Ghost of Clough

Yeah I'm not defending the EFL, think they are both incompetent and inconsistent. Not sure that calling for Peterborough to be deducted points is the right way forward though.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.
What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?
In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.
The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.
The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 
Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.
 
If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.
 
Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.
What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?
In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.
The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.
The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 
Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.
 
If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.
 
Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Since Sibley's debut in 2019, Bird, Knight and Sibley have only started a single game together in midfield. We won that one 3-0 (Accrington, October 2022).
That's remarkable when you consider the trio have made a combined 442 first team appearances for us.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.
What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?
In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.
The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.
The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 
Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.
 
If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.
 
Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.
What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?
In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.
The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.
The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 
Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.
 
If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.
 
Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Villa are about to start work on increasing their capacity by an extra 8,000 too.
What is 'second rate' anyway? Perhaps second tier, so 21st best or lower?
In terms of capacity, we're 16th in England, but we're also in a group of 15 with a current capacity ranging from 30k to 35k. This puts is in the 14th to 28th bracket, which incidently is roughly where a club of our size and history would typically rank - we've finished lower than 28th on 37 occasions, with 44 top 13 finishes.
The top 13 capacity stadiums are in London (5), Manchester (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham (Villa) and Leeds.
The 'chasing pack' are mostly stadiums in smaller cities - Derby, Sheffield (2), Middlesbrough, Coventry, Southampton, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Brighton, Blackburn, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Stoke, Ipswich (and Birmingham). 
Truth is, there isn't much which sets any of those stadiums apart from the rest on that list. I feel confident in saying we still have a top 20 stadium.
 
If you also want to consider stadiums suitable to host the Euros or a World Cup, the city itself is very important. Derby is one of the smallest cities of those I've listed. It's also in a less desirable location than some which are placed closer to the middle of the city. You also have to consider accommodation, bars, restaurants, etc.
 
Until we're established in the Premier League, our stadium is more than adequate. Once we reach that level, we should improve the facilities rather than capacity. Fan park, bars, restaurants, club museum, etc. Developments to make the stadium more unique.

Since Sibley's debut in 2019, Bird, Knight and Sibley have only started a single game together in midfield. We won that one 3-0 (Accrington, October 2022).
That's remarkable when you consider the trio have made a combined 442 first team appearances for us.

Since Sibley's debut in 2019, Bird, Knight and Sibley have only started a single game together in midfield. We won that one 3-0 (Accrington, October 2022).
That's remarkable when you consider the trio have made a combined 442 first team appearances for us.

I interpreted your previous reply to suggest I thought the EFL were instructing refs to be biased "Subconscious bias by whom? Referees who are governed by PGMOL and are not appointed by the EFL?"
The EFL undoubtedly were leaking secret information regarding our P&S case to the media. This information had the sole purpose of making the club look bad, as proven by the views of pretty much any 'neutral' you speak to who doesn't know the full facts.
Yes, the EFL's actions have made an impact on those officiating our games. No, the EFL are not instructing the refs to make decisions against us.

Since Sibley's debut in 2019, Bird, Knight and Sibley have only started a single game together in midfield. We won that one 3-0 (Accrington, October 2022).
That's remarkable when you consider the trio have made a combined 442 first team appearances for us.

I interpreted your previous reply to suggest I thought the EFL were instructing refs to be biased "Subconscious bias by whom? Referees who are governed by PGMOL and are not appointed by the EFL?"
The EFL undoubtedly were leaking secret information regarding our P&S case to the media. This information had the sole purpose of making the club look bad, as proven by the views of pretty much any 'neutral' you speak to who doesn't know the full facts.
Yes, the EFL's actions have made an impact on those officiating our games. No, the EFL are not instructing the refs to make decisions against us.

Yes, subconscious bias by a significant number of referees. PGMOL and the EFL have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The debateable decisions started under Cocu. I recall counting all of the penalty shouts we had dismissed, and we were in the 20s before I gave up and we still didn't have a single one. However, some very debatable penalties were given against us, including a very obvious dive by WBA under absolutely zero contact.
This just so happened to coincide with the start of Gibson's and the EFL's media campaign against us.
I stand by my view it's subconscious bias.

I interpreted your previous reply to suggest I thought the EFL were instructing refs to be biased "Subconscious bias by whom? Referees who are governed by PGMOL and are not appointed by the EFL?"
The EFL undoubtedly were leaking secret information regarding our P&S case to the media. This information had the sole purpose of making the club look bad, as proven by the views of pretty much any 'neutral' you speak to who doesn't know the full facts.
Yes, the EFL's actions have made an impact on those officiating our games. No, the EFL are not instructing the refs to make decisions against us.

