Not too sympathetic to Mansfield they set out to cheat from minute one. Unfortunately we sunk to their level.

Just checked a curious stat - we have the 3rd fewest shots on target against us, the lowest shots to shots on target ratio but the highest goals to shots on target ratio. Essentially we are good at preventing shots on target but let in the most that are on target proportionally.

Mark Leadon - Paper 7a [Link] (you have to specifically request a copy of the policy that is being voted on - which is disgraceful behaviour from the board) and Paper 7b [Link] (a clumsily written document which leaves almost everything open to interpretation - you may be banned from being a DT member if someone doesn’t like something someone has claimed you have said.)

Yeah I know Silk and I can see why my post might have suggested a link but I didn’t see much in terms of fouls against our defenders.

Trigger - the goal was not disallowed because of the challenge of Bishop but the fouling of our defenders by their forwards

Apologies in advance - What’s paper 7 and 8 in this dons trust vote?

I don’t disagree Lurks - but we are a league above now with predominantly the same defence. The last two games have shown that we can still be pretty mean at the back but that one moment can leave us without points regardless.

We’ve been struggling at the back for a while. Our success in getting promoted and sitting in promotion places for most of this season has been based on being one of the lowest conceding teams in all leagues. Getting back to that is pretty important. It will be the difference between comfortably safe and struggling. More than goal scoring.

John Green has a double page spread in the posh magazine of the Weekend FT. No mention of us though.

Absolutely, Spit 😭

OTD - Ricky Marlowe

Thoughts with Australia 😢

Ah. I only skimmed it- missed that bit, OI.

No doubt the usual toxic and false accusations of threats of violence and fake signatures will flood in from the Discord Disciples.

Padds - "A call for written submissions from Trust members". So we have some access, an opportunity I will definitely take up.

'Don't worry, Ed, we won't let the less equal animals bother you '.

'Interviews with selected key stakeholders...' suggests to me that approaching Mr M will definitely be verboten.

Got no problem at this point with Mr M. I would have liked the selection process to have been transparent and still hope that all communications leading to this point will be shared in advance of the review commencing - particularly because Co-operatives UK were consulted in the blocking of a candidate in the previous year’s election.

There is an inherent problem in finding people to lead reviews. You can't really elect them and you'd probably get someone unsuitable if you tried. is Ed Mayo perfectly unbiased? No idea. Can I name anyone better to do the job? No. I will hope he is contactable as I still want to push the idea that election rules are approved at an SGM. It may be rubber-stamping of them but there is no argument about what they are.

and Ed Mayo's LI profile. [Link] Was already familiar with his name of PilotLight, a charity I have supported previously. He achieved 42% growth during his five year term.

Timmy - I have already queried that on Discord this morning. The DTB is there to serve members and not the other way around.

Ed Mayo has a Wikipedia page Ed Mayo - Wikipedia [Link]

What was evident yesterday was the team was set up to be very restrictive at the back, what wasn't clear however what was the intention going forward in open play? Free kicks are a given as an opportunity to launch the ball into the box. Sub 20 touches in the opposition box speaks volumes in my view as a home team against a poor side.

Would like to understand the selection process for the reviewer.

Jackson might be improving as a manager but it's at a snails pace.