game and being very publicly told that 'you're not good enough' at the age of 20 odd must be very hard, especially at a time when hundreds of others are being told the same thing, when all you've dreamt of being is a footballer. This retained list is the public affirmation of something they've probably known for a while.  I guess it can't be easy for Darren Wassall (particularly given the decision about Ethan) and his team either.
It also adds to the feeling that having an artificial age limit makes it even more ruthless.  Why 23?  Some may not develop as people and footballers until they're 25.  At least with the old reserve team football you could allow someone to 'make it' that little bit later

In and amongst all the chatter about prospective first team performance perhaps we ought to spare a thought for those under 23s that aren't having their contracts renewed.  Whenever I've watched them play a feature of the 23s has been their commitment to themselves, the club and their teammates. It's a tough world the football game and being very publicly told that 'you're not good enough' at the age of 20 odd must be very hard, especially at a time when hundreds of others are being told the same thing, when all you've dreamt of being is a footballer. This retained list is the public affirmation of something they've probably known for a while.  I guess it can't be easy for Darren Wassall (particularly given the decision about Ethan) and his team either.
It also adds to the feeling that having an artificial age limit makes it even more ruthless.  Why 23?  Some may not develop as people and footballers until they're 25.  At least with the old reserve team football you could allow someone to 'make it' that little bit later

In and amongst all the chatter about prospective first team performance perhaps we ought to spare a thought for those under 23s that aren't having their contracts renewed.  Whenever I've watched them play a feature of the 23s has been their commitment to themselves, the club and their teammates. It's a tough world the football game and being very publicly told that 'you're not good enough' at the age of 20 odd must be very hard, especially at a time when hundreds of others are being told the same thing, when all you've dreamt of being is a footballer. This retained list is the public affirmation of something they've probably known for a while.  I guess it can't be easy for Darren Wassall (particularly given the decision about Ethan) and his team either.
It also adds to the feeling that having an artificial age limit makes it even more ruthless.  Why 23?  Some may not develop as people and footballers until they're 25.  At least with the old reserve team football you could allow someone to 'make it' that little bit later

In and amongst all the chatter about prospective first team performance perhaps we ought to spare a thought for those under 23s that aren't having their contracts renewed.  Whenever I've watched them play a feature of the 23s has been their commitment to themselves, the club and their teammates. It's a tough world the football game and being very publicly told that 'you're not good enough' at the age of 20 odd must be very hard, especially at a time when hundreds of others are being told the same thing, when all you've dreamt of being is a footballer. This retained list is the public affirmation of something they've probably known for a while.  I guess it can't be easy for Darren Wassall (particularly given the decision about Ethan) and his team either.
It also adds to the feeling that having an artificial age limit makes it even more ruthless.  Why 23?  Some may not develop as people and footballers until they're 25.  At least with the old reserve team football you could allow someone to 'make it' that little bit later

In and amongst all the chatter about prospective first team performance perhaps we ought to spare a thought for those under 23s that aren't having their contracts renewed.  Whenever I've watched them play a feature of the 23s has been their commitment to themselves, the club and their teammates. It's a tough world the football game and being very publicly told that 'you're not good enough' at the age of 20 odd must be very hard, especially at a time when hundreds of others are being told the same thing, when all you've dreamt of being is a footballer. This retained list is the public affirmation of something they've probably known for a while.  I guess it can't be easy for Darren Wassall (particularly given the decision about Ethan) and his team either.
It also adds to the feeling that having an artificial age limit makes it even more ruthless.  Why 23?  Some may not develop as people and footballers until they're 25.  At least with the old reserve team football you could allow someone to 'make it' that little bit later

I'll speculate that we might find out. 
Where we under embargo when we extended Marriott's contract or doesn't that matter?

Has he done a Kieftenbeld?

None

It's about time the young players were cut some slack - Buchanan, Bird and Knight are still only 20 and Sibley 19. You mention Hendrick and Hughes - we knew Will was a special talent, at least at Championship level - but they were 24 and 22 before getting their 'big' moves - who knows what level our youngsters will be at in 4 years time.
They have just had to endure a fight against relegation which would have tested the most seasoned professionals let alone those with very little experience - what a horrendous season in which to try and be fully integrated into the Clubs'senior squad.
One of the saving graces about having no fans in the ground is at least, with things going wrong, the boo boys are kept at bay.

He needs to use some of the extra money he might get from being skipper on a longer pair of shorts ?

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

There’s always the ‘what’s eating you tonight' thread as well