The debateable decisions started under Cocu. I recall counting all of the penalty shouts we had dismissed, and we were in the 20s before I gave up and we still didn't have a single one. However, some very debatable penalties were given against us, including a very obvious dive by WBA under absolutely zero contact.
This just so happened to coincide with the start of Gibson's and the EFL's media campaign against us.
I stand by my view it's subconscious bias.

The debateable decisions started under Cocu. I recall counting all of the penalty shouts we had dismissed, and we were in the 20s before I gave up and we still didn't have a single one. However, some very debatable penalties were given against us, including a very obvious dive by WBA under absolutely zero contact.
This just so happened to coincide with the start of Gibson's and the EFL's media campaign against us.
I stand by my view it's subconscious bias.

I interpreted your previous reply to suggest I thought the EFL were instructing refs to be biased "Subconscious bias by whom? Referees who are governed by PGMOL and are not appointed by the EFL?"
The EFL undoubtedly were leaking secret information regarding our P&S case to the media. This information had the sole purpose of making the club look bad, as proven by the views of pretty much any 'neutral' you speak to who doesn't know the full facts.
Yes, the EFL's actions have made an impact on those officiating our games. No, the EFL are not instructing the refs to make decisions against us.

I interpreted your previous reply to suggest I thought the EFL were instructing refs to be biased "Subconscious bias by whom? Referees who are governed by PGMOL and are not appointed by the EFL?"
The EFL undoubtedly were leaking secret information regarding our P&S case to the media. This information had the sole purpose of making the club look bad, as proven by the views of pretty much any 'neutral' you speak to who doesn't know the full facts.
Yes, the EFL's actions have made an impact on those officiating our games. No, the EFL are not instructing the refs to make decisions against us.

When you already have a tiny squad, U21s have to be part of the first team picture. Even if that's to play the same amount of minutes as the likes of Osula and Springett.
We've only used 22 players in total in the league. 6 of those have played less than 500 minutes. That's absolutely ridiculous where the league average is 30.5 players.
By playing U21s in first team fixtures, not only do you allow senior players to rest, but you also put them in the shop window. They have the chance to prove they're good enough to be used in the first team more often, or they earn a move away. It would also help ease them in to first team football.
Tommo and Rooney should have been involved much more than they have done. Stretton and Cybulski should have been used rather than shipped out. Richards, Aghatise and others should have been given opportunities too.
Your comment on the quality in the U21s is also unfounded. Results have been heavily influenced by not having a CF all season (Stretton, Cybulski and Nunn all sent out on loan), and the only CBs spending most of the season out injured (Solomon and Bardell)

I agree that it's subconscious bias and not an EFL conspiracy against us, in relation to decisions against us on and off the pitch.
There is a general consensus in football fans that I speak to, that we are a bunch of cheating so and so's, who have got off lightly and have little sympathy for us, until I actually put them right. Now, these views will naturally be shared by decision makers, both on and off the pitch, not deliberately but subconsciously, when making these decisions.
It's difficult to decide whether some of these poor decisions are just rubbish decisions or whether there is an element of subconscious bias in them. The decision to include Humphries who has played only 7 full matches this season, only 1 which was a victory, doesn't seem to have any logic to it. How many times have we seen a young player come in and have a few good games, before going off the boil and dropping off the first team scene? These players don't get put forward for player of the year awards. In fact, Humphreys has rarely made the squad during this recent winning run by Ipswich, he has only contributed to their poorest group of results this season.

I think it was more a case of Rosenior doing the coaching, whilst Rooney chose the tactics. Flip-flopping between route 1 and possession football game by game under Rooney, whilst only possession football under Rosenior is strong evidence.
Rooney = match up to the opposition
Rosenior = play our own game.
It was also Rooney picking the team, which is why we often saw Shinnie and Knight at DM for energy, pressing and 'tough tackling'.

The debateable decisions started under Cocu. I recall counting all of the penalty shouts we had dismissed, and we were in the 20s before I gave up and we still didn't have a single one. However, some very debatable penalties were given against us, including a very obvious dive by WBA under absolutely zero contact.
This just so happened to coincide with the start of Gibson's and the EFL's media campaign against us.
I stand by my view it's subconscious bias.

Since Sibley's debut in 2019, Bird, Knight and Sibley have only started a single game together in midfield. We won that one 3-0 (Accrington, October 2022).
That's remarkable when you consider the trio have made a combined 442 first team appearances for us.

The debateable decisions started under Cocu. I recall counting all of the penalty shouts we had dismissed, and we were in the 20s before I gave up and we still didn't have a single one. However, some very debatable penalties were given against us, including a very obvious dive by WBA under absolutely zero contact.
This just so happened to coincide with the start of Gibson's and the EFL's media campaign against us.
I stand by my view it's subconscious bias.