Open End Numb Legs

From the court reports the only thing that met the eye was a slap from his hand unfortunately. There is always a back story to a headline, a pro sports person shouldn't really have been there at that time of day or that drunk. How far do you wind it back?

Yes, my examples were to show an element of bad decisions in slow time compared to flash points. I think a custodial sentence is irrelevant, it is the reputational damage which is more relevant. Think of club sponsors, back room employees or the handy man volunteers. More to a football club than the players, culture and respect takes good leadership.

No comment! Except I was a youth when the consecutive relegations happened and I really struggled with that. Being a lot older now I would be able to differentiate bad form on the pitch from something external. That's something that age hopefully gives us - better judgement. I despise pre planned cheating like the sandpaper and fake blood. In this case Rovers have made a conscious decision, presumably a committee consensus, to take this player on. It could pay off with goals but at a cost off the pitch. Their choice.

Personally, I doubt the 99%. We all see club shirts year round, including teams that are relegated, that is the game. You respect that support. It doesn't feel quite the same when a club has gained a reputation for controversy as it kind of associates the wearer with whatever is going on. As an example, if the England cricket team took some sandpaper onto the pitch to rough up the ball, I would feel embarrassed to support them. If a rugby team took a vial of fake blood onto the pitch, same applies. Not direct comparisons, but hopefully you see my point.

I don't think we should make up a new framework for the criminal justice system on a Saturday morning, I think you should focus on the other part of my reply, that Rovers have decided that they are happy to get a lot of bad publicity for taking him on. Legally ok, but does it make you want to wear the infamous quarters when striding off to the shops?

Well he won't be the last if society imposes lenient penalties and football clubs turn a blind eye - the whole point of deterrent is lost. What stops another player going out tonight and doing the same if they think it will just cost them a few £k? According to Gaschat - 'We will rehabilitate him, we have done nothing wrong' etc. Maybe not but if that is how they want to be associated then they should expect a moral backlash too. Technically and legally ok, morally and reputation wise - terrible news for the club and genuine fans. For me the way back for this player is to put all his spare time into charitable and community work. It won't be good enough to just be a goal scoring hero.

Surely he is missing an opportunity here? Community service in these parts could be good fun?

Are they implying that they will make a statement - but just not yet? Thinking time maybe? That would make sense, need to check the legal status. If they are just playing for time hoping it will be forgotten then that is not so good.

There are plenty of occupations where a criminal record, regardless of exactly what crime took place, would preclude you from working in that role. In recent years, those limitations have become widespread across more jobs than before. It should be seen as a deterrent to doing bad things. In this case there is extra focus, not by the law, but by public opinion because football is a high profile sport, the players are in the public eye. Personally I think everyone deserves a 2nd chance. When it comes to violence though, my opinion becomes a lot less forgiving. Hope that explains where I am.

Further, well thought through objections:- Comment: I vigorously object to the development application ref 23/01441/F as proposed in current plans on the basis that it will have a significant detrimental impact upon residential amenities. 1)The proposed development is twice the height of the previous structure, meaning that the proposed new stand will significantly overshadow the neighbouring properties. This in turn will negatively impact on the light available in those neighbouring properties both in habitable rooms and garden spaces. It will significantly overshadow the neighbouring property/ies due to the proposed development being on land higher than the neighbouring street, and the height of the proposed development itself. Reducing the light by unacceptable levels. 2) Due to the height and open nature of the stands (as it appears on the plans) the proposed development would result in a loss of privacy by overlooking the neighbouring property/ies and gardens when the proposed development is occupied. This is compounded by the fact the site already sits higher than the neighbouring properties. This would also be true of individuals who could overlook private gardens when using the under stand concourse. 3) The proposed addition of seating capacity by 2000, would further adversely affect the traffic safety and parking in the area by increasing cars visiting the area, which is already adversely affected on match days. 4) The additional 2000 person capacity will lead to an increase in noise and disturbance. The negative impact is compounded by the proposed ground level concourse containing toilets and food outlets, meaning additional foot traffic (and associated noise) on the boundary between the proposed development and neighbouring property.

In my head I assumed the garden was a football pitch and the 5ft terrace was for spectators. Reminds me of a certain ground somewhere...

As many have said then, they will build it without permission and try to bully the council into approval. I wouldn't throw away the assembly instructions if I were them.

Is there a cut off time for those responses? They should be given every opportunity in my opinion, allowances for going on holiday etc. I would say reply by May 2024 if I was in control of things. Then the decision process can begin.

Maybe in old money 6 x 3 Beds = 1 x Tilson. Not the case today.

Was he just stuck in one of those Operation Stack queues in Kent? Probably still there. Hopes to get to Dover before he turns 40.

Meanwhile, the objections are lining up to the bus shelter. Some good points made here:- Comment:As a neighbour living close to the site of the proposed stand I have the following objections: There has been no consultation with the neighbours in the community about the proposals. Looking at the plans there are no measurements so that you can make a direct comparison between the size of the old stand and the new one but visually it looks to be about twice the height and about a third longer than the old stand. This would cause direct impact on the amount of light coming to my house and garden and be a lot more overbearing than the old stand. The new stand looks to be built directly at the boundary of the rovers property which is quite a bit closer than the old stand was. Also aesthetically it will look like the back of a warehouse and since the trees which had grown between the old stand and our gardens have been removed by the contractors - there is nothing visually attractive to break up the view. It is claimed that there will be less noise from the stand but there is nothing in the plans that evidences this. As the stand will be bigger, closer, and include toilet and refreshment facilities it seems unlikely. On match days the constant swearing and sometimes racist and homophobic commentary is pretty offensive for the neighbouring families so it would be great if the noise could be properly dampened. Construction work has started with pile driving very close to the boundaries of neighbouring properties. Knowing that the foundations of the old terraced houses are very shallow has there been any assessment of potential subsidence in neighbouring homes as a consequence? Parking on match days has always been a problem - what additional parking facilities will rovers be including to ensure that the neighbours in the local areas aren't even more badly affected by the additional fans that may come? Rovers seems to pride itself on being part of the community but in the years I have been a neighbour has never really engaged with the neighbours. Why not? Lastly I know that in the plans for a new stadium previously approved this stand would have been bigger but those out-of-date plans relate to a time when Rovers owned the homes (including mine) directly neighbouring the area and so there would have not been the direct and damaging impact on the neighbours that there is now.

They should look at getting into public transport TBH. Plenty of room for parking double deckers at the south/west end of the ground, there won't be a stand smoking shelter there anytime soon.

There will be. Unfortunately they planned for it to go on top of the new stand.......tune in around this time next year.

I think it is a pirates sword being pointed at them, hence the club badge.

Depends what the contract says I guess. If all the contracts on offer within a draft system say the same thing their only option is a different job?

A couple of thoughts - why are the seats half depth at the left hand end in the drawing? If it is a 'proper stand' why does it have pillars?

Surprised they didn't mention listening to Dolly Parton's Greatest Hits to get a bigger laugh.

Read some of the objections, this could be fun. More popcorn required. ???.

NFL - non football league.

Come on, they need the best access system available to get those 30,000 locked out, through the gates and seated into that new stand that doesn't exist. That would be worth every penny to achieve miracles like that.